text:
In the Groove 2

In the Groove 2 is the sequel to Roxor Games' 2004 arcade game In the Groove. It was released to arcades officially on June 18, 2005. It was available as an upgrade kit and as a dedicated cabinet developed by Andamiro. The price for a dedicated cabinet was $9,999 USD and the upgrade kit (sometimes referred to as a "BoXoR" ) was US$2,999.

There are a total of 137 songs available in the arcade version. This includes all 72 from the original arcade game, the three new songs in the home version, and 65 brand new songs, four of which are hidden and unlockable.

A lawsuit filed by Konami on May 9, 2005, asked for an injunction against the sale of the upgrade kit version. October 23, 2006 Konami and Roxor reached an out-of-court settlement, which resulted in Konami acquiring the intellectual property rights to the In The Groove franchise and thus effectively terminating the distribution of the game in North America.

In development, it was known solely as In the Groove 2. On June 18, 2005, Roxor Games officially announced the release of the game, and announced that it would add the name of Andamiro's Pump It Up line, becoming Pump It Up: In the Groove 2. However, "Pump It Up" only appears on the marquee of the dedicated cabinets developed by Andamiro. The name also appears on the title screen of an un-updated Andamiro made cabinet. The name appears nowhere on an upgraded cabinet.

The game also features a modified interface, based on the first version but recolored red and incorporating other changes. The interface also features a new font; the first version used a generic font.

USB memory card support has been expanded on In the Groove 2, with the ability to now install revision updates stored downloaded from the internet saved onto the memory card. Several revisions have been released, most of them adjusting timing windows, fixing sync issues with songs, and fixing other bugs. However, only "r2" machines have the ability to install revision patches. Some early ITG2 machines contain "r1", which does not contain the Machine Update option. The biggest addition of functionality added with the patches was contained in "r21", which added the ability to load custom songs from the memory card.

New features
The Novice difficulty level is a feature added to the home version of In the Groove, carried over to In the Groove 2. On this difficulty level, all songs are rated as ones (including the hardest and fastest songs on other difficulties), and play in Novice mode places a traffic light graphic on the screen that tells players when to step. As always, two players can select different difficulty levels for the same song, but if one selects Novice, then the traffic light always appears instead of the normal backgrounds. It is also worth noting that on ITG2, Novice always forces a constant speed of 120 BPM (a "C120" mod). As a result, since C-mods disqualify scores from appearing on the scoreboards if the song played has pauses or speed changes, those songs will never have any Novice scores saved.

Rolls are a new feature. They look like spiky hold notes and usually come in pairs. The player must continually tap the corresponding arrows until the end of the roll, much like the drum roll notes in Namco's Taiko no Tatsujin. Regardless of the song's speed, rolls must be tapped at least once every 0.3 seconds.

Survival Mode is another course-based gameplay mode. The player must play a five-song course, where each song has a time limit less than the song's length. Time left over after each song is carried over to the next, and missteps deplete the time remaining - time is only added for Fantastics, with no change for Excellents and detractions for anything lower. The life-bar in this mode is not used to determine whether the player passes. Instead, it serves as a visual indicator of how much time is remaining. The game ends when the remaining time is fully depleted.

Fitness Mode is a common home version feature on dance games that is included in the arcade version of ITG2. This gameplay mode allows users to keep track of time spent dancing and calories burned.

Three previously Marathon-only modifiers - Bumpy, Beat, and Robot (a metallic gray Flat arrow type) - have also been added to the regular modifier list. In addition, a multi-colored arrow type, Vivid, has been added for colorblind players. It resembles the default arrow color scheme used in Dance Dance Revolution.

"Excellent", "Great" and "Decent" judgements are now prefixed or suffixed with a dash. A prefix (-Excellent, -Great or -Decent) indicates that the player stepped too early; a suffix (Excellent-, Great- or Decent-) indicates that the player stepped too late. In novice mode, "Way Off" becomes "Way Early" and "Way Late" respectively; in other modes, the dash system still applies.

"Stretch Jumps" have been included in double play, a jump that requires a player to hit two panels simultaneously that are farther away from each other than normal jumps, such as 1PU+2PD or 1PL+2PL.

Songs
In the Groove 2 includes more than 60 new songs in addition to the entire songlist from the previous version, In the Groove. The sequel includes new songs from established artists like ZiGZaG, Kid Whatever, Inspector K, Nina, Digital Explosion, and Machinae Supremacy. It also introduces songs from newcomers like Tekno Dred, Affinity, Hybrid, Lynn, and Onyx.

As with the original game, several artists that have released songs for Dance Dance Revolution games appear on ITG2. These include Bambee, Missing Heart, Spacekats (known as Bus Stop in DDR, with the exclusion of one member), Ni-Ni, Triple J, E-ROTIC and Lynn (Papaya in DDR). In fact, three songs appear on ITG2 that have been on Dance Dance Revolution games, though with different step charts: Typical Tropical and Bumble Bee from Bambee and Sunshine (originally Follow The Sun) from Triple J.

Of note, Wanna Do ~Hardhouse Mix~ is the only song in ITG to have a dedicated music video in-game, as it also serves as the theme song for the game.

Software updates
As In The Groove 2 matured as an arcade game, Roxor released patches, called "revisions", that could be applied to the machine in order to update it, fix bugs, adjust timing window errors, and other issues as they were discovered. This list contains only changes that were officially published by Roxor Games.

Their website discussing these Machine Updates, and their respective downloads are still available on an Internet Archive capture of Roxor Games' website.

Installing a revision also includes fixes from previous revisions, unless otherwise indicated. Official revision releases include:
 * Revision 1: This is the first version of In The Groove 2, and it is considered to be a beta. This is the only revision of the arcade that is not capable of performing updates.
 * Revision 2: This is the first public version of In The Groove 2 It was released on July 11, 2005. It adds the machine's serial number to the title screen, and it adds a coin debounce time setting to fix a coin issue, where the machine may count a single coin as multiple coins.
 * Revision 5: This was released on November 2, 2005. It introduces numerous changes:
 * Volume mixing is lowered from 90% to 85% to fix clipping problems.
 * The service button must be held down briefly, to prevent accidental triggering due to electrical noise.
 * Debounce all input, to fix spurious input problems (fixes extra way offs, mine explosions).
 * In diagnostics, show the serial number of the drive in red.
 * Fixed holding left and tapping right allows changing songs after selecting chance.
 * Fixed pressing left/right while holding select to change difficulty also moves the wheel.
 * Improved power selection for USB devices; may improve compatibility with the first generation iPod Shuffle.
 * Fixed logo splash sound; it ignores the Attract Sound Frequency setting.
 * Improved memory card backup logic to reduce chance of corruption.
 * Fixed pen drive "edit" icons in double play showing edits for single play.
 * Default "premium" option is "double for one credit".
 * Increased time to select a song or course.
 * Fixed mods stored on memory card cause Disqualification in Survival mode.
 * Fixed step errors on the following songs: Vertex^2 (double expert), Baby Don't You Want Me (double medium), Bumble Bee (single novice), Get Happy (double medium), Birdie Birdie (double medium), Reactor (double medium), Vorsprung Durch Techno (double medium), Life of a Butterfly double medium (multiple), Oasis (multiple), Out of the Dark (double medium), and Monolith (single expert).
 * Corrected sync on the following songs: Delirium, Xuxa, Queen of Light, Disconnected -Hyper-, Monolith, Hardcore Symphony, Typical Tropical, Amore, Agent Blatant, Incognito, Robotix, Clockwork Genesis, and Destiny.
 * Revision 8: This was released on November 17, 2005. Players can now insert coins when the loading screen appears. It also removes spurious coin drop on startup on some conversion kit machines. Finally, dedicated cabinets had a bug that required pressing both the Service and Test buttons for the Service Menu; this revision fixes the bug so that only the Service button must be held down briefly.
 * Revision 16: This was released on August 28, 2006. It fixes sync problems on the latest batch of dedicated cabinets, and it fully supports the first generation iPod Shuffle as a memory card.
 * Revision 21: This was released on October 11, 2006. It enables the Custom Songs option, which is disabled by default, but can be enabled by the operator in the service menu. It also fixes the delayed input issue on some upgrade kits.
 * Revision 23: This was released on January 26, 2007. On cabinets with the Custom Songs option enabled, such songs are now limited to a maximum of 2 minutes each. It also fixes inaccurate input on some upgrade kits. This was the final update given to In The Groove 2, due to the Konami Lawsuit.

Custom Songs on Revision 21
On October 11, 2006 (a week prior to the official announcement of Konami's acquisition of the intellectual property rights to In The Groove), Roxor released Revision 21 (also referred to as r21). The patch adds a feature that allows players to bring custom songs from home and play them on the machine. Songs were created using StepMania, and the song files and accompanying audio files are stored on the player's USB card. When the player inserts their USB card into the machine they can then select the song from the game menu.

The feature had some intentional limitations:

 * The music file can be no more than 120 seconds (2 minutes) long.
 * The music file must be in Ogg Vorbis format.
 * Ogg music files must be less than 5 MB in size.
 * Banners and song samples aren't loaded, and are thus absent from the song selection screen.
 * Background images (whether still or video) aren't loaded; instead, random background videos run during play. However, background scripts that use In the Groove's background videos do work within r21.
 * A maximum of 50 songs are loaded from each player's USB card. Time limits in the game's loading screens sometimes caused fewer songs to be loaded.
 * Custom Songs must be manually enabled in the configuration menu.

An unofficial patch was later discovered online to circumvent the song length limit. Players could manipulate the metadata in the header of the OGG file to make the game think the song is only 1:45 long. The program which performs this patch is commonly referred to as the Ogg Length Patch program. This allows songs of any length to be played on the machine as long as the music file is still under 5 MB in size. The Ogg Length Patch vulnerability as well as other bugs and timing issues were fixed in R23. While R23 has timing corrections and bug fixes, it forces all custom songs to end at 120 seconds of play regardless of the use of the Ogg Length Patch.

Despite the timing fixes, Revision 23 is unpopular with the majority of ITG players. Even though some professional players prefer r23 due to the timing fixes, the strict time limit of 120 seconds was looked down upon since some official Dance Dance Revolution songs and even some official songs on the In The Groove 2 cabinet itself go beyond this time limit. Some players feel that RoXor should have implemented a system similar to Dance Dance Revolution 5th Mix (and already implemented in StepMania) in which songs longer than 150 seconds (2½ minutes) are deemed a "long version" song, which takes up two stages (two songs' worth) of the player's credit, instead of blocking the songs from being played entirely.

General Information
Some technologically savvy players have found methods of hacking the game and loading additional content onto an "In the Groove 2" machine. The In The Groove 2 arcade machine has a regular computer inside that runs a distribution of Debian Linux and a modified version of the open-source StepMania software. Players who can gain access to the data on the hard drive of the computer can modify configuration files, add new features, load new songs, change graphics or artwork, or modify the behavior of the StepMania engine running in the game.

The most popular methods of hacking involve booting the machine into a rogue operating system (usually a live Linux distribution such as SLAX Frodo). From there, additional songs and data can be downloaded from the USB card plugged into the Player 1 USB port, while a USB keyboard is plugged in to the Player 2 USB port to type commands at the Linux console.

Most of these hacks utilize an option in one of StepMania's configuration files, Static.ini, to load songs and content from additional locations on the hard drive where the hacker can store songs and other data.

OpenITG and NotITG
Due to the popularity of the franchise, some players modified the game to be played on home computers, which in 2009 became released as OpenITG, based on the code for StepMania 3.95. In 2016, an internet user known as Taro4012 released NotITG, a fork of OpenITG which is "designed to make it easier for mod file creators to implement their ideas. It aims to preserve compatibility with all existing StepMania 3.95 and In The Groove mod files, and be the definitive environment for creating and enjoying that content.". This was released in 2016 alongside the reveal of the tournament he hosts simply called the "UKSRT" (United Kingdom Sight Reading Tournament) of which players are forced to read mod-charts that they've never seen before.

Tournaments
In The Groove 2 tournaments are held at arcades throughout the world. Some of the most notable tournaments are NAT05 and the ITG World Cup, in which first place received an ITG2 dedicated cabinet. Most tournaments are scored on a player's dance percentage. There have been few others that have involved the use of mods, double, and even some that make use of custom songs with the R21 feature. After the lawsuit, the tournament scene began to die down, in part because Roxor could no longer sponsor local tournaments with small prizes and In The Groove paraphernalia such as T-shirts and posters. Still, there are tournaments held throughout the Americas and as of recently, Europe such as the Slippers Hurricane Summer Speed event (France), today that give out cash prizes and other various gifts, such as arcade tokens, coupons, and other video games.

Home version
Due to the Konami lawsuit, a PlayStation 2 port of In The Groove 2 was ultimately canceled. However, a non-final beta version of the game was leaked onto the internet. A patch is available for the PC version of In The Groove that adds the new songs and theme from In The Groove 2 to the game. It is referred to as "Song Pack A".

title: In the Groove 2


text:
Charley Says

Charley Says is a series of short cut-out animated cartoon public information films for children, produced by the British government's Central Office of Information and broadcast in the United Kingdom in the 1970s and 1980s. Six films were made in 1973.

Overview
Most of the topics dealt with everyday safety issues children face, such as not going off with strangers or not playing with matches. They featured a little boy called Tony (voiced by the seven-year-old son of one of the neighbours of producer Richard Taylor) and his cat, named Charley, voiced by Kenny Everett, who would "miaow" the lesson of the episode, which the boy would then translate and explain. Often Charley served as the boy's conscience, similarly to Davey and Goliath or Jiminy Cricket of Walt Disney's film Pinocchio. When Charley and Tony did the right thing, they were rewarded with something for Tony and a fish for Charley, which he ate rapidly. However, on other occasions, Charley suffered the consequences of doing the wrong thing (e.g., in Charley's Tea Party he pulled a tablecloth and a teapot fell on him and scalded him).

Production details
The films were produced by Richard Taylor Cartoons which also produced Crystal Tipps and Alistair and the Protect and Survive series.

Six films were produced:
 * 1) Charley – Falling in the Water
 * 2) Charley – In The Kitchen
 * 3) Charley – Matches
 * 4) Charley – Mummy Should Know
 * 5) Charley's Tea Party
 * 6) Charley – Strangers

References in popular culture
The electronic dance music group The Prodigy famously sampled the episode "Mummy Should Know" for their UK 1991 hit single "Charly", which reached number 3 in the UK Singles Chart. The sample was of Charley miaowing and Tony saying, "Charley says, 'always tell your mummy before you go off somewhere'".

In 2005, the Charley Says series was voted #95 on the Channel 4 TV special 100 Greatest Cartoons, and in 2006 was voted the UK's favourite public service advertisement] by readers of the BBC News website.

In 2014, Electrical Safety First (formerly known as the Electrical Safety Council) launched a brand new Charley Says film. featuring the voice of award-winning comedian and actor David Walliams. This was created to promote staying electrically safe in the home and not overloading power sockets. A second film was also created, on the subject of the dangers of buying counterfeit electrical goods.

Video release
The Charley Says films have been released in the UK (along with other public information films) as both a DVD-video and a two-volume set of VHS tapes.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Charley Says


text:
Talk:Egan v Canada

mention of section 1
I think this article should include reference to the fact that the s. 15 discrimination was deemed justifiable because of s. 1. It seems like this would be an important part of explaining the Charter's role in queer rights in Canada. Joeyconnick 23:09, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
 * Actually, the majority in this case did not find a section 15 violation so they didn't even have to look at section 1. - PullUpYourSocks 19:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not true actually. A majority (5 to 4) did find a s.15 violation, but Sopinka was the swing vote and he sided with the other 4 when he found that the legislation was "saved" by s.1.  Skeezix1000 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The majority, in fact, did find a section 15 violation. The opening statement is indeed false and misleading:

 * On May 25, 1995, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the definition of "spouse" in the Old Age Security Act was constitutional, on the basis of "biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate."

 * The truth is, as has been pointed out, that Sopinka concurred with the opinion of Justice La Forest, he did not join it. And apparently he only concurred it in result -- which is a far cry from actually agreeing with the reasoning of La Forest. Sopinka actually agreed with the dissenting justices that there was a section 15 violation. However, he sought to uphold the violation via section 1. This presents an entirely different set of reasons. Purporting that Sopinka agreed with the opinion that

 * "spouse" in the Old Age Security Act was constitutional, on the basis of "biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate

 * is a misrepresentation of his views, and that of the majority. That holding is, in fact, a plurality opinion.--Ben 00:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It appears that Sopinka had slipped under my radar. --PullUpYourSocks 04:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Italics
The practice for case names has been to italicize the "v". It is a format that becoming more prevailent in canadian legal writing (for example the McGill guide now uses it and so do most of the Irwin law book series use it), and for the more practical reason that without it it is impossible to wikilink a case name. --PullUpYourSocks 03:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if that is true it seems reasonable. --Ben 05:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Egan v Canada


text:
Talk:Disney (disambiguation)

Comments
I agree. Move to Disney. Although those who type Disney most often mean the Walt Disney Company, it seems reasonable that a significant minority would mean Walt Disney or Walt Disney Pictures, which actually produces the "Disney movies." --Plainsong 05:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) I agree too. Move to Disney. For the reasons Plainsong said. Remes 03:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Seeing no opposition, I have performed this move. - UtherSRG 12:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this move was misguided and worked out terribly. There are over 600 pages that link to Disney, and 99%+ would work just fine pointing to The Walt Disney Company. We either should disambiguate all 600+ pages (a huge task), or else make Disney a rd and deal with the problems (where a Disney link refers to the person) as we find them. In short, I think it should be moved back. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) June 30, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

Walt Disney Company is clearly, to me, the most dominant of uses. Cburnett 05:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, in my work on shortcutting links to the disambiguation page, I found that most uses of Disney should really refer to a specific subsidiary. Very few really meant The Walt Disney Company. I find that using The Walt Disney Company as the catch all would force the reader of the original page to try to figure out what subsidiary was intended to be referred to by the link. ppblais 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mike
It doesnt say how is Mike Disney related to the rest of the Disneys.

Merge to?
How about the company specific stuff merges into The Walt Disney Company, the family stuff merges into Disney family, the rest is moved to Disney (disambiguation), and Disney is redirected to The Walt Disney Company with some appropriate disambiguation header links added to that page? Ewlyahoocom 21:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Disney (disambiguation) → Disney – The term most commonly refers to either the company or the founder. I don't believe any of these are the primary topic. 2601:183:101:58D0:5D57:4B1C:A325:C74C (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the company is clearly primary on both counts. This isn't a mononym like "Mozart" or "Stalin" In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The company is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's some claim that Disney could be a mononymous reference to Walt Disney, but the company eclipses that usage in every aspect. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. bd2412  T 11:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW The company is obviously primary. The man is/was not mononymous; Disney is just his surname, so to refer to him by just that name you have to establish context for it, such as in his bio. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 26 November 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus has not changed since the previous RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Disney (disambiguation) → Disney – Rename this to just Disney. Disney should not redirect to the company, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Walt_Disney_Company/Archive/2015#Requested_move_18_May_2015 Aalaa324 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing has changed since the above RM discussion from two years ago, the company is still the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. While there are other Disneys, Walt Disney is clearly the most famous, and he is more famous for creating a fictional universe and founding a company than as a private person. J I P  | Talk 01:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. There are definitely other Disneys, but the Disney company is clearly the primary topic. (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). - cheezejack | talk | contributions - 02:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the status quo is fine. No actual evidence presented in favor of a change. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 17:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, and more like a consensus against. BD2412 T 02:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Disney (disambiguation) → Disney – Follows on the RM that failed to move the main company to Disney. There is no primary topic although the company and the person may be likely. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Walt_Disney_Company#Requested_move_11_December_2023 WP:NOPRIMARY GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support no clear primary topic given other uses as well even though the company is likely to be the most common use.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Concur that WP:NOPRIMARY applies here. As I pointed out in opposing the recent proposed RM to move the company to this title, "Disney" can refer to the man, the company, the animated movies, the live-action movies, the TV shows, the parks, the merchandise, etc. It is always funny at D23 Expo (I have attended three times, in 2015, 2017, and 2022) to see Disney fans from different fandoms share their interest in "Disney" and slowly realize that the word "Disney" means very different things to different people.  For example, like most normal people, visiting a Disney park once every five years is more than enough, because I am primarily a fan of Disney films and television shows.  I find it very amusing that there are people who visit a Disney park every year, every month, every week, or even every day.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support per WP:NOPRIMARY and my comments at the prior RM mentioned. There is clearly no primary target for "Disney" as some, like myself, mainly think of the company while others think of the studio, Walt Disney, etc. Several trade reports and news headlines use "Disney" to refer to a multitude of these differing subjects, so automatically assuming someone searching "Disney" is looking for the company when they could be looking for the studio or individual is a bad precedent to maintain. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Walt Disney's place in western civilization and the shaping of the 20th century in entertainment, film, and the various Walt Disney Shows and their impact on societal norms in both the early age of television and later, is profound. Walt Disney catapulted several cartoon characters to icons, introduced a generation to space, and had a vision which came about at exactly the right time to create these affects. The individual has at least, and arguably much more, long-term historical significance as the company and deserves equal billing under the name 'Disney'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment "more, long-term historical significance as the company" The individual also influenced other companies. His Silly Symphony series influenced imitators (copycats) with similar titles, such as Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies, Happy Harmonies, and Swing Symphony. Dimadick (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose Although arguments for WP:NOPRIMARY are convincing, I feel the company still has greater long-term significance and modern-day relevance (considering it's still around and actively contributing to society) that gives it an edge over what readers are likely looking for. Within articles, when we say "Disney did this", we usually mean the company (which can be referred to as "Disney" without ever using its expanded form), whereas it is not possible for us to use "Disney" to refer to Walt Disney without mentioning his full name once. The RM that did not move The Walt Disney Company to Disney is actually not relevant; a name can be too ambiguous as a title but at the same time be the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Barack Obama should not be moved to Obama, but Obama should still redirect to Barack Obama. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure you can use the single word 'Disney' to refer to Walt. Disney created Mickey Mouse. Disney introduced children to the possibility of space travel. Disney's vision created "Disneyland". And if I may, let me apologize on behalf of Walt Disney that he died, thereby shirking his responsibility to continue contributing to society (couldn't resist). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I said you can't use "Disney" to refer to Walt Disney . By contrast, an article can use "Disney" to refer to the company without ever mentioning the full name "The Walt Disney Company". In fact, there are presently 3,753 uses of an unpiped Disney to refer to the company, versus a mere 82 uses of  (which should really be changed to   if referring to the person or   if referring to his company. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't think the idea that a person is typically introduced with a full name and is then referred to by a surname is any more relevant here than the idea that typically the readers are looking for the company. It's probably fair to say that the terms "Disney" and "Walt Disney" are largely synonymous for the average reader, which in itself means that there's a clear ambiguity between the person and their company. --Joy (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. "Disney" can act as a shorthand for the company without ever invoking its full name; "Disney" can only act as a shorthand for the person only after his full name is stated once. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're describing the article style when editing, but what we care most when discussing primary topic by usage is reader behavior and expectations. The idea that an average English reader encounters the term "Disney" in reference to a person and then looks that up in the encyclopedia, expecting in turn to be navigated in a reasonably efficient way, is perfectly sensible. --Joy (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the same outside of editing. When you hear "Disney film", you are more likely to interpret that as "a film produced by Walt Disney Pictures", not "a film produced by Walt Disney (the person)". If you type "Disney" into the search bar, you are more likely looking for the company — if you were looking for the person, you would type "Walt Disney". Just take a look at the most recent news results for "Disney" — how many of those are referring to the person? as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to get this straight, when you are talking of "Disney films" do you mean the ones represented by this signature of Walt Disney or the films made under the banner of this Walt Disney signature? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I clearly wrote "Walt Disney Pictures" in my comment, not "Walt Disney Studios". No one really uses the term "Disney film" to refer to films distributed by Walt Disney Studios (which includes Fox, Marvel, Star Wars, etc.). But I'm not sure how that's relevant? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevancy exists in the full honor and recognition of the life and accomplishments of Walt Disney, and all of the corporate logos containing his signature attest to this long-term historical importance of the name 'Disney' when referring to both 'Walt Disney' and the companies which bear his name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "honor and recognition" have absolutely nothing to do with WP title policy and procedures. This very strange perception of yours to the contrary is also behind your constant attept to overcapitalize things as signification of importance/prominence, against MOS:SIGCAPS and against title policy. This really needs to come to an end, Randy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a good example that it's the "same" outside of editing, because these phrases are particularly affected by what first comes to mind, but the idea that there were films specifically associated with Walt Disney is perfectly sensible as well. There's other phrases that could be particularly associated with people, like "Disney dynasty", but we wouldn't use them as the determinative example of what constitutes the entire extent of the meaning of "Disney". --Joy (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Disney has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Compared to the time of the previous RM, these days we have more clickstream analysis tools and a better understanding of them - still not great, but better. We can look at the data from WikiNav for the TWDC, WikiNav for the disambiguation page, from meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archives and |Disney_(disambiguation) page views for the primary redirect and the disambiguation page.

 * The two most common topics are the person and their eponymous company, clearly, yet because they're so intertwined, and we don't have measurements that are that precise, it's still hard to say how many people click the Walt Disney link in the hatnote as opposed to the Walt Disney links in the lead or the rest of the text. Regardless, the sheer amount of it is suspect. Conventionally, we'd be looking for e.g. ~90% people landing at the primary topic and not reaching for navigation aids, and while we can't confirm that measurement here because we can't discern the Walt links, it sure sounds like the ratio might not be that good. From the WikiNav graph at the disambiguation page, it's apparent that most people who got there were looking for people, so even if those ratios are relatively small (around 6-8% in this sample) they're also indicative of ambiguity.
 * Trying to present all this ambiguity to the readers in a more straightforward way is probably a worthwhile endeavor. If not, in a few months time we'll have the data to support a revert either way, and MOS:DABCOMMON will make sure the average reader isn't astonished. --Joy (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per InfiniteNexus, plus the article on the company serves as a good WP:CONCEPTDAB. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Per my statement in the previous move discussion. There's no primary topic between the company or Walt Disney. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The Walt Disney Company is clearly and unambiguously the primary topic for the bare name Disney. The man himself was an important figure, no doubt, but when sources in 2024 talk of simply Disney, without qualification, it's unlikely anyone would think they meant him. That the previous RM failed to reach a conclusion to actually move it there is immaterial. This change of primary topic from the long-term status quo is not at all merited, for procedural reasons or any other. — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To try to verify this, I tried going to Google Books, clicked show English sources and 21st century, which showed me #1 Stewart (2005) about the company, #2 Schickel (2019) about the person, #3 Watts (2013) about the person, #4 ditto just 2001, #5 Disney Institute (2003) about the company, #6 ditto just 2001, #7 Gabler (2006) about the person, #8 Wills (2017) about company culture referencing the person in the blurb, #9 Quinn (2014) about the person, #10 Sandlin & Garlen (2016) about the company. Adding &pws=0 to the query string didn't change this. It seems Google thinks it's very likely their readers meant Walt when they look for Disney in a book search. And then we're back at the perennial question - is a lookup into an encyclopedia more like a book search or a general search or what. I'd lean towards the more academic options there. --Joy (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Google Maps skews to the person, but have you looked at other search engines? Regular Google Search doesn't show me anything related to the person for many pages, and the Knowledge Graph is that of the company, nor does Google News. Ngrams show a significant lead for "Disney" (excluding references of "Walt Disney") and "Walt Disney" (which probably includes references to the company's full name). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I already said in my last couple of sentences above... let me try to be a bit more illustrative with this line of reasoning: if we think of Wikipedia as the equivalent of the regular search or the news search, as something that should be guided by the same principles, then it's clear we should point readers to the topic that first comes to mind, and while we're at it, we might in turn want to consider sprinkling in a few ads or sponsored products to monetize all those views. :) --Joy (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Amakuru. The Walt Disney Company is the primary topic for "Disney" nowadays. It's even better known than Walt Disney himself who founded the company. J I P  | Talk 10:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Joy disproved that in the comment just above yours. The company named for Walt Disney and Walt Disney as a historical figure share the name and should share the disamb primary page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Does Chanel point to the company or the person? What about Armani? Dell? Forbes? Chrysler? Nestlé? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of these are probably problematic, and it's possible they haven't been thoroughly evaluated with the primary topic guidelines in mind, but have rather grown organically like that. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. --Joy (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I feel like the company's article makes for a decent of sort of WP:BROADCONCEPT-ish target. I might feel differently, though, if we find that a significant number of links to Disney were not meant to point to The Walt Disney Company. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the argument about a broad concept. I don't think the links are too relevant, because that would be deciding on what we show to (a huge amount of) readers based on the behavior of (a comparatively tiny amount of) editors. --Joy (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the broad-concept thing because I've seen that as an argument in terms of primariness: for example, Talk:Nickelodeon/Archive 2 (I have done many hundreds of DAB fixes for Nickelodeon, and the overwhelming majority of them (back of the napkin, over 99%) meant to point to the television channel.) and Talk:Madonna/Archive 22 (I frequently disambiguate links to Madonna, and they are always meant to link to the entertainer.). See also New York, which attracted links referring to the city when the state was considered the primary topic. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 00:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we have a long history of doing that, and I've probably done that myself in the past, but I started to waver when I learned more about the behaviors of the readers from the clickstream visualizations in WikiNav. (That tool was made in 2021, so for example it wasn't even available at the time of the two linked discussions, in 2011 and 2020. The clickstream archive only starts in late 2017.) --Joy (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging @162 etc., @320th Century, @GalaxyFighter55, @IceWalrus236 @Blaze Wolf, @Waylon111 @WiinterU and @Jorahm all those who participated in the previous move. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish, the nominator of previous discussion also gets pinged. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The company is the primary topic. The number of times that Walt Disney, as a biographical subject, is referred to as just "Disney" is vanishingly small by comparison and almost always in a context in which his first and last name were just given a moment earlier in the material. The article presently at The Walt Disney Company (due to a "local consensus" that is directly in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME and other principles, and really should just be at Disney, since that is far and away the most common name used to refer to the company in independent sources, and matchingly the vast majority of mentions of "Disney" in those sources is in reference to the company) already links Walt Disney in the lead paragraph, and in the hatnote, and links in the hatnote to Disney (disambiguation). This is more than enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like that it feels too simple to call it just "Disney" as there are other purposes, if anything. it could be called just Disney (company) although I oppose moving The Walt Disney Company to Disney GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NATURAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let it go, SMcCandlish... InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Prove me wrong. Just because we have a page at a policy-non-compliant title for the time being doesn't mean I'm going to sit idly by and let the situation get worse with a related RM that also should not happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As you have been told many times, it's not just a matter of COMMONNAME. "Disney" is not WP:PRECISE enough, even though it should continue to redirect to the company as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. We could easily move Las Vegas to Vegas (which redirects there), Stanford University to Stanford (which redirects there), and Barack Obama to Obama (which redirects there) — but we shouldn't. Those PRIMARYREDIRECTs shouldn't point to disambiguation pages either. As for Disney (company), that is far less WP:NATURAL and more awkward than The Walt Disney Company and is thus out of the question. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it were not precise enough, then it would not be possible for about 95% of references to the company in the mainstream media to simply be "Disney" without further disambiguation. QED.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If anything, Disney could be a DAB page (which I agree on) or become a redirect to the DAB page. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You know, New York is a DAB, and Mercury is a DAB. Disney should be a DAB, despite Disney being the most common use. Even Coachella is a DAB, while the festival is the most common use! The same should apply to Disney too! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because they both have two uses that are widely used on their own (that is, without tacking on extra words). But when it comes to Disney, no one will say "Disney" without stating his first name, but you'll find many, many articles (both in the news and on Wikipedia) that say "Disney" without stating the full corporate name. That's the difference. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And in August 2016, it was discovered the state of New York cannot be the primary topic for the word "New York". GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because as I explained above, New York City and New York state are widely referred to as simply "New York", without ever mentioning their extended forms. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish Disney can even refer to other stuff. The Disney family, the theme parks, the studios, the cities, the people, the companies, and etc!. I strongly believe there's no primary topic for Disney despite the company being the most common use. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And most importantly! Walt Disney himself or the person! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * is the literal definition of a . InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another thing to tell, Coachella has no primary topic by long-term significance but the festival is the primary topic by usage. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That page should be moved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved to what, and outcome of what? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The festival is clearly the primary topic and should be moved to just Coachella. I'll likely start an RM once I have the time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually tried before, but it didn't work. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably because you argued solely on the basis of pageviews (and from a single month), which are often not convincing enough to establish a primary topic. You should have pointed to WP:TITLEPTM, ngrams, year-long pageviews, etc. The festival literally has six times the number of attendees than the city's population. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It also had low participation, though I worry trying again so soon would come of as excessive. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 22:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also there's an ongoing RM to move Flint to Flint (rock) and the DAB to Flint, I do support that as Flint, MI is the highest in usage I would also support redirecting Flint to Flint, MI. Primary topic should not just matter by long term-significance but also usage. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to think a primary topic is determined solely by pageviews, which like I said is not the case. Unlike the two Disneys and the two Coachellas, flint has existed since ... the Stone Age, literally. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Coachella (festival), for those interested. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "refer to other stuff": all of it properties of this company. They're all subtopics, and in no version of the world are they regularly referred to just as "Disney" by themselves without having already been clarified earlier in the name material, or being uniquely clear already due to the specific context in which the sentence was found. In particular, since you and a several others here keep harping on this, I challenge you to find any source anywhere on planet earth referring to the person Walt Disney simply as "Disney" without also giving his full name in the same material to make it clear they mean the person not the company, the latter being overwhelmingly what the string "Disney" means to virtually everyone all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no proof whatsoever this number of times is "vanishingly small", and indeed we have the clickstreams to actually indicate otherwise (though it can't be conclusive because of the large amount of topical overlap). Can you please not reach for so much hyperbole? :) --Joy (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's blatant argument from incredulity with no basis. I've actually done quite a bit of source-background checking (when this was RMed before), and RS that refer to the person Walt Disney as simply "Disney" (except as a shorthand after already giving his full name) verge on non-existent. "Disney" in modern RS material almost invariably refers to the company (or, in a narrow enough context, one of its subsidiaries).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that this distinction of "except as a shorthand after already giving his full name" is critical there, and that it is not helpful for the purposes of reader navigation. We're effectively pretending that that sort of usage is not a good source of ambiguity and we decide not to help the readers who encounter that usage navigate faster. At the same time we decide it's fine to use the shorthand for the company, and we will help the readers who encounter that to navigate faster. This is a fairly arbitrary choice of which contingent of readers to assist more. --Joy (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, my opinion has not changed since the last one I participated in. And also there have been 2 previous move requests since then on this page, both having been closed the same way. That to me suggests that this isn't likely to get much support. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 04:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per many of the above comments. The term "Disney" in 2024 (or really any time in the last 20+ years) almost always is in reference to the company, not its founder. 05:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessintime (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose, I agree with  SMcCandlish and InfiniteNexus. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose I am late to this discussion but I would also like to register my opinion against such a rename. "Disney" commonly refers to the corporation and this is completely compatible with the article having the name "The Walt Disney Company" as a natural disambiguation and as the name that is more technically correct and legally. The disambiguation page for Disney is really only necessary for other secondary and tertiary meanings of the term and that includes the company's founder who is rarely mentioned compared to the company itself ... without taking anything away from his accomplishments or historic importance. Jorahm (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The RM has been closed, so no further !votes can be cast. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Disney (disambiguation)


text:
User:Jon the Geek

Who I am

 * Name: Jon Harmon
 * Birth: January 24, 1975
 * Location: Austin, Texas
 * Gender: Male
 * Education: B.S. in molecular biology from Michigan Technological University, graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Texas at Austin
 * Career: Content Team Lead and Product Owner at Sapling Systems. We're launching a new project for online homework and self study. Very exciting!
 * Activities: All things geeky, such as various Wikipedia editing, learning about the MediaWiki software and teaching myself PHP to work on it, setting up WikiMol (link removed to curb non-stop vandalism) to collect 3D molecules in one location, role-playing games, computer games such as World of Warcraft and Utopia (although I don't play either anymore), pub quizzes here in Austin, and web design.

Wikipedia stuff
Within Wikipedia, I am currently working on de-stubbing sorted stubs, particularly in these categories:
 * biochemistry stubs
 * biology stubs
 * chemistry stubs

I am joining WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, but I have to work out some technical bugs and set aside the time to actually do some recording.

I'm also looking into the History of Science WikiProject, but I'm not quite involved just yet.

Useful Wikipedia Links

 * Template_messages/Cleanup

title: User:Jon the Geek


text:
Talk:Cláudio Hummes

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cláudio Hummes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827031257/http://catholic-pages.com/hierarchy/cardinals_bio.asp?ref=185 to http://www.catholic-pages.com/hierarchy/cardinals_bio.asp?ref=185

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Cardinal Hummes and Oscar Soria displaying the shoes of Pope Francis in the Global Climate March in Paris, 2015.jpg

title: Talk:Cláudio Hummes


text:
Talk:The Night's Dawn Trilogy

Older stuff
Yea I really ought to finish this article. I just wish Hamilton didn't have to write such a rediculously long story. Anyway, on to my thought. Should we include information from "A Second Chance at Eden" and its related stories? They aren't technically part of the Trilogy itself but they are set in the same timeline. Shall we take a vote? Include or Don't Include? --||bass 23:13, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few specifics to the technology section and some character descriptions. - GK Apr 22

I'm sure this is common sence for most people, but let me just remind anyone. For those of you who have a copy of the Confereration Handbook, remember to NOT post any character/object/location descriptions word-for-word. It's the quickest way to get our article deleted.--||bass 15:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've now also added a whole slew of planets to the page. It's looking a bit less like a stub now! Also, none of the stuff I've added is copied from anywhere else; I did consult other sources, but everything is written in my own words. - GK Apr 22

As long as we arent quoting directly from The Confereration Handbook, we're golden. I just wanted to make sure that we don't get in trouble. Though if anyone wishes to paraphrase from the handbook, by all means do so. It's probably the best authoratative source we can have for this article. --||bass 01:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fear not, I've never even seen the handbook. I am using sources like websites and the books themselves to remind me of names and facts, but I'm writing everything in my own words.

As far as including Second Chance at Eden stuff, I'd say no as things stand now. To include that you would have to change the article from "The Night's Dawn Trilogy" to cover the whole universe; call it "The Confederation Universe" or something. - GK Apr 23

I've put a chunk of the timeline on the page, but the formatting is all messed up. Wikipedia doesn't seem to like spacing things out for some reason. Anybody know how to fix this? - GK Apr 24

I replaced some of the spaces with chr(0160) as well as inserted a monospace font. It looks like it did the trick. --||bass 02:03, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap! Someone finally fixed the timeline properly! Woo! --||bass 06:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Information on Voidhawks seem a little thin. For instance, there is nothing on the fact that a voidhawks captain "inseminates" the eggs just before the mating flight. Is this too much detail perhaps? I'm new to this place so I don't quite know how things are done yet.

 * It sounds fine to me. Night's Dawn is hardly a kid's book so I would think that any useful information would be welcome regardless. How could any information be "too much information" anyway? --||bass 00:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I want some input on the recent edit made by 83.70.178.4. I don't agree with the user's comment comparing Edinist Affinity to entanglement for 2 reasons. 1: Entanglement works over any distence. Affinity does not. 2: Peter F. Hamilton has explicitly stated (on his website, the Q&A section) that he does not wish to provide a scientific explination for the way Affinity works. Any thoughts on this? --||bass 01:51, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Copying
This book is amazing and this page is not doing it any kind of justice. Im going to change some stuff. Do what ever you want with it. - MW, 2006.06.17

Would it be OK to grab some (most?) of this stuff and use it to develop a parellel project, namely the Confederation Handwiki?

- Tuvalkin, 2006.02.20

Habitat lifespan
someone said:

"Ok seriously. Having to revert the habitat lifespan remarks over and over is getting old. 'A lifespan measured in millenia' is still a limited lifespan. Habitats DO NOT have a limited life span. LIFE EXPECTANCY may be limited by various factors such as war, disasters, etc but life SPAN shouldn't be. If anyone can actually cite a chapter/paragraph in the book that says habitats have a lifespan that is limited to only a few thousand or even a few hundered thousand years. Please do so. But I recall absoloutly no mention of a lifespan limit for habitats, be in thousands or billions of years."

In chap. 22 of tRD (p.800 of the Pan book, ISBN:0-330-34032-8), Olsen Neale, Commander of the Confederation Navy office in Tranquility, says to Erick Thrackar, while discussing Jantrit: «The Edenists had never lost a habitat before, their life expentancy is measured in millenia.» I guess this ilustrates the point above, without proving or disproving it.

--62.48.171.17 19:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's all the info gone?
This page used to have a huge list of characters, technology, planets, etc - much of which I wrote. Where's it all gone? If it's been moved elsewhere that's one thing, but if it's just been deleted I'll be putting it back soon.

 * This is a wiki, not a fan site. Descriptions of every world mentioned, in depth into all of the secondary characters, is interesting for a fan, but is not nessesary or in any respect central to the flow of the story. The story is about characters and their interactions: i'd suggest that no more than an overview of the universe is required.

 * I'd respectfully disagree. A standard encyclopedia limits the scope of its articles because there is limited room available in even a multi-volume book. With wikipedia there are no such limitations, so no real reason to deliberately omit facts. BobThePirate 19:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. So long as writers stay neutral and relevant, all is good. Because this is an electronic encyclopedia, it's not like detailed coverage of one article hurts another article or creates a set of books that won't fit on your shelf. :) --74.163.136.99 15:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

 * It is a bit unwieldy, though. I'm going to split it out into a couple of sub-articles. Bryan Derksen 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Considering the general lack of info on this series on the Internet (there are no more that 5 or so pages that contain the word Orgathe), I'd thik it good if a proper database of characters, technology, locations, species and universes was available. Although I do agree that the information must be invariably 'neutral'. I'm not sure about relevant, though. Can information be in surplus, especially in a place such as wikipedia?

Piłsudski?
It has been few years since I read this trilogy, but wasn't one of the planets named after Józef Piłsudski?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dues Ex Machina
"which is the final saviour of the human race is a clear example of Deus ex machina". I disagree. Is this the opinion of the writer of the article, or did somebody else say it? Scorchsaber 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, a few people have said it on Amazon and on forums. You can kind of understand it in a way. The storyline is basically resolved by a semi-omnipotent godlike being throwing a switch, rather than the characters resolving the problem through their own actions. However, I'd hesitate about putting such a statement in the article as it would seem to be POV. If a proper critical website or a print review mentioned the deus ex machina element, that would be one thing, but just saying it in the article would seem to be offering an opinion.--Werthead 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it seems someone with a dislike of Hamilton has gone through the page adding unsourced commentary and POV opinion, calling Joshua Calvert a 'Mary Sue' and lambasting Hamilton's 'infodump' style. I have pruned such comments. Such criticism may be indeed be fair, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. I had to carefully look at the last section as well which seemed to be going too far in the opposite direction, before remembering that the first book's cover blurb describes the Confederation as a 'golden age' of human history. Also adjusted a more straightforward error: The Neutronium Alchemist was published in 1997, not 1998.--Werthead 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Spellings
Someone attempted to change the spellings in this article about a British work to Americanized spellings. Wikipedia policy is to favor the spellings that go with the subject, if obviously one or the other. I've reverted those changes, but have left in two changed words: I also note that "Tranquillity", a proper noun in this context, is the correct (UK) spelling even in the my American edition of The Naked God. Finally, Cambridge does not list either form of "biomechanical", but MWO lists only the unhyphenated version, so I've restored that, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Judgment" is apparently still favored over "judgement" in both dialects, according to Cambridge Online Dictionaries and Merriam-Webster Online.
 * "Outmanoeuvre" was misspelled for either dialect, but is now corrected for UK spelling.

 * Mea culpa. I didn't know some of those words differed in British English. Well, a couple things improved. Jason Quinn 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Themes
I'm surprised by the themes section. I think there is a clear central theme to the story, that relates to the universe being a deeply, fundamentally flawed place, a ticking timebomb ready to suck all of itself into oblivion. All of the sentient life, anyway. I mean you've got a deep dark secret that is so foul that an elder race committed suicide (which of course makes no sense whatsoever since the secret happens to do with where sentients go when they die), and at the end of the series, salvation is attained by chucking the inhabited planets right out of the universe, right?

And the section really seems to be straining the point about a future world where human nature is essentially unchanged when it is talking about a millieu when humans and their spaceships whisper telepathically, "I love you" to each other. I mean come on. This is a very strange universe that has been depicted here. Transentient 16:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 * First poster, you understand nothing: the Laymil commited suicide because they understood that only the dead that were not psichologically ready to die ended up in the beyond. They killed themselves knowing that they would not end up trapped in the beyond. Calvert does not transport the Confed worlds "right out of the universe", but merely outside the galaxy, so that humanity would be unable to continue its expansion and focus more on internal stabilisation. He sends Quinn to the end of the universe, to lead those trapped in the Beyond out and to the "Omega point", where all sentient souls gathered at the end of time to recreate the universe. Second poster, the captains of voidhawks and blackhawks express love so simply because of the profound intimacy given by affinity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Preda (talk • contribs).
 * Be careful of themes, they can often be original research. We oughta be careful that we aren't just posting radnom theories.

The strongest theme throughout these books is how socio-economic systems effect individuals potential. That capitalism limits what one can achieve and that socialism is a better system. The planets are moved at the end so that they could work together and not independently, the souls are stuck in the beyond because they had not been self realized enough when they died. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.29.212 (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's as simple as "Capitalism vs Socialism" - if you take the Kiint and their comparatively Utopian existence as an example, I see that it's about the evolution to a society which values fulfilment (personal, psychological) and equal opportunity for all to indulge in that pursuit. As an example, the Kiint appear to be in pursuit of knowledge and want for nothing; the (Adamist) humans have a hierarchical society where individuals are exploited or society is "managed" (by political or religious means) with or without their knowledge. The book points the finger squarely at religion and politics which attempt to govern the thinking of individuals and people end up feeling unfulfilled. As a result, unless they are at the top of those hierarchies - they are not "self-determining" enough to feel fulfilled and therefore their souls are trapped in the beyond because they haven't had the opportunity to feel fulfilled while alive. But it's not all bad: humans have hope, which propels them along in the face of adversity and this hope is what is needed to encourage development to the egalitarian society which will help the race become (paraphrasing) "socialogically mature". Nick in syd (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth Behind Human Existence
This is a bit wishy-washy, really, certainly not all that useful for someone who hasn't read the books (I'm still reading the first). Perhaps we should inlcude more information on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.132.2 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sales?
If the Trilogy has really sold 19 million copies, that would be impressive and amazing, making it one of the biggest-selling works of SF of all time. However, I cannot find any sources at all for this statement.--Werthead (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed due to no citation being provided. This figure from PFH's publishers confirms that as of the publication of Pandora's Star in 2004, his total works had sold 2 million copies, meaning it is impossible for the NDT to have sold 19 million.--Werthead (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense
This page is mostly nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised if much of it was written by the author himself. The idiotic sychophant praise included in some sections makes me want to vomit... Or wonder what those people had to do to in exchange for writing them. This "vision" of the future does not make sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svempa242 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I don’t agree with the above contributor, I have to say that this page needs serious help. I don’t have the resources to fix it up it myself, but it looks like it’s been alternately written by teenage comic book writers who have teamed up with someone who read the first couple of pages in each chapter. This page deserves better Smoogies (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Night's Dawn Trilogy


text:
User talk:Lsufan2181

Go LSU!!

title: User talk:Lsufan2181


text: User talk:142.51.21.68

title: User talk:142.51.21.68


text:
Talk:Vilnius/a new attempt

The beginning
The earliest settlements in the area of present Vilnius appear to be of mesolithic origin. Since the early Middle Ages the area has been contiously inhabited, as is proven by numerous archaeological findings in different parts of the city. Initially a Baltic settlement, it was also inhabitated by Slavs and, since at least 11th century, by Jews. Some historians identify the city with Voruta, a forgotten capital of King Mindaugas.

Vilnius itself was probably established as a village by Gediminas, Duke of Lithuania in the beginning on 14th century. It was granted city rights by the Grand Duke Jogiela (Wladislaus II of Poland) in 1387.

Lithuanians have a tale about Vilnius' founding: according to the story, Vilnius per se was founded after Gediminas had a prophetic dream about an iron wolf howling on a top of the hill. When he asked a priest krivis Lizdeika for an explanation, he was told that he must build a castle on the top of that hill, which is strategically surrounded by three rivers (Vilnel&, Vilija (also known as Wilia or Neris) and  Vingria (now underground)) and a grand city around that hill, so that "the iron-wolf-like sound about this great city would spread around the world". So Gediminas somehow turned pagan Lithuania back to Mindaugas pro-Western and Christian Europe establishing a capital in the former capital place though forging the original name to Vilnius.

The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323. The original part of Vilnius was the castle built by Gediminas on Castle Hill. The city became better known after Gediminas wrote a letter of invitation to the principal Hansa towns in 1325, offering free access into his domains to men of every order and profession. The town was initially populated by local Lithuanians, but soon the population began to grow ascraftsmen and merchants of other nationalities settled in the city.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Between 1503 and 1522 the city was surrounded with walls that had nine gates and three towers. Vilnius reached the peak of its development under the reign of Grand Duke Žygimantas Senasis (Sigismund II of Poland), who moved his court there in 1544. In the following centuries, Vilnius became a constantly growing and developing city. This growth was due in part, to the establishment of Vilnius University by King and Grand Duke Steponas Batoras (Stefan I of Poland) in 1579. The university soon developed into one of the most important scientific and cultural centres of the region and the most notable scientific centre of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Of course, political, economic and social life was also in full swing there. This is proved by statutes issued in the 16th century, the last of which was still in force until the 19th century. In 1769 the Rossa cemetery was founded; today it is one of the oldest surviving cemeteries in the world.

Rapidly developing, the city was open to migrants from both East and West. Communities of Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Jews, Russians, Germans, Karaims, Ruthenians and others established themselves in the city. Each group made its contribution to the life of the city: At that time crafts, trade and science were prospering. In 1655 Wilno was captured by the forces of Russia and was pillaged, burned and the population was massacred. City's growth lost its momentum for many years, yet the number of inhabitants quickly recovered and by the beginning of the 19th century the city was the third largest city in Eastern Europe. Russian occupation policy made the destruction of the city walls a must and after 1799-1805 period, only the Aušros Vartai gate (also known as Medininkų Gate or Ostra Brama) remained.

After the Third Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795, Wilno was annexed by Russia and became the capital of a gubernya. In 1812 the city was seized by Napoleon on his push towards Moscow. After the failure of the campaign, the Grande Armee retreated to the area where thousands of French soldiers died and were buried in the trenches they had built months earlier. After the November Uprising the Vilna University was closed and repressions halted the further development of the city. During the January Uprising in 1863 heavy city fights occurred, but were brutally pacified by Mikhail Muravyov. Muravyov was nick-named The Hanger by the population because of the number of executions he organized. After the uprising all liberties were halted and the Lithuanian, Polish, and Belarusian languages were banned.

The beginning of 20th century
During the World War I Wilna was occupied by Germany from 1915 until 1918. On February 16, 1918 in Vilnius The Restoration of Independence of Lithuania was proclaimed. After withdrawal of German forces the city was seized on January 1, 1919 by Polish self-defence units recruited from the local population. The institutions of the state were established but very soon, on January 3 1919 the city was taken by Bolshevik forces advancing from the east and proclaimed the capital of the short-lived Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania and Belarus. On April 19, 1919 the city was seized by the Polish Army but on July 14 it was lost again to Soviet forces.

Shortly after the defeat in the Battle of Warsaw in 1920, the withdrawing Red Army handed the city over to the newly reborn Lithuania. On 12 July 1920 a Peace Treaty between Lithuania and Soviet Russia was signed. Soviet Russia recognized The Independent Republic of Lithuania with Vilnius as a capital and Brėslauja (Braslav), Ašmena (Ošmjany), Lyda (Lida) and Gardinas (Grodno).

However, on October 9, 1920 the Lithuanian-Belarusian Division of the Polish Army under General Lucjan Żeligowski seized the city after a staged mutiny. The city and its surroundings were proclaimed a separate state of Central Lithuania (Litwa Srodkowa) and, after parliamentary elections, in a result of the decision of Central Lithuanian Parliament, on February 20 1922 the whole area became a apart of Poland, with Wilno being made the capital of the Wilno Voivodship. The League of Nations initially protested this decision, but at a later stage the Conference of Ambassadors approved it.

Lithuanian authorities never accepted these elections as fair and free, requesting a new plebiscite after withdrawel of all troups from the town and area. This was never accepted by Poland. The constitution of Lithuania mentioned Vilnius as the capital of the state and all diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland were broken. Lithuania declined to accept the Polish authority over the Eastern Lithuania and considered it an illegal occupation until 1938.

In the meantime, for yet another time in its history the city enjoyed a period of fast development. The university was reopened under the name Stephen Bathory University and the city's infrastructure was improved significantly. By 1931 the city had 195,000 inhabitants, which made it the fifth largest city in Poland.However some Lithuanians dispute this picture of economic growth and point out that the standard of living in Vilnius at this time was considerably lower compared than other parts of today's Lithuania.

In consequence of the additional secret protocoll attached to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, dividing Eastern Europe in a Soviet and a German sphere, a Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland was staged by the Red Army. The city was seized the city on September 19, 1939. Initial Soviet plans were to make teh city the capital of the Belarussian SSR, but after talks in Moscow on October 10, 1939 the city and its surrounding areas were transferred to Lithuania in exchange for Soviet military bases established in various parts of that country. The Lithuanian authorities entered Vilnius shortly afterwards and the capital of Lithuania started to be gradually transferred there from Kaunas. However, the process was not yet finished when in June of 1940 Vilnius (together with Lithuania as a whole) was again seized by the Soviet Union and was made the capital of the newly created Lithuanian SSR. Approximately 35,000 - 40,000 of the city inhabitants were arrested by the NKVD and sent to Gulags at that time.

In June 1941 the city was seized by Germany. In the old town centre 2 ghettos were set up for the large Jewish population, the smaller one of which was already in October 1941 "liquidated". The second ghetto lasted until 1943, though its population was regularly decimated in so called Aktionen. A failed Jewish ghetto uprising on September 1 1943 (the Vilna uprising) led to the final destruction of the ghetto. About 95% of the local Jewish population was murdered. Many of them were among 100,000 victims of the mass executions in Ponary, about 10km west of the old town centre. Most of the remaining 30,000 victims of the massacre were Poles: POWs, intelligentsia and members of the Home Army.

After Second World War
In July 1944 initially Polish Home Army and then the Red Army occupied Vilnius, which was shortly afterwards incorporated into Soviet Union and made capital of the newly created Lithuanian SSR.

After World War II, Soviet government decided to expel the Polish population from Lithuania and Belarus. This decision was implemented during the so-called repatriation, organized by Soviet and Polish communist governments. Despite that the repatriation was claimed to be voluntary and though parts of the Polish population remained where they had lived, it was very questionable from the side of humanity and justice. This way many old inhabitants left Vilnius, in what is still seen by many people as a misfortune, especially due to its negative effect on the city's community and its traditions.

These events, coupled with the migration of Lithuanian rural population and Russians from other Soviet republics the during post-war years had a critical influence on the change of the demographic situation of the city. However, the growth of the cities in Lithuania during this period and decrease in rural population caused a rapid population upsurge in Vilnius since approximately 1960.

Beginning in 1987 there were massive demonstrations against Soviet rule in the country. On March 11, 1990 the Supreme Council of the Lithuanian SSR announced its independence from the Soviet Union and restored the independent Republic of Lithuania, which had been annexed by Soviets back in 1940. The Soviets responded on January 9, 1991, by sending in troops, and on January 13 during the Soviet Army attack on the State Radio and Television Building and the Vilnius TV retranslation tower 14 people were killed and more than 700 were seriously injured. However, the Soviet Union finally recognized Lithuanian independence in August 1991.

Since then, Vilnius has been rapidly evolving and improving, transforming from a Soviet into a European city in less than 10 years.

title: Talk:Vilnius/a new attempt


text:
Talk:2G

Phasing out 2G in the United States
It's not clear from the article if only AT&T is shutting down 2G service in the United States at the end of this year or if other 2G providers are also doing so. Also, there's a reference for the article that indicates this shutdown started in 2011. If that's the case it would seem like something that should be added to the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023212724/http://www.elisa.com/english/index.cfm?t=6 to http://www.elisa.com/english/index.cfm?t=6&o=6532.50

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"2G phase-out in Maryland" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2G phase-out in Maryland and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsortable tables
your recent revert for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2G&oldid=prev&diff=1136084195&markasread=271877292&markasreadwiki=enwiki 2G] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3G&oldid=prev&diff=1136083603&markasread=271877040&markasreadwiki=enwiki 3G] tables appear to be a matter of taste as the red colors were still for already phased out networks and that red bold style was anyway odd, only employed in these two arricles among all tables across Wikipedia.

Having sortable tables is a matter of functionality that was addressed to ensure they work. I was simply fixing them. You might have been their editor and I wouldn't insist too much, knowing that sometimes contributors hold their edits dearly. Thanks. --Esperfulmo (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Esperfulmo This is not a matter of taste. As you can find from an earlier discussion topic/comment, in the case of networks apparently phased out there is still missing information on their closure. This is the simple reason why they still appear highlighted. Nothing more, nothing less. However I assume (WP:AGF) and provide this additional explanation. Note also that there is additional formatting available to ensure proper formatting AFAIK despite highlighting, so there should be no mutually exclusive, if sorting should commonly really be considered necessary. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Never mind, my dear. I already tried fixing the table with the color template, it was still unsortable. --Esperfulmo (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Apparently sorting does not work properly also due to imprecise shutdown dates anyway, which is indeed a scope we're focussing on already, because we intend to avoid such. The table formatting itself is prepared. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

French operator Bouygues Telecom will turn off 2G end 2026 and 3G end 2029
https://www.igen.fr/telecoms/2023/02/bouygues-telecom-coupera-la-2g-en-2026-et-la-3g-en-2029-135249 Adhame95 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, I've received the news already and will update the list soon. Thanks. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:2G


text:
Pseudoreligion

Pseudoreligion or pseudotheology is a pejorative for a non-mainstream belief-system or philosophy which is functionally similar to a religious movement, typically having a founder, principal text, liturgy and faith-based beliefs.

Belief systems such as Christian Science or Nation of Islam have been referred to as pseudoreligions, as have various New Age religions, as well as political ideologies such as Nazism and Positive Christianity.

Examples of marginal movements with founding figures, liturgies and recently invented traditions that have been studied as legitimate social practices include various New Age movements, and millennaristic movements such as the Ghost Dance and South Pacific cargo cults.

Difference with religion
Pseudoreligion and religion are concepts at opposite ends of a spectrum. A pseudoreligion is a quasi-religious group led by a charismatic leader with unorthodox or extremist views, while religion involves belief in a divine power, ethics, and philosophy. These definitions aid in categorization but can lead to labeling and discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court defines religion, determining protected beliefs. All beliefs are protected under the First Amendment, but actions based on those beliefs are not if they involve illegal activities. Pseudoreligions claiming religious motivation for illegal acts do not necessarily receive protection.

There is no legal difference between a pseudoreligion and a religion. All beliefs should be protected equally, but the law must protect citizens from harm. Illegal conduct cannot be excused by religious beliefs, and the law must be upheld even in morally complex situations.

Quasi-religions
In 1963, German-American philosopher Paul Tillich introduced a distinction between pseudo-religions and quasi-religions. He described pseudo-religions as movements which intentionally deceive adherents through their similarities with mainstream religions, while quasi-religions are non-religious movements which have unintended similarities to religions.

title: Pseudoreligion


text:
Talk:Muppet Babies (1984 TV series)

Untitled
Muppet Babies is not a spinoff from The Muppet Show; the Muppets existed in multiple media before that show. (It is based on The Muppets Take Manhattan, though, since that is where the idea of baby Muppets originated.) —tregoweth 23:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add the theme song lyrics to the article; they are copyrighted. tregoweth 07:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Good candidate for rewrite?
This article is terrible. I've seen similar cases where an editor has pretty much blanked the article and allowed it to get rebuilt. Is such a thing called for here, at least in some sections? It seems it's been taken over by pranksters and people with dry senses of humor. For instance:

''The Baby Gonzo character strikes an ambiguous if not enigmatic chord with many viewers, amongst whom questions of his nature are a topic of considerable debate. Although he has usually been classified as a "whatever", characters in this series referred to Gonzo as being a "weirdo", as if it were a sort of creature as much as it referred to his behavior. (The movie Muppets from Space delves more deeply into the matter). In one episode, he temporarily believes he is an anteater. Muppet scholarship is generally silent on this issue.''

I hate to point out the problem without doing anything about it...Maybe I will come back when I have some more time. Thousandrobots (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Purported Scientology influence
Not sure if it appropriate for inclusion, but there is an interview that purports to point out that at least one episode is based on one of L. Ron Hubbard's theories wrt. Scientology and thought.
 * One of the main writers, Jeffrey Scott, is a Scientologist, so it's plausible. tregoweth  06:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A "belief"? Are Study Tech and everything else LRH imparted beyond the core teachings of Scientology considered beliefs? CocaCola58204 05:20 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Muppetbabies2.jpg
Image:Muppetbabies2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JimHenson.jpg
Image:JimHenson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2010, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.221.41 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Gonzo
Baby Gonzo voice actress was Russi Taylor not Laurie O'Brien she only voiced Baby Piggy I mean sure Brien sounded like Gonzo in Close Encounters of the Frog Kind but still Ms. O'Brien was not Gonzo the Great Matthew Cantrell (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blues clues is a favorites is not Universal Television, its Nick Jr.

Sources?

 * How can an article be this long and not have any sources whatsoever?

human
"The Muppet Babies live in a large nursery watched over by Nanny, the only human character in the show that appears on a regular basis. " but aren't Scooter and Skeeter human? They are according to Scooter's wikipedia page. Bouket (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Airdate Discrepancy
There are parts of this article which say Muppet Babies debuted in 1989, and other parts which say it debuted in 1984. They can't both be correct. Can someone straighten this out please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.41.31 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved, per relevant policy cited below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Muppet Babies → Jim Henson's Muppet Babies – Someone moved this article to simply Muppet Babies earlier in the year, but I moved it back because as I stated before, there was no discussion about the move. It doesn't matter if another user moves it again because s/he thinks the title is "overly long"; WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding, this is the official title of the series.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose we use common names, not official ones.   Hot Stop     (Talk)   04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:PRECISION, WP:UCN , WP:OFFICIALNAME. We don't use official names, we use common names, and we don't use overly long names for no particular reason. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All those guidelines list mainly people's birth names and scientific names for elements and the like. This isn't the same case. (Actually, those are all shortcuts to the same guideline. Nice try.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are two relevant sections of the broader guideline Article titles, and a very widely-accepted essay on the same subject. Is your position supported by any policies or guidelines? --BDD (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you saying we should just ignore what the actual name clearly is because enough other users don't like it? (And WP:UCN and WP:COMMONNAME go to the exact same place.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 19:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Sure, but I cited COMMONANE. None of the IP's targets go to the same section.) Is that really the wording you want to go with? Your repeated invoking of IDONTLIKEIT is a straw man, considering everyone else is citing policy, not personal opinions. Your appeal to "what the actual name clearly is" suggests a complete misunderstanding of our naming conventions. So again I ask, is your position supported by policy? --BDD (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (which actually does cover names of media/art, not just scientific or birth names). We should go by the title that the show is commonly known as. Even the official VHS releases call the show Muppet Babies, as does IMDb which rarely gets the name of shows and films incorrect. While Jim Henson's Muppet Babies appears to be the official full title, it's not the title most people use. The official title can still be included in the article - that's why we have the "also known as" parameter in the infobox.   Pinkadelica ♣  19:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well. The current name is far more commonly known and recognizable than the official name. NOTE: This page was previously moved to Jim Henson's Muppet Babies in September 2007 by a user w/o an explanation, nor prior discussion. -- Schfifty  3  18:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Still in production?
No the last episode was aired November 2, 1991 Also the show wouldn't air on ABC now-a-days because of Litton's Weekened Adventure Who made these changes?! Matthew Cantrell (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to be sneaky vandalism that this user added and no one caught. I've corrected it.  Pinkadelica ♣  02:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Longest-running?
For a Saturday morning cartoon series, 8 seasons and more than 100 episodes sounds immense. Has anyone checked to see if this might be the longest-running Saturday Morning cartoon series? 68.146.233.86 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Error?
The article says the series was commissioned due to the success of the sequence in Muppets Take Manhattan. This is physically impossible as the movie came out in July and the TV series debuted in September. The series had to have been in production months before the movie came out. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There's consensus for move, but the former title is left as a redirect for now. If there's any need of converting it to disambiguation page or creating series article on it, careful attention should be given in correcting. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Muppet Babies → Muppet Babies (1984 TV series) – with Muppet Babies (2018 TV series) here, the article about the 84 show should have a similar parenthesis. The main title can instead serve to describe the franchise as a whole, like the 1985 Marvel Comics and 1986 Star Comics Monthly adaptations. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move. This makes sense - it's quite possible that people search for "Muppet Babies" for reasons other than the original series.  ONR  (talk)  04:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. No indication that the 1984 series deserves primacy over the new one, though I think a standard dab page at the base term would serve readers better than a series article. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support jamacfarlane (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk for Citations and Research
Hello. I'm announcing that I will clean up anything from the article as much as I can. The home video release section has already been cleaned up to look better visually. Soon, I will clean up the "Awards and nominations" section, as it will also look better visually as well. Since citations are needed for either whatever is needed or added, so if you want to have a talk in here with me or anyone, including for research and citations, this is the section to look for... Even though I am not a member of the moderation nor admin team on Wikipedia, I am an expert with the original Muppet Babies material, and I am willing to clean up anything on here. Any mistakes will be wisely handled and apologized. Thank you for reading! - Aubreeprincess (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Muppet Babies (1984 TV series)