text:
Talk:Gordie Howe

21 All-Star teams?
I've heard (& it's a record unlikely to be equalled) Howe played on a record 21 All-Star teams. Trekphiler 08:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * And almost certainly won't be. Most of Howe's career took place in a league with a hundred players in it; that Ray Bourque was named to nineteen season end All-Star Teams in the expansion era is remarkable -- Gretkzy himself fell well short.  Ravenswing 17:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gordie Howe hat-trick
Is there a source for the trivia item that he's never actually recorded a Gordie Howe hat-trick? I personally find it hard to believe that in 2186 games, 975 goals, and 1385 assists, he's never had at least one game where he scored a goal and an assist, and also a fighting penalty. --Legalizeit 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 7 years later... there are two sources and they disagree.  The article currently states: "It should be noted, however, that Howe himself only recorded one Gordie Howe hat trick in his career,[5] on October 10, 1953, and March 21, 1954.[6]", which is obviously not acceptable. 108.127.160.149 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Alleged copyvio
I just went over that mrandmrshockey.com page, and I can't see a single damn section in this article that's taken from there. Quite aside from that I'm one of the many editors who've worked on it, and wrote my copy myself, thank you! That this comes from an anon IP registered today and with eight actual edits is highly suspect, and given the large copyvio backlog, I want to see some line-by-line proof of copyvios -- and any such section changed rather than the whole article held hostage -- before such an important article gets put on the shelf for a few weeks. Ravenswing 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Name Gordie Howe is copyrighted, see Gordie Howe's official website
Gordie Howe is the only player to get his name copyrighted, please see his official website www.mrandmrshockey.com --69.156.150.37 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the exact page on his website The name itself Gordie Howe is copyrighted. He is the only player to get his name copyrighted. --69.156.150.37 07:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the law states that things in the public domain, such as sports figures, can't really copywrite such stuff -- you couldn't, for instance, prevent a newspaper from writing a story about someone in the public domain. Someone with actual knowledge of the law will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. Meeples 07:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was under that assumption myself. Perhaps someone should take this to WP:AN. K O  S |  talk  07:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In Gordie Howe's case he can, He's the only player ever to do that. --69.156.150.37 07:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You'll need some proof to back that up. I think he can copywrite his name so that others cannot use it without his permission in some instances. But, by your argument, you're breaking the law by even writing his name on this talk page, now aren't you? Meeples 07:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I will call him GH for now on!--69.156.150.37 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Good plan. Until we get a copywrite lawyer in here, let's not worry about this article being a violation. Meeples 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides the template is for text that appears to infringe on the copyright of said website, the text in the article itself is not a copyright infringement, but is released under the GFDL. So even if his name is copyrighted that template is not correct.  K O  S |  talk  08:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This might clear this up, the anon appears to be mistaken. From: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html Can I copyright the name of my band? No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. K O  S |  talk  08:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC
 * Quite aside from that it's the moniker "Mr. Hockey" that was trademarked (not "copyrighted," a term used by the editor in complete ignorance of the law), not Howe's name itself. That being said, Howe was called "Mr. Hockey" decades before, its use in this article is valid, and what the hell ... "Detroit Red Wings" is no less trademarked, and it's used in half a thousand articles.  Ravenswing 01:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The user that tagged this article is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, VaughanWatch AKA JohnnyCanuck. There is no need to worry about the copyright tagging.  -- JamesTeterenko 03:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He won four Stanley cups
I think this should be mentioned.

Picture of Gordie Howe
I put up a photo request tag as we need a picture of Gordie Howe. Mr. C.C. 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck. More than most players, Howe's pretty fierce about copyrighted images.    Ravenswing  12:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added an image from Commons. It's not the best option for the infobox. Hopefully someone else can come up with a live picture and this image can be moved down further into the article. Accurizer 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty ironic how Bart Simpson misappropriated his image, then. Maybe a screenshot would be an appropriate addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations & references
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stats
It appears that the stats given for Godie Howe are incorrect and incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames
I'm believing that some nicknames for Gordie Howe are more common / prominent than others, and that displaying all names in the infobox, misleads the reader to think he was refer to all equally.

I believe the citation for the nickname "Power" is very poor. I've googled other incidents and found it to be very isolated nickname. In the first citation it sounds as if only one person refers to him that way:"'My dad [Bud Polie] was very close with Gordie Howe and he thought Gordie was the greatest player ever. Nobody else was even close. My dad gave him the nickname, ‘Power,’ before he was Mr. Hockey."Whereas in the following quote, it seems as if it comes from Jack Adams :"Nicknames: 'Mr. Hockey,' 'Jack Adams called me `Power.''" The following quote lists Mr. Hockey and Mr. Elbows as the two most common.. but then mentions many others besides "Power":"Howe's list of nicknames is almost as long as his list of accomplishments -- his unbelievable skills and longevity baffling scribes who struggled to find words to describe his phenomenal talents and aggressive style of play. Mr. Hockey. Power. Mr. Everything. Mr. All-Star. The Most. The Great Gordie. The King of Hockey. The Legend. The Man. No. 9. And of course, Mr. Elbows." I feel we should just limit the nicknames inside the infobox to just two, but mention other names elsewhere in the article. Flibirigit (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I completely agree, and just reverted the edit; I want a better reason to include a nickname in the list than that Bud Poile had a private one by which he thought of Howe.   Ravenswing  12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * A limit of two nicknames is arbitrary. "Power" is not a private nickname as evidenced by the two references above.  There are many more instances that this nickname was used.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Limiting to two names is not arbitrary. Those are the only two nicknames that he is widely known by. All the other nicknames can be worked in elsewhere in the article. Flibirigit (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The only nickname he is widely known by is Mr. Hockey. Perhaps this is the only nickname that should be in the infobox. During most of his playing career "Power" was his most frequently used nickname.  Eddie Shore was known as Mr. Hockey and Howe waited until Shore died in 1985 to trademark the name.  Bobby Hull was also called Mr. Hockey in the late 60's.

 * Howe was probably referred to as Mr. Elbows as often as he was called Elbows.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding all of those rarely used nicknames in the Trivia section is not a good solution. Trivia_sections are discouraged and it should not be expanded.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to rewrite the entire trivia section into prose. Flibirigit (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that justification for adding to a problem?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It means I appreciated the fact you wanted to have other nicknames in the article. It also means I don't have time to rewrite the entire trivia section. If you don't like my suggestion of keeping your contribution in a trivia section, then you can delete all the nicknames in the article. Flibirigit (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Errr ... I've got a THN collection going back to the early 1950s, Trail of the Stanley Cup and several other contemporary sources. In none of them does "Power" ever come up as a contemporaneous nickname for Howe, nor does "Mr. Hockey" come up for Hull.  (Only TotSC is contemporary to Shore's career, but even so.)    Ravenswing  13:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find plenty of references where Bobby Hull and Eddie Shore are called Mr. Hockey, but I'm not sure what that will accomplish. My point is that Mr. Hockey wasn't synonymous with Howe until the 70's and I don't think that nickname was used for him with any regularity until the late 60's.  In his first two decades in the NHL "Power" was his most frequently used nickname and I think the article should reflect that.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you in fact have references for those being nicknames widely acknowledged by the press and the public, feel free to present them.   Ravenswing  22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are already three references supporting "Power" in this discussion, but if one more will convince you that it belongs in the infobox, I'll get one. If you mean Hull and Shore being called Mr. Hockey, tell me how that will resolve things and I'll get them for you.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there are references saying that Bud Poile and one or two other people used the nickname. I'm looking for exactly what I asked: references for those being nicknames widely acknowledged by the press and the public.    Ravenswing  01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this?
 * The New York Times, September 8, 1971
 * "The Gordie Howe Dynasty Ends
 * By GERALD ESKENAZI
 * Power. That was Gordie Howe's nickname, bestowed on him by players who wore the Detroit Red Wing uniform over the last 25 years."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Exactly, a name bestowed by teammates... not everyone in general. It should be mentioned in the article as a name given by teammates. Flibirigit (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Used by "everyone in general" is a very high standard. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guideline on nicknames, but I don't believe this is the usual standard for a hockey player's nicknames.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the requirement that a nickname be used by "everyone in general" is neither verifiable nor the usual standard, The New York Times reference (above) should suffice.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He was nicknamed "Blinky" for a time, at least by teammates and opponents. After his head injury, he developed a tic. He seems to have gotten over it in subsequent years. WHPratt (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Retired number
I changed the portion under "Achievements" to say:

 * 1) "His number, 9, was retired by both the Detroit Red Wings and the Hartford Whalers. Although the Houston Aeros Howe played for no longer exist, the AHL team of the same name has also retired his number."

I then removed the comment about his retired number in the "Trivia" section, as it was rather redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.108.183 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickname
Per WP:HOCKEY's decision to remove the nickname field from the infobox, it is being moved here for use later. "| nickname = Mr. Hockey, Elbows" -Djsasso (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard saying "Gordie could do everything"
Can anyone find a source for this, that is not self-published? It doesn't conform with policy:BLP--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hockey News list
I don't think it is significant enough to be in the lead section. A footnote to it would suffice to support the 'one of greatest hockey players' statement. The Hockey News list is already mentioned in the article--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I added it just to try and support the associated claim, but I see your point. Remove it if you like.  Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Raised importance rating
An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.SriMesh | talk  03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

SYD HOWE WAS NOT GORDIE HOWE'S FATHER
IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE "GORDIE HOWE" IT STATES ON PARAGRAPH 2,"PLAYING CAREER", "...GORDIE HOWE WAS THE FIRST PLAYER IN NHL HISTORY TO PLAY ON THE SAME TEAM WITH HIS FATHER SYD HOWE..." THE WIKI ARTICLE "SYD HOWE" SAYS "ALTHOUGH NOT RELATED, RIGHT WING GORDIE HOWE JOINED THE REDWINGS THE FOLLOWING SEASON (1946-47)..." (PARAGRAPH 8). REFER ALSO TO "JOE PELLETIER'S GREATEST HOCKEY LEGENDS.COM" Cuddybear130 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)CUDDYBEAR130
 * This and much other incorrect information about Gordie appears to have all been added on April 11 by an anonymous user (24.83.129.239) located near Vancouver. All of these edits have now been deleted and the article restored to its status quo ante. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Birthdate, date of death and age are not right
Born in 1928, died 2009', could not have been 76. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.205.48 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Howe is not dead. His wife died at age 76 in 2009 the article does not mention when she was born.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Legacy" section Update Required: Hamrlik retired
The current sentence reads: "Mark Messier retired only 11 NHL games behind Howe at 1,756 (and counting minor league action and playoffs, 2,048 total professional games), but this is over five seasons away from 2,478 total professional games (including minor league action), almost a thousand games ahead of the active career leader at the end of 2012 (Roman Hamrlik)."

Roman Hamrlik is now retired. I don't know how to update this sentence because I don't know where to look for the correct data. Specifically, I don't know whether Jagr's overseas experience should be included in his game total. Nonetheless, it should be updated. Sxg169 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That whole paragraph is a bit of a train wreck. I suggest just removing the info about the active career leader.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

houses owned by gordie howe
Did Gordie Howe own a house in Edmonton?174.7.204.250 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He wasn't from Alberta, never played for an Alberta team and settled in the Detroit area in retirement, so I can't imagine why he would. It'd be trivial and not worth article space in any event.   Ravenswing   20:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Google search
Gordie Howe Ice hockey player New England Whalers IHL<br ==Records==porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn ... Wikipedia Born: March 31, 1928 (age 86), Floral, Saskatchewan Nationality: Canadian Career start: 1946 Spouse: Colleen Howe (m. 1953–2009) Position: Winger Siblings: Vic Howe

What is this supposed to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmmwa (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was vandalized on April 2nd for a brief period of time (< 1 minute) and Google probably picked it up at that time. The article has been corrected and Google will correct itself too (I'm surprised it hasn't been already). I wouldn't worry about it. Sxg169 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * At the bottom of that box on the Google search page you can click on "Feedback" to let them know about the problem and it might get dealt with more quickly. Google will automatically update its cache of the page eventually.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New Info in WHA section
An anonymous user added the following today: "For the 1974–75 WHA season, the Los Angeles Sharks were relocated to Detroit as the Michigan Stags, presenting an opportunity for Howe to make his professional return to the Motor City. However, as the Aeros were not scheduled to play the Stags in Detroit until February, the opportunity was lost when the Stags folded on January 18th, 1975. The WHA would revive the franchise less than a week later, but as the Baltimore Blades, playing their remaining home schedule (including all of their home games against the Aeros) at the Baltimore Civic Center."

Apart from needing a citation or two, I wonder about the relevancy of the information. Does anyone else think that this information should be removed as irrelevant?

Sxg169 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it since it describes something that never materialized and isn't really relevant to Howe. Teemu08 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE/WP:TRIVIA
This minutiae is indeed trivial, and it does indeed blow through WP:UNDUE. It's mindboggling to have a paragraph with the details of his most recent treatment, while his six NHL MVP awards and six scoring titles, and what he did to get them, are not even mentioned in the main text of the article. That he had emergency surgery to save his life in 1950 is only briefly mentioned, in a single sentence (and the date isn't even given), and the knee surgery that cost him a third of the 1949 season and a good shot at cracking the top five of league scoring isn't mentioned at all. Honestly, we ought not be saying anything more than than this: "In October, 2014, Howe suffered a major stroke, followed by several minor strokes in the weeks following, and as of December 2014 is still under medical care." Period.   Ravenswing   07:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have considerably tightened the short paragraph in the "Personal Life" section about Gordie's October CVA and subsequent remarkable recovery after undergoing stem cell therapy in early December so that it is now just three sentences with four reference citations. To call including this in the article "minutiae", "trivial", and WP:UNDUE as it relates to his personal life, however, is just incorrect. Gordie's son Mark (both have been personal friends of mine for more than 30 years) has kept in frequent contact with me (both by email and in person) about Gordie's deteriorating medical condition since last August. When we met in late November just before Mark was about to again return to Texas to be with Gordie, Mark told me that at that time Gordie's doctors and family did not expect him to make it to Christmas. However in an email from Mark on December 15 (six days after the stem cell procedure) he advised me of Gordie's remarkable change, and when we met three days later on December 18 Mark spent an hour showing me dozens of photographs and video clips of Gordie made both before and after the treatment showing the remarkable restoration of his physical and cognitive abilities as well as his vastly improved quality of life. As for complaining about the lack of coverage of Gordie's "six NHL MVP awards and six scoring titles, and what he did to get them" or any other deficiencies, with respect that is really just a red herring. If an editor thinks that any of this should be added (and it would certainly be appropriate), he or she can cure that easily by simply doing so. Centpacrr (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good that you're on friendly terms with Howe's family, and good that his recent medical procedures have helped his situation, but you must recognize that has no bearing on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We're editing an encyclopedia article, not Howe's comprehensive biography, and however important these medical developments are to himself, his family and his personal friends, they remain trivial over the broad scope of his career and life to the average Wikipedia reader.   Ravenswing   21:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And Howe's hockey accomplishments are hardly a "red herring", either; they are indeed the reason that Howe qualifies for an article, as they are at the heart of his notability. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean by a "red herring" is not whether or not some aspects of his hockey career have not been added yet to the article (they should be), but using their absence as the reason to not include the information about his late personal life health issues in the section of the article entitled "personal life". Perhaps you are not aware of the intense level of interest and mass media coverage this story has generated over the last two months, and the impact his health issues have had in the hockey world. Both have been immense. The item under discussion here consists of three sentences containing 70 words constituting less that 1.5% of Gordie's entire WP entry, hardly an "undue" amount of space. A contention that WP articles must only be written for "the average Wikipedia reader" (whatever that is supposed to be) seems to me to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what encyclopedias in general -- and Wikipedia in particular -- are intended to be. WP is not meant to pablumized its content to appeal only to the lowest common denominator, but instead to provide a broad range of reliably sourced information to expand its visitors' knowledge and understanding as opposed to only that which interests everybody. If that were the case, WP would be a vacuous and useless reference source indeed. So instead to trying to remove relevant, accurate, and well sourced "personal life" information from the section of the article on that topic on speciously misapplied "policy and guideline" grounds, why not instead devote your efforts to expanding the sections on his career that you seem to find deficient. That way you can help improve the article instead of trying to diminish it. Centpacrr (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Look, Centpacrr, right now you're edit warring against several editors who just don't see this your way, and it's enough to start thinking about consensus. Right now, I support "In October, 2014, Howe suffered a major stroke, followed by several minor strokes in the weeks following, and as of December 2014 is still under medical care," as the statement that should be in the article, and all the other extraneous detail is no more pertinent than for any other serious medical problem in Howe's life.   Ravenswing   02:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, sir this is hardly "edit warring", just a difference in views on editorial judgement, and so far you are also the only editor that has expressed a disagreement with what I have posted above. (The other editor who posted in here only commented about my use of the term "red herring" which he misunderstood what I applied it to.) I was also not the OP of the original paragraph on Gordie's stem cell treatment that you objected to and deleted, and my current version is considerably shorter and more concise than that one as well. I have now twice explained in detail exactly why I have edited this the way I have, but instead of addressing any of those points you have elected to now accuse me of edit warring, and all of this about a 70 word paragraph supported by four reliable published sources. As far as I can tell, the only "reason" you seem to be standing on for this position is that you claim this information would not interest "the average Wikipedia reader". If that is indeed your position to support a claim that this material constitutes of a violation of WP "policies and guidelines" then please cite exactly what one(s) you are referring to.

 * With respect, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that these three sentences are not relevant to Gordie's "personal life" (the section they are in), that they are not well and reliably sourced, that they are not true, and that they would not even be of interest the "average Wikipedia reader". If they don't interest you, you are, of course, perfectly free to personally ignore them. But that is not now (nor has it ever been) a valid reason for any editor to deny any information on WP to others. This only constitutes a difference of 42 words, after all, between the current version and the one you support which to me is so pablumized as to be virtually meaningless. Your carrying on this "dispute" over 42 words also hardly seems worth the expense of the now some 1,300+ words -- and the effort to write them -- so far expended in this thread. So with respect I ask you again, why not help improve the article by adding material to the sections you may consider to be deficient instead of seeking to diminish it by removing material that doesn't interest you? Centpacrr (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Err ... you HAVE noticed that you've reverted the edits of three editors who've sought to change or truncate those statements? As far as the filibustering on this issue goes, you've written several times as much as I have, and no one forced you to do so.  As far as my rationale for making this change goes, I've explained my reasoning.  You don't like it, and that's obvious, but the nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is the approval of any one editor is not a prerequisite for proceeding with edits.  As far as such a statement being "pablum" or "meaningless," nonsense: there is nothing about the name of the clinic, the town it's located in or the precise nature of the procedure that's at all of encyclopedic value, any more than numerous other details equally mentioned in the sources cited and which you elected to leave out.   Ravenswing   04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have not addressed any of the specific points I have raised above or cited any "policies and guidelines" you claim to have been violated. The only "rationale" you seem to be advancing to support your position is a vague claim that this information would not interest "the average Wikipedia reader" which has never been grounds for deletion on WP. By pablumized I mean that the version you support says nothing more then Gordie had a stroke and was treated which thereby completely ignores the seriousness of his condition from the end of October until December 8, and his remarkable recovery literally from death's door after the stem cell treatments. The only "revert" I made was to restore the other OP's paragraph you had deleted in its entirety. The other edits were to tighten it, trim some repetitive information (which you had also deleted previously), and added a couple of new references. As for the rest, see supra. Centpacrr (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The only revert? What about ?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I agree with   Ravenswing  . Howe is famous for his hockey exploits, not his stroke.  The stroke should be mentioned but everything else surrounding his recovery is irrelevant.  I would recommend the sentence remain "In October, 2014, Howe suffered a major stroke, followed by several minor strokes in the weeks following, and as of December 2014 is still under medical care." Sxg169 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is too much as it stands. A few sentences about his recovery are warranted. It can be re-encapsulated at a future date should it grow again, but it is a rather important episode in his life, and given the size of the article, one reasonably-sized paragraph isn't hurting anything. Elizium23 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Gordie is indeed famous for his hockey exploits and that is what the vast majority of the article covers. The two sentences about his devastating October CVA and then miraculous recovery following stem cell therapy six weeks later, however, are in the section of the entry on his non-hockey related "personal life" of which these two closely related events have been both a major element, and have received massive ongoing media coverage and interest by the hockey world. Recognizing that fully in the "personal life" section of this article is therefore not trivial, nor is doing so with two sentences (representing less than 1.5% of the article's total text) hardly of undue length. Centpacrr (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still way too detailed with things that lack context. "...recognize family members, and his tested ability to name items improved from 20 to 85 percent." is that remarkable or noteworthy? When did he lose the ability to recognize family members? Is 85% a good score? What would you get if you were tested right now? What is this test? And what does this test tell us about Gordie Howe, the hockey player and of his achievements? Echoedmyron (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, please look at the TITLE of the section in which these two sentences appear: "Personal Life". As used in this and many thousands of other Wikipedia articles about notable persons, this is the section title used to discuss the aspects of their personal and family lives that are specifically not related to what makes them notable to the public which in Gordie's case is where non-hockey related material about him is placed. As for context, that is also supplied in exactly the same way it is done in every Wikipedia entry: by multiple cited sources that are linked to the text by numbered footnotes. In the case of these two sentences there are no fewer than five such citations (#'s 20-24). As for your question "And what does this test tell us about Gordie Howe, the hockey player and of his achievements?" the answer is "absolutely nothing", nor, for that matter, is anything else in the "personal life" section of his entry intended to do so either for the reasons stated above. I hope this clarifies your understanding on how Wikipedia is designed to be structured to present information in these areas. Centpacrr (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional Note: As I noted in my first posting in this thread, Gordie's son Mark (a good personal friend and professional colleague of mine for more than 30 years), has been continuously updating me both by email and in person since early August on Gordie's health situation, and in our most recent one-on-one meeting on December 18 he spent an hour briefing me on every aspect of Gordie's condition following his October stroke, the early December stem cell treatments, and the subsequent remarkable improvement in his condition. Mark's briefing included showing me many photographs and videos (including of the "recognition" tests) of Gordie taken after his stroke in October as well as before and after his treatments at the Novastem clinic. Based on this briefing I am absolutely convinced that the current paragraph accurately reflects the facts it states. And no, this is not "original research" on my part as everything in those two sentences is also fully supported by the five published sources cited in footnotes #s 20-24 in the article's References section. Centpacrr (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 * With all due respect, Centpacrr, this article ultimately requires only a single paragraph to cover his late-life health issues, and the stroke itself requires exactly exactly one sentence to convey all that is encyclopedic: "Howe suffered a series of strokes on " Given his treatments won't reverse the effects of old age, they simply will not be relevant for very much longer, if they even are today. I would add that the occupations of his children and the places they live aren't relevant either. Resolute 19:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Given that between here and the various reversions five editors have chimed in against Centpacrr's POV, I've truncated the strokes to a single sentence again, while leaving in Centpaccr's citations. Beyond that, with all due respect, Centpacrr, you're starting to stray into WP:OWN territory, and given your frequent statements about your closeness to and personal contact with the family, perhaps you ought to step back and let other editors take the puck here. If there is information noteworthy enough for Howe's article, other editors can and will submit it.   Ravenswing   21:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with the two comments immediately above for all the reasons I have stated earlier which I incorporate here by reference, I will not pursue this particular issue further as at least the five citations I added have been retained. While truncating this denies readers a fuller understanding of Gordie's condition, at least they are provided with an avenue to find out by opening the links to the cited material. However I am again constrained to observe that the concept that the contributions of any editor to the project with demonstrated experience, expertise, and/or first hand knowledge in or of any topic on Wikipedia should be discounted as "POV", "original research", or as being unreliable (especially when the information in their contributions is supported by other reliable cited sources) is shortsighted, counterproductive to the goals of the the Wikipedia Project, and flies in the face of how every other encyclopedia and reference work is produced. I have also tightened the sentence and removed the reference to suffering "a series of small strokes" following the October 26 event. HIs TIAs came in August while staying with Mark in Jackson, New Jersey. What was first thought to be another CVA for which he was hospitalized in late November actually proved to be severe dehydration. Centpacrr (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly - the links allow for that "fuller understanding". It's not wikipedia's job to provide up to the minute health updates for anyone.Echoedmyron (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (shrugs) I'll tell you what, Centpacrr.  You find me another credible encyclopedia that discusses the exact facilities and dates on which players get medical treatment, I'll apologize beautifully. (Good luck; the Encyclopedia Britannica entry  on Howe is two paragraphs long.) That being said, you know why Wikipedia doesn't commonly give credence to the expertise of individual editors: because thousands of editors claim to have that expertise.  Most of them are deluded, most of the rest are lying, and we have no idea who's what. Take me, for instance.  I'm demonstrably knowledgeable about hockey.  I've been a coach, a player, a referee, a journalist, a broadcaster, and a season ticket holder for both the pros and college hockey.  I've had hockey articles published.  I've been a SIHR member, sponsored in by Dawson City Seven author Don Reddick, a family friend who played under my father.  My grandfather was an original Bruins season ticket holder, and he was a personal friend of Leo Boivin, Milt Schmidt, Fern Flaman and Jerry Toppazzini.  I've attended matches all over the continent, from the juniors to the UHL to the ECHL to the IHL to the AHL to Div III ECHA to Hockey East to the Cup Finals.  I've held the Calder Cup and the Stanley Cup. And you have no proof of any of that. No one here's ever met me.  It's probable no one ever will. For all you know, some or all of what I just wrote is BS. This is why Wikipedia relies on published, third-party sources for its information.   Ravenswing   02:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason there is no way to determine what you claim about your hockey background is true or not is obvious to me: because you also choose to edit on Wikipedia anonymously and thus have provided no independent way to judge your bono fedes. I, on the other hand, have chosen to not be an anonymous editor, but one who has been completely open and forthright about my identity, background, and credentials since I first began to contribute to the project in 2006 by providing information about that which can be independntly verified. (See my userpage here.) What I said thus applies only to those who have reliably demonstrated their experience, expertise, and/or first hand knowledge in a subject. Remember also that just because something that is cited has been published is no guarantee that it is reliable, verifiable, or vetted, especially if it is only published on the internet without being independently vetted.
 * As for the issue of "find me another credible encyclopedia that discusses the exact facilities and dates on which players get medical treatment", I have never claimed that there is one. The uniqueness (and a strength) of the Wikipedia Project is that it is edited and updated in real time as opposed to print encyclopedias which are not, but remain static for years, decades, or forever during which time much of their content can also become out of date, obsolete, and/or "stale". Existing only "on line", the size of its articles are also not constrained by the expense and infrastructure required for "hard copy" publishing, a major factor in limiting what is included in such publications. But that is really not the point I was making about the essential difference in overall credibility and authority because of how WP and those other encyclopedias and reference works are produced and edited. The difference is that those other works are not written and edited anonymously but by paid, vetted authors and editors who attach their names to them, and in doing so also accept personal and professional accountability and responsibility for what they produce. Would you, for instance, ever agree to publish any article you have written for SIHR or any other publication or outlet -- even without compensation -- without attaching your name to it? I have had seven books on hockey (3) and North American railroad history (4), and several thousand articles on many non-fiction subjects including hockey published over the past half century and never once did I do so without including my name on any of them. The fact the WP does not require its contributors to identify themselves is the main reason that it's overall credibility often suffers considerably without further crosschecking in comparison to other reference works that do. (See here for a good explanation of why this is the case.) This does not mean that I believe that Wikipedia has no value -- far from it -- only that it should never be treated as if it is "gospel" but instead only as a background tool or guide to information as opposed to "the final word" on anything. Centpacrr (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To play devil's advocate -- and this is the last post I'm making on the subject, because we're straying well off of the purpose of this talk page -- for all we know, you're just linking to Some Guy's website, and none of us have any verifiable proof that you're one and the same. I could just as readily do the same, and link to a hockey research website.  (As to that, though, it wouldn't work, because up until a couple of years ago, I did use my real name on Wikipedia, and as my user page states, flipped to anonymous because I was concerned that my name was splashed all over the Internet as much as it was.  Trying to claim that I was really of the ilk of Klein, Reif, Slate or the like wouldn't fly.)  That being said, if you're dissatisfied at the way Wikipedia operates, this isn't the talk page to make that pitch.   Ravenswing   17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to one link to HockeyScoop.net (i.e., "Some Guy's website") which I identified as my own hockey history website that contains online copies of some of my published articles (some of which have been cited by others in Wikipedia articles and on many other websits as reliable third party sources) and many photographs, there are also links to the websites over which I have no control or (with the exception of one) input such as the Internet Movie Data Base, HBO Sports, HockeyBuzz.com, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, ABE Books, Polyglot Press, and even other Wikipedia entries, as well as eight photographs (some of which also appear on HockeyScoop.net) taken between 1974 and November, 2014, all of which are related to my professional hockey background, experience, appearances in documentary films, and my many works published in print by others. You are, of course, free to personally reject all of these as "not verifiable" if you care to, especially if you never look at the pages they link to. The fact is, however, I have provided both the community and its visitors with as much verifiable information about myself as I reasonably can in order to aid anyone who wishes to evaluate my contributions to the project as well as my level of expertise and experience. The information I have provided there is also far more than is normally disclosed about the contributors to professionally written and edited encyclopedias and reference works published in print, or for that matter in the vast majority of the third party sources cited to support information in WP articles. If this is not good enough for you so be it, but there is really nothing either I or anyone else can do about that. Centpacrr (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously: take a good look at the length of this entire passage on this talk page, and then take a look at even the lengthiest passage on the article that this discussion is about. You are obsessing about minutiae. It's way past time to put down the stick and move on.
 * No, I am just responding to the comments of other editors made here pointing out why I disagree with them on points of fact, opinion, and their interpretation of WP policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in such discussions in any forum on WP. And by pointing out what I consider to be a fundamental weakness in how the project operates, I might even be able to change the minds of some of them. It wouldn't be the first time I did so! Centpacrr (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Issue
The decision to place the symbol © on a document is entirely a unilateral action on the part of the person who created the document. No government approval is required, and the presence of the symbol does not express or imply any governmental recognition, approval, or other action. At best, it is a claim, on the part of the author, that the material is subject to copyright protection.

As the United States Supreme Court has ruled, however, facts, such as a list of names and addresses in a telephone directory, are not subject to copyright protection. There must be some original contribution to the work, and even if there is, it is only the original input that is entitled to copyright protection. See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

John Paul Parks (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you be specific as to what you are talking about here? One of the images? The stats? Resolute 16:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Spelling Usage
Howe is a U.S. figure, specifically associated with Detroit, Michigan, and he is primarily of interest to U.S. residents, particularly fans of the Detroit Redwings hockey team. The mere fact that he was born in Canada does not justify the use of Canadian spelling in writing this article. The article should be rewritten to conform to American spelling usage. John Paul Parks (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The person's tie, for the purposes of WP:ENGVAR is reflected in their nationality. As Howe was Canadian, en-ca is the proper format for this article.  No different than an American athlete whose career was primarily spent in Canada should remain en-us (i.e.: Craig Conroy).  Resolute 16:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we know whether Howe ever became a naturalized U.S. citizen?John Paul Parks (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if he was a U.S. citizen, he was a Canadian citizen first, and played for Canada in international events. Therefore, we use Canadian spelling. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Even in the most charitable view of your argument, you could only claim no predominant tie to either nation. And that would still mean the existing format retains precedence. Resolute 14:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete verification for categories
His categories include "Order of Hockey in Canada recipients" and "Officers of the Order of Canada" yet neither seem to be covered with citations in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Is "National Hockey League players with retired numbers" cited anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Or "Canadian Protestants"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Or "Canadian people of English descent"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Or "Canada's Sports Hall of Fame inductees"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Or "Hart Memorial Trophy winners"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dropped Protestants and decent, cited the rest. Teemu08 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Pullman berth
Side question - what on earth is (or was) a Pullman berth? Mentioned in the article as the reason Howe accepted number 9. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

In ye olden tymes, such as when Gordie Howe started playing in 1946, professional hockey teams-and most professional sports teams-traveled by train. Some trips in the "Original 6" NHL, such as from Detroit to Boston, were overnight trips. So, the teams contracted for what were called Sleeper or Pullman Cars. In addition to regular train cars with seats, dining cars, lounge cars, there were cars for sleeping, usually called Pullmans. These were cars equipped with bunks on either side of the aisle, with curtains that provided privacy. Typically the lights were turned out at night with the exception of a few running lights like we have on commercial airlines today for when the pilot turns out the main lights so passengers can try to get some sleep on long flights. The beds were stacked like a regular bunk bed. Gordie's number change afforded him what was considered the better place, the lower berth. Hope that explains it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.16.39 (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Gordie's place of death
According to Wikipedia, Gordie died in Toledo, Ohio. However, according to a Blade article, he died in the Toledo suburb of Sylvania, Ohio, though no specifics were given other than that, plus a fact that a Sylvania funeral home is arranging for services in Detroit. -- azumanga (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Gordie knocking out Maurice Richard...
There is no proof that this ever occurred. The reference given is an arm of the HHOF which would lead one to believe that whatever they say MUST be truth. However, after much digging, there seems to be no such record of this in the newspapers of the day. I checked the Montreal Gazette and Dink Carroll (who is himself in the HHOF) never mentioned anything about this incident check it here https://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=9IU1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=9pgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4673%2C5115969. As well as the Windsor Daily Star (right across the border from Detroit) here https://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=4hI_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=C08MAAAAIBAJ&pg=1714%2C3978222 no mention of this. Maurice Richard was THE superstar at that time, had a rookie knocked him out it would have made the news...I suggest that this sentence be deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.244.76 (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've all but confirmed this to be nothing but an urban legend...The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had an interview with Red Kelly on November 12, 1970, about fighting in hockey.

In the interview, Kelly says that Howe and Richard faced off only once in their career. King Clancy was the ref and allowed the 2 to square off to see "who was the better fighter". After each threw a few punches at each other, Kelly says that Richard slipped and lost his balance and went sliding across the ice on his butt. Sid Abel made a remark towards Richard sitting on the ice. Richard got up and punched Abel, breaking his nose.

Kelly goes on to say, "We never did get to see who was the better fighter between Richard and Howe."

Read the whole article here...https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Z9wNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zmwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5098%2C1720725

The Windsor Daily Star reported this fight as well. It occurred on January 29, 1949. According to Howe's wiki article, this apparently happened during his rookie season...not the case. In the article, it reads exactly what Kelly mentions in his 1970's article. However, the original 1949 article also mentions that Richard's follow-through punch on Abel grazed the face of ref Clancy garnering him a game misconduct...

Here's the 1949 article of that game...https://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=5x8_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=qU8MAAAAIBAJ&pg=4999%2C849619

Based on Red Kelly's first-hand on-ice account in his 1970 article, and the actual 1949 post-game article, I am deleting that sentence... 76.64.244.76 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objections, honestly. We've found, over the years, the HHOF website to be inaccurate about a lot of things, and be far more interested in a good story over a hard fact.  If you've found reliable sources to the contrary, that's good work.   Ravenswing   19:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you. It's insane, but after checking the history of that line in this wiki article... it has been there for 9 and a half years! 76.64.244.76 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gordie Howe. 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 tag to https://features.wearemel.com/why-cameron-frye-wore-a-gordie-howe-jersey-in-ferris-buellers-day-off-adfc36129fd5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509231435/http://www.databasehockey.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=HOWEGOR01 to http://databasehockey.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=HOWEGOR01

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) 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gordie Howe. 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/20110714142638/http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/the-gordie-howe-international-bridge- to http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/the-gordie-howe-international-bridge-

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) 15:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gordie Howe. 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/20121104062127/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=69851ce8-2418-4a06-9d8e-fd8a61e08f8a&k=24263 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=69851ce8-2418-4a06-9d8e-fd8a61e08f8a&k=24263

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) 08:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gordie Howe. 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/20160808120831/http://www.edmontonjournal.com/statue+Gordie+Howe+shown+Saskatoon+April+2016+Howe+continues+tourism+draw+home+town+city+relocated+bronze+statue+Hall+Famer+from+downtown+then+SaskTel+Centre/11846583/story.html to http://www.edmontonjournal.com/statue+Gordie+Howe+shown+Saskatoon+April+2016+Howe+continues+tourism+draw+home+town+city+relocated+bronze+statue+Hall+Famer+from+downtown+then+SaskTel+Centre/11846583/story.html

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) 15:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Simpsons
Just a brief mention in "legacy" for his photo being used in season 3 episode 15? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:AA60:8E00:30CE:8B05:C766:ED8A (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Where gordie lived when he first came to detroit
When gordie Howe first played for the red wings in about 1947, he lived in a rooming (or boarding) house on Lawton, within walking distance of the Olympia. My grandfather lived at 6221 Lawton and he used to see Gordie walking to the Olympia, he said, with his skates slung over his shoulder. I can’t remember the name of the rooming house — something like “Ma’s xxxxx.). Anyway, about 45 years later, I was working at General Motors and the call came that gordie Howe wanted to visit the Detroit-Hamtramck Plant. Sure!  I took him around with great UAW help.  On the way, I asked him about the rooming house on Lawton.  He confirmed that was were he stayed.  He was a nice nice man.  — Anne Marie Sylvester, amgoblue67@gmail.com 2600:1700:BF30:1BE0:3D5D:A76D:44C1:8E7D (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gordie Howe


text:
Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness

Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness (ポケモンXD 闇の旋風ダーク・ルギア) is a role-playing video game in the Pokémon series developed by Genius Sonority and published by The Pokémon Company and Nintendo. It was released for the GameCube on August 4, 2005, in Japan; October 3, 2005, in North America; November 10, 2005, in Australia; and November 18, 2005, in Europe. Pokémon XD is the successor to the GameCube title Pokémon Colosseum and takes place in Orre, the setting of Pokémon Colosseum's adventure mode. All of the Game Boy Advance Pokémon games can connect to this game through trading and Battle Mode.

Pokémon XD was first announced in March 2005 as a new GameCube game and not a sequel to Colosseum, though later developments as well as two promotional demo versions confirmed the game would be similar to its predecessor. Shadow Pokémon, first introduced in Colosseum, are a major gameplay element, and a Shadow Lugia is featured on the game's box art. Munchlax and Bonsly, two Pokémon from the fourth generation of main Pokémon games, make debut appearances in Pokémon XD.

The game garnered mixed to positive reviews among critics, with common criticisms being directed at similarities to and re-used assets from Colosseum. Commercially Pokémon XD was a success, selling more than 1 million copies since its release.

Shadow Pokémon
The main focus of the game, like its predecessor, is to capture Shadow Pokémon and fight with them and also file up their information in pokedex. Shadow Pokémon are captured using the Snag Machine, as in Pokémon Colosseum. In this game there are 83 different Shadow Pokémon to collect. Each Shadow Pokémon has a set of Shadow moves that it knows to give it more variety in combat, which is a significant change from Pokémon Colosseum. Shadow moves can be either physical or special, which is the only type of move that was capable of this in Generation III. This changed once Generation IV brought physical and special moves for each type. These moves often have lower power than their non-Suspicious counterparts, but still inflict more damage due to being super effective. Their usefulness is also increased by not having to use PP when you use a move, as they can be used as often as needed within a single battle. If at some point in the game the player cannot catch a Shadow Pokémon, there is a second chance available: at random points throughout the game an antagonist, Miror B. will appear and have a Shadow Pokémon that the player was not able to catch. Once the player has obtained 82 of the Shadow Pokémon, Miror B. will appear one final time with the final obtainable Shadow Pokémon in the game.

Purifying Shadow Pokémon
Once a Shadow Pokémon is captured the player then has to purify it. There are two different ways of purifying Pokémon: one way is to use the Purification Chamber, and the other is to carry the Pokémon in the party just like in Pokémon Colosseum. The Purification Chamber allows the player to place anywhere from 1 to 4 Pokémon in a circle and a Shadow Pokémon is placed in the center of this circle. Depending on the Pokémon that are placed in the circle the tempo will increase, which increases the speed of purifying the Shadow Pokémon. After that the Shadow Pokémon will be purified as the player walks around, and they will be notified when a Shadow Pokémon is ready to be purified. When the player carries the Pokémon in the party and battles with them, they will gain experience when they are purified. If the Purification Chamber is used then the Pokémon will not gain any experience, but with the Purification Chamber multiple Pokémon can be purified at the same time.

Mt. Battle
The Mt. Battle area is an area that is accessible early on in the game and is a 100 trainer challenge. The 100 battles are split into 10 battles in 10 different zones with the trainers in each zone being stronger than the ones in the zone before. The tenth trainer in each zone is called the Area Leader, and after each Area Leader is defeated the player gets a specific number of pokecoupons. When the player defeats an Area Leader the first time the player gets a special item. At the front desk Mt. Battle the player can exchange their pokecoupons for certain prizes.

Poke Spots
One other new aspect to the game is that there are three different PokeSpots throughout the game. At these special locations the player can lay Poke snacks in the area to cause wild Pokémon to appear. At these 3 locations 9 different wild Pokémon can be captured and they can be traded for rare Pokémon.

Story
The story begins five years after the events of Pokémon Colosseum with the introduction of The Hero (named Michael by default) as the main protagonist. Michael talks to Professor Krane, his mother's boss, who introduces the concept of Shadow Pokémon, which are Pokémon whose hearts have been artificially closed. The criminal syndicate Team Cipher is creating and distributing them for their evil purposes. Krane also introduces the Snag Machine, which is used to capture Shadow Pokémon to purify. Krane entrusts Michael with the Snag Machine to capture these Shadow Pokémon and is given the Aura Reader (the eye piece) to identify them from normal Pokémon.

Shortly after this, Krane is kidnapped by Cipher agents. Michael goes after the Cipher Agents to rescue Krane, and soon is led on many adventures throughout Orre. He must defeat the Cipher Peons and Admins and rescue the shadow Pokémon to save Orre from the evil Cipher. At the end of the game, he must get to Citadark Isle and battle the main villain: Master Greevil, who, in the beginning of the game, was thinly disguised as an old rich man named Mr. Verich. After Michael defeats Greevil and snags his shadow Pokémon, he must purify all of them, including the (seemingly) impossible to purify Shadow Lugia. After all of the Pokémon are purified, Michael returns home and puts down his snag machine, but he stores it safely in his room to be used if it is ever needed again.

Development and marketing
In March 2005, Nintendo of America executive Reggie Fils-Aimé said that Pokémon XD would be a new GameCube game, but not a sequel to Colosseum. He said that the gameplay would be more similar to the Game Boy Advance role-playing video games Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire.

Japanese gaming magazines Famitsu and CoroCoro Comic later gave screenshots and information that revealed that the game would have 3D graphics similar to those of its predecessor, Pokémon Colosseum. It was also revealed that the game would continue the inclusion of Shadow Pokémon and snagging from Colosseum. Nothing of the plot was revealed, other than the fact that a black Shadow Lugia was said to play a large part in the story. It was also revealed that the player starts with an Eevee, and that the levels progress more closely to the main handheld series. The Eevee that you are given by default can evolve into any of five Pokémon, Vaporeon, Flareon, Jolteon, Umbreon, or Espeon. Towards the start of the game when the player must enter the parts shop, there is a man who will give you any of the five evolution-inducers: Sun Shard, Moon Shard, Water Stone, Fire Stone, or Thunder Stone.

Nintendo released two demos to promote the game. In the demo released to retail stores, the player goes through two battles where the player can snag three Shadow Pokémon. The second demo was playable on the "Pokémon Rocks America" tour.

This game features two Sinnoh related Pokémon species from the Diamond and Pearl generation introduced in Pokémon: Destiny Deoxys, both of which evolve into previous species. They are Munchlax, which evolves into Snorlax, and Bonsly, which evolves into Sudowoodo. However, they cannot be obtained in the Advanced series titles, because they lack the Sinnoh Pokédex, although the player can temporarily use Bonsly during one minigame.

Reception
Pokémon XD received mixed to positive reviews, usually scoring 6–7 out of 10 (8.6 out of 10 was its highest score).

The game was commonly criticized for having a large amount of recycled material from the earlier Pokémon Colosseum. This recycled material includes a number of reused areas, some recycled graphics and a modified engine. GameSpot commented that "not much has changed since the original". Another common complaint were the Poké Spot areas, regarded as very limited and small compared to Ruby and Sapphire. While discussing the mixed quality of the Pokémon console games, Retronauts recalled it as an example. Gamepro magazine gave the game a mixed review, criticizing the gameplay being monotonous and lacking challenge. They also felt the game "doesn't have the pizazz for mature audiences," but gave praise for the game's flashy visual style of the Pokémon and their attacks, concluding “Gale of Darkness is not a terminally unplayable game by any stretch of the definition, but gamers are going to really have to love Pokémon in order to find gratification here.”

Like its predecessor, Pokémon XD was a commercial success, selling over 1 million units as of March 31, 2006.

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

title: Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness


text: Category talk:Toronto Toros players

title: Category talk:Toronto Toros players


text:
British Overseas citizen

A British Overseas citizen (BOC) is a holder of a residual class of British nationality, largely held by people connected with former British colonies who do not have close ties to the United Kingdom or its overseas territories. Individuals with this form of nationality are British nationals and Commonwealth citizens, but not British citizens. BOCs are subject to immigration control when entering the United Kingdom and do not have the automatic right of abode there or in any British overseas territory.

This nationality gives its holders a limited set of rights when they are resident in the United Kingdom, conferring eligibility to vote, to obtain citizenship under a simplified process, and to serve in public office or non-reserved government positions. As of 2024, about 10,000 BOCs hold valid British passports with this status and enjoy consular protection when travelling abroad. However, BOCs who do not have the right to live in the UK nor the overseas territories and have no other citizenship are de facto stateless as they are not guaranteed the right to enter the country of which they are nationals.

Background
From 1949 to 1983, all citizens of the British Empire held a common nationality. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) initially held an automatic right to enter and live in the UK. This entitlement was given to all British subjects, which included CUKCs and citizens of independent countries in the Commonwealth of Nations, as part of a wider initiative to preserve close relationships with the white-majority Dominions (Australia, Canada and New Zealand) and white-dominated South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, and to moderate nationalist attitudes within the Commonwealth. Non-white immigrants were systemically discouraged from entering the UK, though there was no legal limitation to their migration. The Colonial Office ordered colonial governments to hinder prospective migrants of colour by informing them of the difficulties they would face in finding housing accommodation and employment in Britain, as well as confiscating passports from those who were deemed to have insufficient funds or determined to be unemployable. Nevertheless, 500,000 of these new immigrants had settled in the UK by 1962.

Immigration from the colonies and other Commonwealth countries was formally restricted by Parliament from 1962 to 1971, when British subjects originating from outside of the British Islands first had immigration controls officially imposed on them when entering the United Kingdom. As Britain withdrew from most of its remaining overseas possessions as part of decolonisation, some former colonial subjects remained CUKCs despite the independence of their colonies. After passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, CUKCs were reclassified in 1983 into different nationality groups based on their ancestry, birthplace, and immigration status: CUKCs who had right of abode in the United Kingdom became British citizens while those connected with a remaining colony became British Dependent Territories citizens (BDTCs). Remaining CUKCs who were no longer associated with a British territory became British Overseas citizens. An estimated 1.5 million people were reclassified as BOCs in 1983, 1.3 million of whom also held another nationality.

Debate over full citizenship rights
The creation of different British nationality classes with disparities in United Kingdom residency rights drew criticism for creating what was seen as a two-tier system. The vast majority of people who were classified as British citizens in 1983 were white, while those assigned BDTC or BOC status were predominantly Asian. The deprivation of full nationality rights was particularly distressful for the Indian diaspora in Southeast Africa, many of whom migrated to Africa during colonial rule while working in the civil service. As former East African colonies gained independence, aggressive Africanisation policies and an increasingly discriminatory environment in the post-colonial countries against the Asian population caused many among them to seek migration to Britain. While CUKCs without strong ties to the British Islands were already subject to immigration controls starting in 1962, the subdivision of nationality reinforced the idea that British identity depended on race.

A "special quota voucher scheme" was introduced in 1968 to annually admit a small number of CUKCs (and later BOCs), along with their dependents, who held no other nationality and who were pressured to leave their countries of residence. Waiting times under the quota system were extremely long, with applicants waiting in excess of five years to receive a voucher to enter the UK. The system was abolished in 2002, when Parliament granted remaining BOCs who held no other nationality the right to register as full British citizens. About 35,000 BOCs were estimated to have benefited from this provision at the time of the law's passage.

Prior to 2002, British Overseas citizens from Malaysia had been able to petition for British citizenship after renouncing Malaysian citizenship. After passage of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, these requests were no longer considered. However, a number of Malaysian BOCs continued their applications after this change in immigration policy and renounced their Malaysian citizenship after being given incorrect legal advice. Due to differences in how the governments recognise nationality renunciation, both the British and Malaysian governments consider this group of individuals nationals of the other country and refuse to give them any form of permanent status. Debate over ultimate responsibility for this group of BOCs (estimated to be 1,000–2,000 people) continues while they remain stateless without a territory that they have a guaranteed right to remain in.

Acquisition and loss
Becoming a British Overseas citizen is generally not possible. The status cannot be acquired by naturalisation and can only be transferred by descent if an individual born to a BOC parent would otherwise be stateless. It is expected that BOCs will obtain citizenship in the country they reside in and that the number of active status holders will eventually dwindle until there are none. Almost all individuals with this status obtained it in 1983, when Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without right of abode in the United Kingdom or ties to remaining British overseas territories were reclassified as British Overseas citizens. Due to the broad nature of the governing Acts that determine CUKC and BOC eligibility, there are a variety of circumstances in which an individual could have acquired BOC status. These include:

 * CUKCs connected with a former colony or protectorate who did not acquire that country's citizenship on independence (applicable particularly to some former colonies, such as Kenya and Aden); connection in this context generally means having acquired CUKC status by birth or naturalisation in a qualified territory, or by birth to a father or grandfather who fulfilled those requirements
 * persons who became citizens of a newly independent country, but remained CUKCs (applicable to the former Straits Settlements of Penang and Malacca, as well as Cyprus)
 * persons who became citizens of a newly independent country, but remained CUKCs based on a connection to another colony which subsequently became independent before 1983
 * BDTCs connected with Hong Kong who failed to register for British National (Overseas) status and would otherwise have been stateless after the transfer of sovereignty to China on 1 July 1997
 * British subjects connected with Burma who made declarations to retain that status after independence in 1948
 * women who acquired CUKC by marriage on or after 28 October 1971
 * minor children who acquired CUKC by registration at the British high commission of an independent Commonwealth country on or after 28 October 1971
 * eligible descendants of Sophia of Hanover who have never been members of the Catholic Church.

Several early independence acts did not remove CUKC status from certain citizens of newly independent states. In the former Straits Settlements of Penang and Malacca, around one million Straits Chinese were allowed to continue as CUKCs with Malayan citizenship when the Federation of Malaya became independent in 1957. Consequently, when Malaya merged with North Borneo, Sarawak, and Singapore to form Malaysia in 1963, CUKC status was not rescinded from individuals already holding Malayan citizenship. Similarly, when Cyprus became independent in 1960, Cypriots who were not resident in Cyprus for the five years leading up to independence and were also living in another Commonwealth country would not have lost CUKC status.

In some cases, a former colony's new government only granted citizenship to members of the majority ethnic group. When Aden became part of the newly independent South Yemen in 1967, individuals who were not of Arab ancestry did not acquire Yemeni citizenship and remained CUKCs. Likewise, Hong Kong residents lost BDTC status when that territory was transferred to China in 1997. Residents choosing to retain British nationality were able to voluntarily register for British National (Overseas) status before the handover. Individuals who were not ethnically Chinese did not acquire Chinese nationality on that date and automatically became BOCs if they would have been made stateless.

Sophia of Hanover was placed in the English line of succession in 1705 to avoid a reigning Catholic monarch. Because she was German, Parliament passed an Act to naturalise the Electress as an English subject, along with all of her lineal descendants. Although the British Nationality Act 1948 ended the naturalisation of further direct descendants, eligible non-Catholic persons born before 1949 would have already become British subjects. Those individuals would also be able to transmit British nationality to at least one further generation. Because such persons would not automatically have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, some current claimants to British nationality through the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 could receive British Overseas citizenship.

British Overseas citizenship can be relinquished by a declaration made to the Home Secretary, provided that an individual already possesses or intends to acquire another nationality. BOC status may also be deprived if it was fraudulently acquired. There is no path to restore BOC status once lost.

Rights and privileges
British Overseas citizens are exempted from obtaining a visa or entry certificate when visiting the United Kingdom for less than six months. They are eligible to apply for two-year working holiday visas and do not face annual quotas or sponsorship requirements. When travelling in other countries, they may seek British consular protection. BOCs are not considered foreign nationals when residing in the UK and are entitled to certain rights as Commonwealth citizens. These include exemption from registration with local police, voting eligibility in UK elections, and the ability to enlist in the British Armed Forces. British Overseas citizens are also eligible to serve in non-reserved Civil Service posts, be granted British honours, receive peerages, and sit in the House of Lords. If given indefinite leave to remain (ILR), they are eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons and local government. ILR status usually expires if an individual leaves the UK and remains abroad for over two years, but this limitation does not apply to BOCs. Prior to 2002, BOCs who entered the UK on a work permit were automatically given indefinite leave to remain.

BOCs may become British citizens by registration, rather than naturalisation, after residing in the United Kingdom for more than five years and possessing ILR for more than one year. Registration confers citizenship otherwise than by descent, meaning that children born outside of the UK to those successfully registered will be British citizens by descent. Becoming a British citizen has no effect on BOC status; BOCs may also simultaneously be British citizens. BOCs who were Hong Kong residents and had no other nationality on 3 February 1997 may also register for citizenship without UK residence requirements. Applicants who successfully register in this way become British citizens by descent and cannot pass citizenship to their children born outside of the UK. Remaining BOCs who do not hold and have not lost any other nationality on or after 4 July 2002 are entitled to register as British citizens. As of 2024, there are about 10,000 people who continue to be BOCs and hold valid British passports with the status.

Restrictions
BOCs who hold no other nationality are de facto stateless because they are deprived of entering the country that claims them as nationals. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allowed these individuals to register as British citizens, after which statelessness was generally resolved for people who were solely BOCs. However, there remain circumstances in which BOCs are effectively stateless after 4 July 2002, including:

 * a BOC is also a citizen of a country that considers acquisition of a foreign passport to be grounds for citizenship deprivation (e.g. Malaysia). A Malaysian-BOC dual national applying for a BOC passport would consequently have their Malaysian citizenship deprived.
 * a BOC is also a citizen of a country that only permits dual citizenship for minors and requires renunciation of all other nationalities before a certain age (e.g. Japan). A Japanese-BOC dual national would potentially have their Japanese citizenship revoked at age 22

United Kingdom
British Overseas citizens are subject to immigration controls and have neither the right of abode or the right to work in the United Kingdom. BOCs are required to pay an immigration health surcharge to access National Health Service benefits when residing in the UK for longer than six months.

European Union
Before the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union on 31 January 2020, full British citizens were European Union citizens. British Overseas citizens have never been EU citizens and did not enjoy freedom of movement for worker in other EU countries. They were, and continue to be, exempted from obtaining visas when visiting the Schengen Area.

title: British Overseas citizen


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

Dependent territories
An editor has been actively pursuing against the presence of dependent territories on Wikipedia. A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Please share your comments to what has happened. 113.52.112.27 (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I and @Marcocapelle have patiently explained to you that your handling of dependent territories is incorrect. And for the record, this is the same IP who has been blocked for edit warring Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive480 Mason (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Listify
Quite a few WP:CFD discussions have been closed as listify and delete, these are listed At WP:CFDWM. Who can help making this happen? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also a few that closed as delete, but still exist. For example, the report Database reports/Self-categorized categories still has, which I sent to CfD at 22:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) and which closed as delete by at 13:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC). -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * there is apparently in delay in processing the list on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working and that is really unfortunate because only admins can process these. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Propose: Allow individual category members to be annotated with descriptions or comments
I would like to request an option to allow individual category members to be annotated with descriptions or comments so they give clear context or elaboration for any specific entry. This would not only make it clear for the readers to learn why that page name was assigned to that certain category, but it would also save some categories being considered for deletion. For example, consider Category:Super Bowl MVPs. In this case, it would be better to list the Super Bowls that player's page name (" ") received the Super Bowl MVP in parentheses:. For example: if  was Troy Aikman who was the MVP of Super Bowl XXVII, then it would be like this: Troy Aikman (XXVII). Here, this means that Troy Aikman was the MVP of Super Bowl XXVII.

Abhiramakella (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The category system does not support that. One alternative is to have a stand-alone list article. Because it would be a manually-written article, it could be formatted in any way and include whatever details and links are desired. We have a nice table in Super_Bowl_Most_Valuable_Player_Award that could be extracted and reformatted (you can already sort it by name if you like). Do we have a category MOS relating to use of a more-detailed/alternately-organized list in the header of a category itself? Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a comparison of these methods. DMacks (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If so, then why not have categories as stand-alone lists (Creating a template that combines both category and stand-alone list templates together )? Abhiramakella (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a comparison of these methods." There are pros and cons to each method, including technical, philosophical, reader-facing, and editor-related ones. Note that the category-as-list comment was added after this response of mine.) DMacks (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

History of instruction changes of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy
You are invited to join a discussion about history of CFDS at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. —andrybak (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about overcategorization
Hey everyone, I couldn't seem to find my answer in what I thought would be the relevant PAGs, so I figured you all would be the best people to ask. I noticed a number of articles in Category:Animation controversies in television that, while I could certainly see their subject being controversial on their face, don't actually mention any sort of controversy or reactions to the subject at any point in the article, neither lead nor body. Would this be an example of overcategorization and thus should be removed from the category? I'm leaning towards removing (just because I think an article should at least mention or allude to the category it's in, not just be plausible that it could be in that category) but wanted to get some guidance here as categorization feels like it can be a contentious topic at times, even without the designation as such. Thanks all! Greenday61892 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 * If there's no mention of the relevant category in the article, I think removing it *should* be fairly non-controversial. In general, WP:DEFINING says
 * if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining.
 * which at least implies that something that doesn't merit any mention probably shouldn't be categorized that way. And if there's no sourced statement supporting the implicit claim made by the category, categorizing it as such would potentially run afoul of WP:V as well. If someone later adds the controversy to the article, they can always add the category to the page then (and that would be the best time to do so). Psychastes (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Naming a new cateogory
Skilled categorizers, your input is welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Overcategorization by things not mentioned in an article
I just had this note connected with an edit reversion. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk'') It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry. This is just plain wrong practice. If we cannot be bothered to mention something in the text of an article, it is too trivial to categorize by. Categories are supposed to lead people through somewhat similar articles. A minimum expectation is that the information be mentioned in the article.''John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.''John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 * To be fair the word "professional" above means any level of paid baseball, even in this case A level minors. We have never even agreed that all these levels of playing baseball are notable, even when we were our most generous in granting notability to sportspeople. 18 different teams is just ludicrous. It comes very close to performer by performance level of teams. I am thinking at some point this violates the rule against categorizing performer by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Abbott article is 16 paragraphs plus tables and other things long. It still does not mention Winston-Salem Warthogs or several other teams that he is categorized by. I am not sure why all 18 teams cannot be expected to be mentioned in his article, but if we cannot expect them to be mentioned in the article, I am not sure at all why we should categorize by them.
 * I think we should limit categories to things that are mentioned in the article. If it is not defining enough to mention in the article I do not think it is defining enough to categorize by.~

John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I'd agree: categories should only reflect information which is present, and sourced, in an article. Pam D  14:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You brought up exactly the same matter at Wikipedia talk:Categorization; please respect WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How would I place notices of the discussion in other places?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It actually seems to have gotten the most attention at [Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons].John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Johnpacklambert All you need to do is to add a section with the same informative heading "Overcategorization by things not mentioned in an article", and say "There is a discussion at .... which may be of interest to readers of this page / members of this project".
 * I've just come here to make exactly the same point: please do not open duplicate discussions in two (or more) places at the same time as it doesn't help anyone and just wastes other editors' time (and yours). A single concentrated discussion is going to be more productive. Thanks. Pam  D  15:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will keep this in mind in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So it's at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons too! Please don't ever do this again: it's disrpuptive editing, forum-shopping, and generally a Bad Idea. Thanks. Pam  D  15:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories


text: Category talk:Ice hockey players by league


text:
Mike McShane

Michael McShane (born June 25, 1955) is an American actor, singer, and improvisational comedian. He appeared on the original British version of the television show Whose Line Is It Anyway? (1988–97) and went on to appear in films such as Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991), Richie Rich (1994), and Office Space (1999). McShane has also been involved in several Disney productions, including Tom and Huck (1995), the television series Brotherly Love (1995–97), Tower of Terror (1997), and A Bug's Life (1998). He also voiced the Revolting Slob in the Canadian-American variety television series Crashbox.

McShane voiced Marlon, Caracticus P. Doom and various other characters in Cosgrove Hall Films's Avenger Penguins (1993–94), Gareb in Todd McFarlane's Spawn (1997–99), and Quosmir in Dave The Barbarian (2004–05).

Career
McShane studied drama at San Joaquin Delta College and San Francisco State University, performing with Faultline Theatre, the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival, American Conservatory Theater and the Eureka Theatre. McShane is also an alumnus of Los Angeles Theatresports.

McShane gained exposure in 1988 on the British show Whose Line Is It Anyway?. He remained a regular performer on the show for the next ten years. McShane and fellow Whose Line regular Tony Slattery starred in the comedy sketch show S&M in 1991. In 1992 McShane starred in the sitcom The Big One alongside another Whose Line performer Sandi Toksvig.

Other TV roles include a guest appearance on Seinfeld as Kramer's nemesis Franklin Delano Romanowski (FDR). McShane played Friar Tuck in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves in 1991, had a small role as a doomed hypnotherapist in the 1999 film Office Space, and played the friendly scientist, Professor Keenbean, in the 1994 movie Richie Rich. In 1998 he appeared in an episode of Frasier as Frank, the manager of the Shangri-La apartments. He also co-starred with Sir John Gielgud, Emily Watson and Rosemary Harris in "A Summer's Day Dream" for BBC "Performance" series.

In 1995, McShane starred as Harley in the BBC Screen Two TV Movie Crazy For A Kiss, about a young boy who is sent to a mental institution for teenagers in McShane's home state of Kansas. McShane appeared in Tom and Huck as Muff Potter and on Brotherly Love as the experienced but wisecracking mechanic, Lloyd.

In 1997 he appeared in Tower of Terror, a TV movie starring Steve Guttenberg and Kirsten Dunst based on the Disney attraction, as "Q".

McShane also appeared with Dunst in the 1999 comedy film Drop Dead Gorgeous, playing a quick-tempered beauty pageant judge who serves as caretaker for his learning disabled brother.

McShane provided voice work for the anime Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, as D's sarcastic possessed left hand. He also provided the voice of Detective Twitch in the HBO animated series Spawn. Other voice work by McShane includes the characters of Tuck and Roll, the twin pill bugs in A Bug's Life and the video game of the same name in 1998. He also provided the voice of Shalulu in Disney's redub of Castle in the Sky, and Baron Rakan Harkonnen in the 2001 strategy game Emperor: Battle for Dune. He provided the voice for Cid in the video games Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2.

McShane appeared as the voice of Audrey II (as well as playing a number of peripheral characters) in the London revival of Little Shop of Horrors at the Menier Chocolate Factory in Southwark between December 2006 and February 2007. The show was a critical success and was sold out for the duration of its run, and Mike had been contracted to continue in the role following the show's transfer to the West End at the Duke of York theatre. In September 2007 he took part in the British Library's celebration of Jack Kerouac, reading excerpts from On The Road on the 50th anniversary of its publication.

In 2008, McShane appeared as a guest performer in Paul Merton's Impro Chums, a live improv show, and was asked to join the permanent company for three UK tours, and is still ongoing with the group. and as Dr. Vaabit in episode 5 of BBC's sitcom Lab Rats, and has appeared twice on the BBC radio programme Just a Minute.

In September 2012, McShane appeared as the character Grayle in the television series Doctor Who in the series 7 episode "The Angels Take Manhattan". In November 2012, Mike starred as a CIA military consultant in BBC Three comedy series Bluestone 42. In February 2013, Mike created the role of Louis B. Mayer in the new musical "The Tailor Made Man" at The Arts Theatre in London's West End, garnering rave reviews.

On May 17, 2013, Radio 5 Live's breakfast show accidentally announced Mike McShane had died. This was following the death of Paul Shane on May 16, 2013. A retraction was issued.

In 2014, McShane was in the horror comedy film Love in the Time of Monsters. From November 2014 through March 2015, he appeared in the Stephen Sondheim musical Assassins at the Menier Chocolate Factory.

In August 2015 McShane appeared at an Edinburgh Fringe gala regarding mental health issues. At the same time he paid tribute to his friend Robin Williams. McShane said: “I worked with Robin when we were young and he came to see me backstage in the past, too. Any improviser my age or younger was inspired by him...Even with his condition he was still doing benefit gigs, making servicemen laugh and championing young acts. He would pick you up and make you feel like the exploration of your imagination and expression was a good thing. Laughter is good. It's group consensus and a release of tension.”

In 2016, McShane starred as Sam in the Western web series Red Bird.

title: Mike McShane


text:
Talk:Mark Eaton (ice hockey)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Eaton (ice hockey). 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/20130126085331/http://www.wbspenguins.com/articles/penguins-sign-mark-eaton-to-pto to http://www.wbspenguins.com/articles/penguins-sign-mark-eaton-to-pto

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) 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mark Eaton (ice hockey)


text:
Michael McShane

Michael McShane may refer to:

 * Michael J. McShane, American judge
 * Mike McShane, American actor and comedian
 * Mike McShane (ice hockey), American ice hockey coach

title: Michael McShane


text:
Category talk:Canadian ice hockey players

Sub-cat
Many of these guys could be moved into Category:Olympic ice hockey players for Canada, and taken out of this cat, which would help shrink it a little bit. Kevlar67 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Structure
It might not be obvious so I'm going to map out the structure for the subcats here:

 * Related to position
 * Category:Canadian ice hockey forwards
 * Category:Canadian ice hockey centres
 * Category:Canadian ice hockey wingers
 * Category: Canadian ice hockey right wingers
 * Category: Canadian ice hockey left wingers
 * Category:Canadian ice hockey defencemen
 * Category:Canadian ice hockey goaltenders

 * Related to leguage or team
 * Category:National Hockey Association players (were they all Canadian?)
 * Category:1972 Team Canada players (Summit Series)
 * Category: Olympic ice hockey players for Canada

I hope that helps. Add to it if there are more. Kevlar67 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
What about a Category:Canadian NHL Players as a sub-cat? Kevlar67 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Osh41

Welcome to Wikipedia, oshlet. I'll spare you a welcome template -- I think you know your way around. :) Kyou

A reverse welcome! Hi osh. Curse you, it's all your fault. FallenAngelEyes

The Rose of Versailles
Hi Osh41, I've uploaded the image from the article to commons: Question is: which license does it use?

title: User talk:Osh41


text:
Talk:1982 NHL entry draft

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY
--98.21.48.228 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jens Johansson (ice hockey) (Q47506108) - 1
 * Carmine Vani (Q3660388) - 6
 * Bill Campbell (ice hockey) - 2
 * Darcy Roy - 2
 * Dwayne Boettger - 2
 * Ernie Vargas - 2
 * Jakob Gustavsson (Q107141798) - 1
 * Derek Ray - 2
 * Ted Pearson (ice hockey) - 2
 * Gord Paddock - 2
 * Rick Erdall - 1
 * Mats Ulander (Q27299892) - 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.48.228 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jan Ericson (ice hockey) (Q30106607) - 1
 * Jozef Lukac (Q12768193) - 1
 * Jan Jasko (Q11868301) - 1
 * I haven't checked your lists you have been putting on talk pages. But I thought I should let you know that just because they meet NHOCKEY doesn't necessarily mean they are notable and should be created. NHOCKEY is just a rule of thumb. They still have to meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1982 NHL entry draft


text:
Talk:Jedi Prince series

Untitled
This series is also known as "The Trioculus Saga", for obvious reasons, in the Star Wars "Canon Fandom" community. Like nearly all Star Wars expanded universe, this series is canon and fits into the Star Wars continuity.

It's worth noting, of course, that the canon of these books is probably the messiest canon that exist, with a multitude of retcons required to make it work. Not that how this book fits into canon would be considered notable. Linkskywalker (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seven years later ... note the recent xkcd I added. Daniel Case (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jedi Prince series