text:
Richard Hearn

Dr. Richard Lankaster Hearn, OC (18 May 1890 – 24 May 1987) was one of the key players in the establishment of Ontario’s energy system.

History
Born in Toronto, Ontario, he was among the group known as "Beck's bright boys". This group was responsible for the creation of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, the forerunner of Ontario Hydro and Ontario Power Generation. Hearn was instrumental in Ontario's decision to move towards nuclear generating stations. In 1956, he received the Sir John Kennedy Medal. In 1973, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada "for his services as an administrator and consulting engineer in the development of vast power projects". Hearn was also responsible for the design and construction of many of Ontario's hydroelectric installations, including the first large hydroelectric project, the Queenston-Chippewa power development.

Legacy
Hearn died in May 1987 at the age of 97. The Hearn Generating Station, a decommissioned coal-fired and later natural gas-fired power station, located on the Toronto waterfront is named after him.

title: Richard Hearn


text: Category:Organized crime groups

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

title: Category:Organized crime groups


text:
File:Hotline's Client-Tracker-Server scheme.png

I, User:Phils, created this image using Adobe Illustrator CS and release into the public domain.

An illustration of the Client-Tracker-Server scheme used by early peer-to-peer network Hotline to circumvent the problem of dynamic IPs.


text:
Talk:Mob (video games)

"Movable object block"
I see that mob isn't etymologically or semantically related to movable object block as seen at Sprite_(computer_graphics), but since the latter kind of object often is used to implement enemy characters in 2D games, I wonder if it would be useful to have a "Not to be confused with MOB as a synonym of sprite". 24.178.47.47 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never even heard of this term, and it doesn't have any source on the Sprite-article. Is it really a thing? Either way, I somewhat doubt that anyone who is looking for "Moveable Object Block" doesn't know that it refers to a sprite (or another synonym). I don't think this usage of MOB is common enough. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be too inefficient to process immobile entities, like say trees and rocks, as possessing intelligence and moving, therefore most games (especially online, when bandwidth is an issue), including MUDs, have two tables of entities: dynamic (mobile) and static (immobile/fixed/dodads). Although in some games, like Ultima 8 and Ultima Online, entities can change from static to dynamic, if they are moved or set on fire. Therefore the term. It has nothing to do with sprites, because both mobs and non-mobs can be drawn as sprites or say tiles (like ASCII letters in roguelike MUDs), but more with processing them with the game's physics - a monster can react to player, but a a tree wont. NikitaSadkov (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Mook
Mook (gaming) redirects here but the connection is unobvious, the word mook does not appear in the article. 2001:6A0:0:2333:5604:A6FF:FE1E:34F6 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't "mook" just another word for mob, just used much less frequently, to the point where it is barely worth mentioning in this article? ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to wiktionary right here, "mook" is know from at least 1930-s, while mob is undeniably from MUDs of early 1990-s. Also only "mook" (generic enemy/lackey) is EVER used in discussing non-gaming content - i.e. movies, literature, never "mob". And it is pretty logical since mobile/object distinction is obviously important in context of MUD/MMO engine, but have no sense in non-gaming context. IMO those two are very different words and "mook" redirect should be removed. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First-person (gaming) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Mob" = "mobile"
Mob is short for "mobile". Not "mobile object", mobiles and objects are two distinctly different categories in Diku. 3 of 4 references used too say it is "mobile", without word object. I'll list results of grep against DikuMUD code down this comment as reference, but I'm not sure on how to reflect those refs in article. Actually the only quote to really use "mobile object" wording was misquoted here on WP citing only "mobile" instead. Author of "Designing Virtual Worlds" indeed says "mobile objects" while discussing MUD1. Still Diku had much stronger impact on adopting this word for wide use. I'll try to reflect it in wording.

I'm also removing rest of the fluff because it keeps appearing verbatim in random posts on forums (search for "monster or beast" previously mentioned in first sentence of this article and see 99% hits to be copypasta from old version of this article), on other gaming wikis and then creeping back into this article after being removed because "look how many hits of this stuff is on 'net, I must edit it into WP right now!". I believe it is called WP:CIRCULAR.

Removing also known as "enemy"
No, it is not also known as that. It is like going into "Soldier" article and writing "Soldier", also known as enemy. Yes, they ARE known like that sometimes, but they're not synonyms. Not all soldiers are enemies, and not all mobs are enemies as well. The very next sentence in article covers that, saying "usage of the term may be limited to hostile NPCs", implying that it also may be not limited to it. And indeed in Diku every NPC is a "mob", no matter if it is rat or shopkeeper, and, one among the biggest current trendsetters - WoW or Minecraft - freely use "friendly mob" and "passive mob"

Removing also known as "mook"
I've already mentioned it in other comment above, but those two are distinct words. "Mook" means "generic enemy/lackey" and, according to wictionary, is known for about half-century before coining of "mob". "Mook" is heavily used in discussing non-gaming - i.e. movies or literature - stories. Actually I've never seen "mob" - being very gamey-enginey term EVER used in such non-gaming discussions. It would be strange to mention that something in book is a "mobile", isn't it? I'm less sure on that, but I have feeling that "mob" is hardly ever used outside MMO or RPG discussions, where it is widely known exactly because of its origins in wildly popular at the time MMORPG - i.e. you will hardly find word "mob" in discussion about a platformer. Also just like with "enemy" above, even if some character could be referred both as mob and mook, they're distinctly not synonyms. Boss mob is absolutely not a mook. Mook is a different word and its redirect to mob should be removed.

For this reason I'm also removing "spiked mob" example. Google have single page of results for, most of them WP itself or its scrappers. As I've said, pretty much nobody calls platformer enemies "mobs".

Removing "refers to either a single character or a multitude of characters in a group as a mob
No. It's "mobs" in plural. For example "trash mob" is a single instance of non-boss enemy, not a group of them. Sorry, I can't cite anything on that except my participation in thousands of discussions about "trash mobs", "high-level mobs", specific zone "mobs", but this sentence I'm about to remove is not referencing anything either. There distinct English word "mob", of course, but this particular article is not about it.

Removing "dumb mob" as a term, but leaving explanation that most mobs have no special programming
It is not a "term". The referenced quote in book explains that most mobs are dumb in sense of having no special programming beyond generic fight, but never claims it is a specific term. The only relevant hit on Google search is this very article. There's zero hits for "dumb" in Diku code. Once again, it is like going into "Human" article and writing "most humans are regular humans".

Removing backronyms from etymology
Backronyms are not etymology and no citations were provided since [citation needed] was added. I've also tracked the most likely source of "monster or beast" quote: https://books.google.com/books?id=xzMYYrsDaAEC&pg=PA375&dq=mob+%22Monster+Or+Beast%22#v=onepage&q=mob%20%22Monster%20Or%20Beast%22 As you can see, the book, once again, never claims that it is have anything with etymology, but merely explains what "mob" is.

Code reference
Here's the results against Diku MUD Gamma (earliest) release. It was recently uploaded to GitHub, so you can check it online as well: https://github.com/Seifert69/DikuMUD-Gamma. The list is a result of. Copyright comments show years 1990, 1991 as original release date.

--Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of someone trying to use game code as a source on Wikipedia and it doesn't seem like a good idea, especially since it's only relevant to one game and this is a term used by players of many games. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please re-read article first. It is DikuMUD, not "one game", but "THE source of term" in modern MMO. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you check existing references in article, #14 is already exactly this - reference to Diku source. Though I'm not sure what it was supposed to cover there, because I don't have access to full text of book that serves as another reference in this sentence. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd be heavily in favor of removing that reference. I don't see how it would count as WP:RS and in fact seems like original research to me. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, pretty much every other reference in article explicitly mentions Diku too as a source of this term spreading. Make no mistake, it is not "one game" and not even "THAT one game where it started" - today it is better to call it either "distribution" or "engine", since it was available for free non-commercial use to modify and install anywhere. Thousands of Diku copies both modified and unmodified ran around the world, spreading its terminology. And thousands more of its derivatives, like CircleMUD, was spreading it as well. Scroll article down to MUD template at bottom - it is right there in "major branches". DikuMUD distribution, which also includes documentation that too was grepped in this sheet above - is the definite source on usage of the terms "mobile" and thus "mob" at the moment it gained its widespread. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's synchronize a bit. I checked history and see that you seem to often work at preserving correct definition and facts about origins and usage of "mob". It seems you do have good experience with MUDs yourself. Is that right? --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I have no experience with MUDs. And I'm not sure what there is to synchronize on, as I'm fine with your changes. I'm just objecting to using source code as a reference in the article (or any article for that matter), regardless of how influential DikuMUD might be. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mob (video games)


text:
Wat Misaka

Wataru Misaka (December 21, 1923 – November 20, 2019) was an American professional basketball player. A 5 ft point guard of Japanese descent, he broke a color barrier in professional basketball by being the first non-white player and the first player of Asian descent to play in the National Basketball Association (NBA), known then as the Basketball Association of America (BAA).

Misaka played college basketball for the Utah Utes and led the team to win the 1944 NCAA and 1947 NIT championships. He took a two-year hiatus between these titles to serve in the United States Army in the American occupation of Japan. Misaka subsequently played three games for the New York Knicks during the 1947–48 season.

Early life
Misaka was born a Nisei (second-generation Japanese American) in Ogden, Utah, to Tatsuyo and Fusaichi Misaka. He grew up poor with his two younger brothers. His family lived in the basement of his father's barber shop between a bar and a pawn shop in a bad area on 25th Street, which was also rife with prostitution. He recalled the neighborhood as being a "ghetto".

Misaka was raised in an era of "virtual apartheid", wrote University of Utah magazine Continuum. Excluded from extracurricular activities, Nisei children played in their own baseball and basketball leagues. Misaka was not served in restaurants because of his ethnicity, and neighbors would cross the street to steer clear of him. Despite this, Misaka still participated in sports. Misaka attended Ogden High School, where he led the basketball team to a state championship title in 1940 and a regional championship title in 1941.

College career
After high school, Misaka continued his education at the same time that many other Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps. He attended Weber College, where he helped lead its basketball team to two championships. Misaka was named the Most Valuable Player of the 1942 junior college postseason tournament and, in 1943, he was named the Weber College athlete of the year.

Misaka subsequently enrolled at the University of Utah and joined their Utes basketball team. The young team finished with an 18–3 record in the 1943–44 season. They were invited to both the NCAA tournament and the National Invitation Tournament (NIT). The team chose the latter because it was more prestigious at the time, and meant a trip to New York City. The team lost to Kentucky in the first round, but was given a chance to play in the NCAA tournament due to Arkansas's withdrawal because of a team accident. The team took advantage of this and won the tournament, winning the championship game over Dartmouth 42–40 in overtime. Two nights later, Misaka and his team played the NIT champions, St. John's, in an exhibition match at Madison Square Garden, where his team won 43–36. Misaka was later drafted for World War II and rose to the rank of staff sergeant. After two years, he returned to the University of Utah and rejoined the team. The team was in position to win their second national tournament in four years after being invited to the eight team NIT Tournament in New York. Utah's narrow victories in the first two rounds put them in the finals where they defeated Kentucky 49–45 to capture the 1947 NIT championship title. Misaka held Wildcats All-American guard Ralph Beard to a single point.

On January 22, 2022, Misaka's number 20 jersey was honored by the Utah Utes.

Professional career
Misaka was selected by the New York Knicks in the 1947 BAA Draft. He debuted as the first non-Caucasian player in the BAA (later known as the NBA) in 1947, the same year that Jackie Robinson broke the baseball color line. The first African American did not play in the NBA until 1950. There were no press conferences or interviews to commemorate Misaka's first game. "It wasn't a big thing," he said. "Nobody cared."

Misaka played in three games and scored seven points in the 1947–48 season before being cut from the team mid-season. He believed he was cut because the Knicks had too many guards. Misaka said he did not feel any discrimination from teammates or opposing players during his time with the Knicks, but he did not mingle with everyone. During training camp, he was only close with future Hall-of-Famer Carl Braun.

Later years
Misaka declined an offer to play with the Harlem Globetrotters, and he returned home to earn a degree in engineering from Utah. "The salary for a rookie and the salary for starting engineer weren't much different", Misaka recalled. He then joined a company in Salt Lake City as an electrical engineer. He and his wife, Kate, had two children. Misaka died at the age of 95 on November 20, 2019, in Salt Lake City.

Misaka went on to pursue bowling after his basketball career ended, notably hitting a near-perfect 299 game at the age of 80.

Legacy
Misaka was inducted into the Utah Sports Hall of Fame in 1999. In 2000, Misaka was featured in a landmark exhibit, More Than a Game: Sport in the Japanese American Community, at the Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles. A documentary film, Transcending: The Wat Misaka Story by Bruce Alan Johnson and Christine Toy Johnson, premiered in 2008. It recounts Misaka's playing career and his status as the first non-white player in the NBA.

In 1997 Misaka was inducted into the Japanese American National Bowling Hall of Fame.

title: Wat Misaka


text:
Dark-energy star

A dark-energy star is a hypothetical compact astrophysical object, which a minority of physicists think might constitute an alternative explanation for observations of astronomical black hole candidates.

The concept was proposed by physicist George Chapline. The theory states that infalling matter is converted into vacuum energy or dark energy, as the matter falls through the event horizon. The space within the event horizon would end up with a large value for the cosmological constant and have negative pressure to exert against gravity. There would be no information-destroying singularity.

Theory
In March 2005, physicist George Chapline claimed that quantum mechanics makes it a "near certainty" that black holes do not exist and are instead dark-energy stars. The dark-energy star is a different concept from that of a gravastar.

Dark-energy stars were first proposed because in quantum physics, absolute time is required; however, in general relativity, an object falling towards a black hole would, to an outside observer, seem to have time pass infinitely slowly at the event horizon. The object itself would feel as if time flowed normally.

In order to reconcile quantum mechanics with black holes, Chapline theorized that a phase transition in the phase of space occurs at the event horizon. He based his ideas on the physics of superfluids. As a column of superfluid grows taller, at some point, density increases, slowing down the speed of sound, so that it approaches zero. However, at that point, quantum physics makes sound waves dissipate their energy into the superfluid, so that the zero sound speed condition is never encountered.

In the dark-energy star hypothesis, infalling matter approaching the event horizon decays into successively lighter particles. Nearing the event horizon, environmental effects accelerate proton decay. This may account for high-energy cosmic-ray sources and positron sources in the sky. When the matter falls through the event horizon, the energy equivalent of some or all of that matter is converted into dark energy. This negative pressure counteracts the mass the star gains, avoiding a singularity. The negative pressure also gives a very high number for the cosmological constant.

Furthermore, 'primordial' dark-energy stars could form by fluctuations of spacetime itself, which is analogous to "blobs of liquid condensing spontaneously out of a cooling gas". This not only alters the understanding of black holes, but has the potential to explain the dark energy and dark matter that are indirectly observed.

title: Dark-energy star


text:
Talk:American Silver Eagle

Value
This section is confusing. The terms are not defined. What is interesting is the price of American Eagles. There are prices for the rarer proofs discussed, but not the basic price of the mass of the coins which are bought be investors, not collectors, as bullion. My local coin dealer is currently selling them for the spot silver price + $6. That's a much higher premium than a year ago, but they are in high demand. Still that equates for $15 a coin today. This type of pricing should be explained in the article I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Milk Spots
Article is lacking any info on milkspot problems. -Colquhoun- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.17.27 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Troy ounce
The troy ounce is 31.103 476 8 g, not 28 g. - Alban 2005-04-07 19:18 UTC

Thirteen stars
Does anyone know why there are 13 stars?

 * I don't know this for a fact, but it's probably for the same reason as the thirteen stripes in the U.S. flag: The thirteen original States. - Alban 2005-04-08 17:21 UTC

 * It may also refer to the Thirteen Colonies, though the distinction between that and the thirteen original States is mostly pedantic. Markkawika 01:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Video with this coin
This site: [Video] has a video with these coins.Agre22 (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

5 oz. American Eagle
About 20 years ago I remember seeing a larger 5 oz. version of the silver American Eagle but can not find any info on them. Can you provide who minted it and if it was issued by the government like the highly known 1 oz silver American Eagle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John ramage (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't know who minted the coins/medals you are asking about, but they were not issued by the United States Mint. You might be referring to something like the ones on the APMEX site but notice they do not have a dollar value on them (i.e. not U.S. coins). The only silver bullion coins issued by the United States as of January 2010 are the American Silver Eagle coins. Later in 2010, the Mint will be issuing 5 oz. silver coins (America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins). Diiscool (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Usage of Chicago Manual of Style
This article didn't seem to use any standard manual of style for citations so I changed everything to follow The Chicago Manual of Style. Diiscool (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

 * On second thought, maybe it would just be easier to use the Wikipedia citation templates. For example Template:Cite web. Diiscool (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"may be used to fund an IRA" ?
"The American Silver Eagle bullion coin may be used to fund Individual Retirement Account investments.[1]" The cited reference does not state this, and I believe it to be untrue.

Kermit2 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 * On page 47 of IRS Publication 590 it says "Your IRA can invest in one, one-half, one-quarter, or one-tenth ounce U.S. gold coins, or one-ounce silver coins minted by the Treasury Department." The American Silver Eagle is the only one-ounce coin currently (April 30, 2010) minted by the United States Treasury Department. This article explains a little more. As with any investment, retirement, or tax issue, one should talk to a professional for more information. —Diiscool (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gross Weight
The weight is currently listed as: "31.101 g (1.00 troy oz)" But there are 31.1035 grams in a troy ounce. A few other articles have this same problem.

Also, it isn't stated if this is gross weight or silver weight (since the coin is .03% copper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.166.71 (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I changed the weight to 31.103 g which is what the authorizing legislation stipulates. Thanks for pointing this out. Not sure about the other point of your question but it is probably gross weight since it is not specified otherwise. — Diiscool (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The legislation also stipulates .999 purity, not .9993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.166.71 (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Indeed. I couldn't quickly find any reference that stated 99.93% so I changed the article. Thanks for your sharp eye. — Diiscool (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Effect of recession on availability, 2008–2010
The shortage of silver blanks in 2008 was not because of increased demand for precious metals in general. Indeed, the price of silver FELL to around $9/oz because margin calls in stock market accounts forced speculators to disgorge silver to raise cash. The shortage of bullion coin blanks occurred because small investors (such as myself) clamored to buy bullion coins during the "half price sale" that resulted from the stock market crash. The manufacturers of the blanks just couldn't keep up.

 * Thanks for pointing that out. I changed the sentence to clarify that it was demand for bullion coins specifically, as the cited article indicates. —Diiscool (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I would also point out that the "hedge against inflation" rationale was at the time (2008) suspect also. The most savvy investors anticipated the brief episode of deflation that actually occurred in the broad money supply despite the base money supply being pumped extravagantly by the Fed ("pushing on a string").  I think the "wisdom of crowds" simply identified a bargain. Jive Dadson (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Premium to dealers raised to $2.00
I was first alerted to the premium increase by APMEX, a very large dealer in bullion coins. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, it came in an email. There is no doubt it's true, but the mint says nothing about it on their web pages that I can find. Observation: APMEX and others sell generic rounds of the same purity as Silver Eagles for a premium as low as $0.79 retail. Jive Dadson (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I, too, received the APMEX email. I agree that it's more than likely true and I'm sure APMEX got an official communication from the Mint about it. I will try to search the Federal Register more this week as I think we need to cite something that is more reliable than a commercial blog or the like. Let's see what comes this week.—Diiscool (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I added in the $2.00 premium using this article as a citation. —Diiscool (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some 2020 Silver Eagle Bullion Coins Do Have "W" Mintmark
I personally own, purchased from the United States Mint, a 2020 Silver Eagle bullion dollar coin with "W" (the West Point mintmark) on it. The article states such coins do not have the "W" on them. However, I can verify that at least some of them do have the "W" mintmark.

Thibeinn (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC) If it has a mint mark and you bought it directly from the mint, it is likely a "uncirculated finish", not a bullion coin. Your can not purchase bullion versions direct from the mint, only from authorized purchasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.53.151 (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect statement and missing set
Regarding the 2019S enhanced, this statement made is incorrect: "The Enhanced Reverse Proof American Silver Eagle was the first numismatic coin offered by the US accompanied by a Certificate of Authenticity with a serial number.[45]" The first coin (actually set) with a serial numbered COA is the missing set I mentioned, the 2007 Impressions of Liberty set. Numbered and also hand signed by Philip Diehl. 1oz AGE, ASE, and Platinum American Eagle, which was the inaugural year for that. Limited to 5000. First time the US Mint serial numbered anything. 97.94.53.151 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:American Silver Eagle


text:
Oil Can Boyd

Dennis Ray "Oil Can" Boyd (born October 6, 1959) is an American professional baseball pitcher. Boyd played in Major League Baseball for the Boston Red Sox (1982–1989), Montreal Expos (1990–1991), and Texas Rangers (1991). In a 10-season career, Boyd collected a 78–77 record with 799 strikeouts and a 4.04 ERA in 1,389.2 innings.

His unique and memorable nickname has been reported as coming from his beer-drinking days in his hometown of Meridian, Mississippi, where beer was referred to as "oil".

Early life
Dennis Ray "Oil Can" Boyd was born October 6, 1959, to Willie "Skeeter" Boyd (father) and Girtharae "Sweetie" (mother) in Meridian, Mississippi.

Boyd attended Meridian High School and Jackson State University.

1982–1989: Boston Red Sox
He was selected by the Boston Red Sox in the 16th round of the 1980 amateur draft, and made his debut in the 1982 season. A lanky frame at 6-foot-2, and weighing only 150 pounds, Boyd pitched 10 years in the majors before blood clots in his right arm ended his career.

From 1983 to 1985 Boyd won 31 games for Boston, with 15 victories in 1985. By the All-Star break in 1985, Boyd's record was 10–5 with a 3.19 ERA. By the end of that season, he posted career-highs in games started (35), complete games (13), strikeouts (154) and innings pitched (272.1). Boyd was the recipient of the 1985 Boston Red Sox Pitcher of the Year Award as selected by the Boston Baseball Writers Association.

In 1986, he won a career-high 16 games for the Sox. Boyd's record at the All-Star break was 11–6 with a 3.71 ERA. During the 1986 American League Championship Series, Boyd started two games against the California Angels, winning Game Six. Boyd started Game Three of the 1986 World Series against the New York Mets. In that game, Boyd gave up four runs in the first inning and six overall despite pitching into the seventh, getting only one run of support in taking the loss. He was scheduled to start the deciding seventh game of the series, but a rainout allowed Red Sox manager John McNamara to reconsider his pitching matchup for the game, and gave the nod to Bruce Hurst, who had gotten a third day of rest with the rainout. After Boyd received word he was not starting the final game of the series, he went down into the visitors' clubhouse and remained in there alone for some time. McNamara dispatched pitching coach Bill Fischer to find Boyd, and Fischer discovered that Boyd had consumed a great deal of alcohol and was in no condition to function, much less play. Fischer moved Boyd into the manager's office, locked the door, and left Boyd there for the duration of the game.

In 1987, Boyd would allege that an encounter with police caused a hairline fracture to his pitching arm that required surgery in August of that year. This limited him to seven games and a win–loss record of 1–3 during his shortened season.

Boyd's injuries contributed to a decline in games started and his win–loss records over his final two seasons with the Red Sox, 1988 and 1989, were 9–7 and 3–2 respectively.

1990–1991: Montreal Expos
Boyd signed with the Expos as a free agent after the 1989 season and in 1990 he won 10 games for the Expos and compiled a 2.93 ERA.

When the Rangers acquired him from Montreal during the 1991 season, it looked like a deal that might lead to a division title, and though Boyd's work with the Expos before coming to Texas was not great (6–8, 3.52), it was good enough for the pitching-poor Rangers; however, in 12 starts he posted a 2–7 record with a 6.68 ERA (the highest of his career) and allowed 81 hits in only 62 innings. Boyd was a free agent when the season ended, and after turning down some offers for relief duties, he retired.

1992–2007: Later career
After MLB, Boyd played in Mexico for the Industriales of Monterrey and the Yucatán Leones in 1993 and 1994 respectively.

In 2005, Boyd came out of retirement at 45 years old to pitch for the Brockton Rox of the Can-Am League. He pitched in 17 games going 4 wins and 5 losses and a 3.83 ERA over 110 innings for the season. Boyd followed this with a 2007 barnstorming tour in the spirit of the Negro leagues under the team name of "Oil Can Boyd's Traveling All-Stars".

Legacy
Boyd's issues, temperamental personality, and admitted drug use during his career have been well-documented.

Boyd was introduced to crack cocaine during spring training in 1986. He later admitted that, on May 11, 1986, prior to a game in Oakland, he smoked crack before taking the mound. In 2012, Boyd told Buster Olney of ESPN "I get to the ballpark, all the ballplayers are on the field, you know, taking batting practice and everything. And I walk in the clubhouse and I—I got my pipe with me ... I can remember going and locking myself up in the bathroom and smoking some dope right there at the ballpark."

Boyd was the cover story of the August 4, 1986 issue of Sports Illustrated. The article was titled "Banned [but needed] in Boston." Boyd's troubles in 1986 would climax during the seventh and deciding game of the 1986 World Series when he was unable to appear. Red Sox manager John McNamara and Red Sox pitching coach Bill Fischer later alleged that Boyd had been drinking and was too drunk to pitch during the game.

During 1987 spring training in Winter Haven, Florida, Boyd would be detained by police due to an issue concerning overdue video cassettes. When the list of titles made public turned out to contain pornographic titles, a Boston area newspaper printed the names and sarcastically dubbed the incident "The Can's Film Festival".

Boyd was inducted into the Southwestern Athletic Conference Hall of Fame in 2010.

In 2012, Boyd's autobiography, co-written by Boyd and Mike Shalin, They Call Me Oil Can: Baseball, Drugs, and Life on the Edge was published by Triumph Books. In the book, Boyd admitted that he used crack every day of the 1986 season and that he was high on marijuana in every baseball game he played from "Little League all the way through college."

Boyd's intense charisma during Red Sox games specifically was evidenced by fist pumps, shouting from the dugout, and high-fives for teammates. He was also a go-to player for quotes in the Boston press. Among his most well-known quotes is one made in reference to a game postponed at Cleveland's Municipal Stadium due to fog from Lake Erie. When asked about the situation, Boyd responded, "That's what you get for building a ballpark on the ocean."

Personal life
Boyd has numerous relatives who played professional baseball. These include two of Boyd's uncles: K. T. Boyd played for Kansas City Monarchs, and Robert Boyd played for the Kansas City Athletics and the Memphis Red Sox of the Negro leagues. Boyd's great-great-uncle Benjamin Boyd played for Memphis Red Sox and the Homestead Grays. Boyd is also related to baseball player Barry Larkin, who is Boyd's father's first cousin (Boyd's first cousin once removed).

title: Oil Can Boyd


text:
Talk:Software quality

Industry data reference
I just read the presentation that is cited as [4] in the article: "Industry data demonstrate that poor application structural quality in core business applications (such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Customer Relationship Management (CRM) or large transaction processing systems in financial services) results in cost and schedule overruns and creates waste in the form of rework (up to 45% of development time in some organizations [4])". This presentation does not support this claim and also does not included references to scientific papers that would support it. I think this sentence should be removed. Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.173.73 (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, article re-worked. Reference is indeed crap, removed. Part not to be confused with "Software quality cost engineering" but text is written to ask for referencing of why SQ is contributing to Cost Mgmt, or basically, why SQ is saving the company money. Two articles on this, https://www.techrepublic.com/article/report-software-failure-caused-1-7-trillion-in-financial-losses-in-2017/ and https://medium.com/@ryancohane/financial-cost-of-software-bugs-51b4d193f107, but also papers. The citation, as mentioned in above comment, also more from a Requirements angle, which is fine too, but not useful. I also recommended https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319637731_Software_Failures_An_Overview and will site the paper. ✅--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed reference
I removed this reference as it broke the references header and I could not discern what it meant to cite. If anyone has a clue or has this reference, please do re-insert it appropriately.
 * "O. Alshathry, H. Janicke, Optimizing Software Quality Assurance, Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (COMPSACW), 2010 IEEE 34th Annual, pp.87 - 92"

Sangrolu (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Software Quality in 1-2 Sentences
This article could benefit tremendously from a concise definition of Software Quality (no easy task). Need help! Putting my first go at it. Please revise, and discuss. Dalvizu 02:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that: in my humble opinion, this article represents a partial perspective on quality. Although the CISQ standard looks fine (won't debate here about its relevance), it should be highlighted that many others have addressed this: garvin, kitchenham and pfleeger, among others. I'll try to give some common definitions for better objectivity, with references. Don't hesitate to argue on this. Boris Baldassari (Talk) 09:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Conformance to requirements
It seems a little contradictory to talk of software quality being defined by conformance to requirements when one of the biggest problems of software development is the difficulty in specifying clear requirements.

Defining software quality this way also implies a concious planned development from formal specifications. It ignores organic software development methods such as agile or open source; most people would agree that Linux is a high-quality piece of code but what are the original requirements that Linus Torvalds was supposed to comply to? Does anyone know or care if those were met?

Software is, at least to some degree, an art. "Well written" code is entirely a human concept since the average computer doesn't seem to care. Now art, by its very nature, isn't about meeting pre-defined requirements; it is said that the merchant who commissioned the Mona Lisa refused it because it didn't look enough like his wife.

-- Shanky

Couldn't agree more. As a expert in the field, it seems to me that Software Quality is not accurately described solely conformance to standards. This article currently only represents a single (and somehwat dogmatic) point of view. Please, BOLDLY edit this article. I certainly intend to. Mmcdougall 18:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think software quality is defined not only by its technical aspects, but also by the user experience. Many software packages have great internals, but rather bad GUI. I added a section on usability (quality in the eye of the beholder). It needs a lot more work. Philippe 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed whole heartedly. There may be a lot of praise on Linux. But, most are from the technical people. It is a fact. This means it meets the technical users' expectation. However, it is also a fact that Linux is not very successful in taking up by non-technical users even it is free and available in so many forms (distributions). This also means that it does not meet the end users' expectation. Therefore, whether it is a quality product is actually depend on who is the user. 220.253.152.240 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the software quality is better defined as the "ability of the software to satisfy a quantified business outcome through the provision of technical and functional capabilities". Even though in many situations a quantified business outcome may not have been provided, that does not mean the the software was necessarily of poor quality? (My potential conflict of interest that I would like to declare is that I have spent years looking at the problem of software requirements and developed a commercial tool to solve the problem - < >) Colinrhammond (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not sure what change you're proposing. I get the feeling that you want to add to or replace the existing definitions.
 * Second, I'm not sure that's a good definition let alone good grammar.
 * Finally, we you have a reliable source that would support that definition?
 * I would argue that we should actually gather what reliable sources have stated software quality is and add them to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Quality Factors and the Human Factor
I think the word Quality points at a collecion of things. Herein is one of the aspects I think makes it subjective. We all seem to have our own personal collection of things we point at when we talk about Quality. Moreover, each project seems to have their own collective rendition of what Quality software means to them: what they find acceptable. So, any discussion of Quality ignoring this simple reality seems doomed to devolve in to sounding dogmatic and definitive. I never forget that software engineering is not just a technical task, but a human one as well (art?).

As for Usability and Reliability and GUI issues, I am inclined to agree with Bertrand Meyer how there are Internal and External Quality Factors. Internal pointing at those quality factors experienced by those who design, code and test and External pointing towards those experienced by any level of end user who sees and interacts with whatever interface the software presents (graphical or otherwise).

The best way to continue the discussion is by either clearer language about what a Quality Factor is and what it looks like in real code in a real project. Also within the human context of agreement as well.

Internal Quality Factor: Understandibility. What does it point to? Perhaps a list will help fill in the meaning:

1. Coding Standards (technical and style) --> Directly impacts the "quality" of the code text itself. Agreed upon coding and style standards makes the code text more understandable. 2. Design Patterns --> Another direct contributor to code "quality". The code is more understandable when predictable design patterns are used in the code text. 3. UML Tools --> These have a first step of having indirect impact on the understandibility of the code, but as they move towards actual production code text, they take on more impact. 4. Extreme or Agile methods --> It has been shown more than once, how the methods of agile and extreme programming improve the readibility of the code text (just one aspect of a larger affect).

External Quality Factory: Understandibility. I can see how quality factors cannot help but carry up fom the code text to the user interface itself. So, whenever I think about and deal with quality factors, I know that whatever I do in the code text is going to directly or indirectly impact the user interface at some point.

1. GUI Standards --> Such as those that Microsoft uses for GUI design standards. 1. UML Tools --> One of the aspects of UML is to bring standard style, agreement, consistency and such things to the GUI. I think this has a direct impact on the User Understandibility of the software.

When I think about the example notions above, what I see is how agreed upon standards for how to design, write and test software, I see how the word quality quickly moves from the essoteric and subjective to the very concrete and real. What remains always a gray area is what people agree to and find helpful in any situation.

More on Software Quality
Aren't there tools or techniques that provide some sort of measure of quality? The first that come to my mind is "code coverage", which is the combination of test cases and evaluation that shows that the test cases executes a high percentange of source code. The test case and source code combineed determine quality in its ability to weed out defects, particularly if the test case includes "unexpected" data sets.--96.244.248.77 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Other measures of quality include evaluation of the documentation of the code, whether it be as simple as the number of comment lines per source line, or procedurally by other external methods (such as existance and review of user manuals, how-to-test documentation, independent code reviews, sustainability requirements, or other methods). Much has been written about this, but time-to-market seems to drive activities that result in shortcuts to quality. Fundamentally - quality takes time to create, but pays dividends in the long run. --96.244.248.77 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi, this comment seems dated and unspecific. I provide a couple of tools here, which relate to software quality. This is by no means a commercial ad or recommendation. Further understanding of you project needs must be elaborated to derive the right solutions. Speaking from experience, it is very likely and normal that several different tools are needed to achieve full software quality, plus additional customer-consulting metrics and engineering to cover the non-machine tricky areas. Also know that tools keep evolving: What used to be a pure Requirements tool can become a full ALM tool 1-2 years later or turn into a software code quality suite after several M&As. ✅

 * https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
 * https://www.sonarqube.org/
 * https://polarion.plm.automation.siemens.com/products/polarion-alm
 * IBM DOORS/DOORS Next Gen/JAZZ: https://jazz.net/
 * https://www.getzephyr.com/
 * https://www.gurock.com/testrail/
 * https://www.synopsys.com/software-integrity.html
 * https://www.jacoco.org/jacoco/
 * https://www.adacore.com/gnatpro/toolsuite/gnatdashboard
 * https://samate.nist.gov/index.php/Source_Code_Security_Analyzers.html
 * Note: The list above purposely lists different tools to give you an idea what's existing, some cover RM, some QA. Different language, different tools. Different industry, different tools.

Conformance to standards?
I think conformance to standards is necessary to improve software quality, especially what regards the Internet. Paulo Oliveira 11:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that quality is a vague term, but disappoint to hear that requirements conformance should not be used to measure software quality. A product could be technically brilliant, but failing to meet users expectation can never earn it the recognition of quality.  For software development, requirements are the expression of users expectation.  -- Francis Law 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Requirements can be wrong or unattainable. Often during coding there are things that can't be done as requested or plain wrong. This leads to a requirement refinement. At the end requirements should be strong enough and the software should be capable of showing conformance. If a technically brilliant product doesn't meet the user expectation then either one (or both) is wrong.Javier Ortiz Bultrón 01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 * This argument is between Quality (in terms of actually meeting customer expectations, e.g. Validation - was the right product built? ) and quality of requirements (was it specified correctly, or Verification - was it built "right"). This is basic Systems Engineering discipline.  The objective, of course, is to satisfy the customer needs (validation) which is sometimes subjective.  Often challenging, which is why documentation, reviews, and good communications remain important in the management of complex systems. --96.244.248.77 (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi, there are several standards and guidelines linked, see ISO or IEEE. This discussion seems out-dated, unspecific, and should if necessary restarted with concrete goal. Calling it therefore done. ✅

Merge with Software reliability (done) Software assurance?
Someone added a suggestion to merge this article with Software reliability, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of exactly why. I'm going to speculate that "quality" is somehow a more expansive topic than "reliability"—I don't have any argument with that. Just wanted to bring it up here. I haven't even read this page; it looks to sparse to even bother. What's with the fascination with lists of other pages in the software-related pages? (While I'm here, the Computer software page itself needs more help. Why try to define so many software sub-topics when the primary page is not very good? Brent 01:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Conan's merge suggestion. Software testing is great, but Software reliability and Software quality are overlapping ideas with each other.  Perhaps Software quality and reliability is better?  FWIW, Computer software looks better now than SR and SQ. -- Perfecto [[Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg|25px|Canada]] 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Reliability is only one aspect of quality, there is too much to say in only one article.--Thv 08:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Thv that reliability is only one aspect of software quality. However, I think this article needs more effort to become more valuable.  I would suggest to start with planning the flow of thought before filling in content and information.  Then, associate it with other topic, such as Quality, Quality Standards, etc.  -- Francis Law 13:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * ''I agree with former contributors that Reliability is one of the aspects. As for structuring the content of this page I would suggest to follow one of the "public domain" software quality reference models, ie. McCall [1977], Boehm [1978] and ISO 9126/1993. Furthermore I would advice to simply "define "Software Quality" as "Software meeting requirements" and would focus the discussion on structuring and defining these requirements, and the process of (automated) validation. --Rob Snelders (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree that there is a distinction between Software Quality and Software Reliability. Reliability is only a subset of Quality.   Quality is a combination of reliability, suitability, availability, maintainabilty, performance, cost effectiveness, and other factors.  E.g. quality tends to cover all the "-illities" of a system. (Yes, I probably missed some, so please feel free to add...) --96.244.248.77 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Software Assurance is a big trend supported by the US DHS and DoD, which focus almost exclusively on security and vulnerabilities, which is a very restricted notion by definition. For example, poor efficiency (performance, ressources comsumption..etc ) or poor maintainability of an IT system, or of an embedded system, CANNOT  be classified as “vulnerabilities”. This would have no sense.  Security is a subset of software quality, and as such, it may make sense to integrate Software Assurance into Software Quality. An alternative would be to redefine the Software Assurance definition, to make it broader. In all cases,  the structure of the resulting page would have to be very clear. DamienPo (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add a vote to leave Software assurance as a separate page. As others note, Software Assurance is a more specific term; not as broadly used as Software Quality. As an example, I work for a major medical device manufacturer and we do not use the term Software Assurance, although we perform many activities that other organizations would specifically label Software Assurance. Our use of the term, Software Quality, however, is closely aligned with much of the content of the Software quality page, its references, and with industry use in general. Casualhacker (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi, this seems a bit dated now, clearly and speaking with decades of professional expertise: Software quality is not (just) Software assurance. Unfortunately there is a lot of confusion. I provide some of my POVs:

 * Software testing - Black box, etc. a specialty, contributing to Reliability, Safety, Security.
 * Quality assurance - Very close to Software quality, but unspecific in terms of software: Could cover hardware too.
 * Software quality assurance - Often means Testing, Testmanagement and related processes, but doesn't include Safety or sometimes Security or Maintainability or Performance
 * Performance testing - Specific, only one aspect of overall QA/Testing and not covering other areas
 * Software reliability - Doesn't cover Security or needs to specifically cover it, could be hardening, could mean Safety, e.g. for critical systems
 * Software suitability - The full-cycle of requirements to testing. Functional requirements mainly, are they 'suitable' and 'testable', verifyable?
 * What else, did I means anything? I hope this makes it clear. ✅

Application- vs. infrastructure software
It may be a good idea to discuss the topic from the above two perspectives. Just to kick off some topics:

 * Infrastructure software is designed to be stable eg. for the long run
 * Application software is usually dealing with constant changes in requirements, the design may not be so stable
 * High availabilty, scalability (technical features in general) usually implemented at the infrastructure level. Application development should not directly deal with them.
 * Meanwhile UI requirements against application softwares are generally higher then against infrastructure softwares...

Copy violation?
The recent additions to this article by 203.128.4.253 appear to be directly copied from some workshop notes, and as such are probably copyright, besides being in an unencyclopaedic tone. Colonies Chris 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. Right now it doesn't look like an encyclopaedic article at all. I'd suggest removing those edits entirely or heavily modifying them ASAP. Sarg 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Restored most of section 3 from the history.

Not a Definition Problem
Ask youselves, quality with respect to what?

Quality is measured. You're (maybe) correct, stating that LINUX evolved from something without clear objectives. But by no means, this translates to saying that you measure LINUX quality against that. Got it?

I'll clarify. Keeping with the same example, Linux is good because Linux does this and does that. Fine. In saying so, you defined your quality scale and you claim Linux is good with respect to that. Period.

The best picture, of course, is to define the requirements in advance. This is one of the challenges of SW engineering.

Look carefully; you'll see that the definition, as "conformance to requirements", is correct. The same problem arises in other engineering areas involving complex products. So we shift the discussion from the definition, to the challenge of ensuring quality of the final product.

The definition is also in agreement with what was done when we wrote ISO/IEC 9126 and, lately, ISO/IEC 25000 (I was part of it).

200.175.4.236 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality, what quality?
This discussion has been going on in business and University environments for the past 30 years so I don't expect to end soon.I think the present definition covers the technical aspects of software quality fairly well, and covers the software reliability quite well. However, there are other aspects of quality not covered at all, primarily the business side.

In 2000 ISO has gone back and redefined Software Quality as "...meeting or exceeding customer expectations...". This was due, in part, because of the dot-bombs making software with no customers or business value.

In engineering fields product always has to meet technical and business constraints, including cost, time to market, and return on investment. One question SQA asks is "Did we build the product right?", (verification), the other is "Did we build the right product?" (validation). If software was truely an engineering discipline, Universities would apply the same curriculum standards that apply to all other engineering fields and software engineers would know how to balance and meet all technical and business requirements and constraints. The top 3 tech companies are software companies, they do not give their product away for free, and seem to have done this quite well.

This discussion has been going on in business and University environments for the past 30 years so I don't expect to end soon.

Alhenry2006 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Al

 * Hi, your comment has never been answered and is very old. Software quality IS defined and well-worked with over the last 30 years. The main article has been improved dramatically and you can see the many links to ISO, IEEE, etc. Of course the definition will always be evolving, but there is a basic setting for software quality which covers it. The "Did we build the product right?" depends on your requirements engineering, POs, etc. Verification and validation is clearly defined and a well-established activity in industrial and even scientific discipline, where the focus is even more on "the right, validated results" rather than on the build-quality. I hope this answers you comment. ✅

Cleanup
This page has been flagged for cleanup for almost two years. Let's see if we can fix it. A quick glance makes me think it needs inline citations, as well as improvement in the prose. Comments from others? Arthurrh (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 * This is a very difficult subject. It is an age old subject, but not very well developed in the software/IT industry.  I am not an expert in the area, but willing to give it a go.  However, I am not sure what should I do before editing it.  Do I need to obtain consent from anybody or reaching an agreement before I start updating it?  I think it needs a thorough thought and major restructure.  Francis Law (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Agree, article is not well written and outdated. Let's start with closing meta-discussions also and get working, calling this section done.✅--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is quality?
I am not an expert in software quality. However, I have been using the following definition for my works.
 * Quality products are products that meet or exceed expected quality.

Software is a product that is developed to solve some problems. Therefore, it suits this definition. Some people may argue that quality could be defined differently, but I find this is what we really mean by "quality". However, this definition put every business in a spin quickly because:
 * 1) Expected quality is unlimited and ever changing;
 * 2) Expected quality is subjective and not measurable;
 * 3) Exceed expected quality means over production which is not acceptable to most business.

This explain why most people complain on quality of products including software while software companies struggle to achieve a reputation in quality. To be practical, the definition is adjusted into:
 * Quality products are products that meet agreed quality.

Again, this definition does not resolve issue #2 above. To resolve this issue, we have to turn ambiguous "quality" into something verifiable, i.e. requirements. To ensure quality of requirements, we could adopt Software Quality Model such as that described in ISO/IEC 9126.

Some people may argue software could be developed without requirements. I think this only an excuse. No matter what, software is developed to do something. That "something" is the requirements to the software being developed. Declaring no requirements is only an excuse to avoid managing requirements. This make the software being developed a failure already.

Francis Law (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm by no means a quality expert, but it seems the page reads very dryly. Obviously, there exists the quality aspect of code to requirements, would the page benefit from lower level information, eg software quality metrics, links to any unit testing, code coverage pages?

Sorry if I'm out of line, new here :p

Minkythecat (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The message may be dry but I think it touches the basic truth. Minky's message probably misses the main point of the message. I'm not talking about the importance of requirement or coding. I'm defining what is quality with respect to software product. Quality cannot be achieved by a single factor or a single element. It is the accumulated results of many factors.

Most discussion focus in areas people working with. However, it seldom try to view the quality from the user perspective. User is the ultimate judge on the quality of product. How often does a technically brilliant product fails to please users? Usually, developer complaint that users can't understand the beauty of the product. I'm no exception and I did that in the past. However, I start to realize the cause is most likely the product fails to meet users' expectation. Therefore, the technically brilliant product becomes a technically brilliant rubbish to the users.

This sounds very harsh. But, I truly believe in this.

Francis Law (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is Software Reliability Modeling?
Some entry should discuss operational profiles, reliability allocation, the use of software reliability models (e.g., Shooman, Jelinski-Moranda, Goel-Okumoto, Musa, Moranda Geometric, Musa-Okumoto, various S-shaped models) to monitor testing, the use of this approach on each spiral in spiral development to support Statistical Process Control, etc. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi, good, then why not edit the article? There exists material, e.g. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-82014-4_22 or https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/tandem/TR-96.1.pdf or go broader: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=software+reliability+models, but it all dates or peaked around 90s(?) see https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=software+reliability+models&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csoftware%20reliability%20models%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Csoftware%20reliability%20models%3B%2Cc0, so if you want to bring this in, then maybe something fresh? Ok, here is a publication from 2018: https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/some-software-reliability-models/isbn/978-613-9-82805-0 Also interesting, looking at the keywords from the previous material.

 * Keywords: Hausdorff Distance, Software Reliability Models, confidence bounds, cumulative number of failures, debugging theory, uniform distance, Goel model, Goel-Okumoto model, deterministic curve model, discrete Gompertz, new Gompertz-Makeham, transmuted deterministic, Yamada-exponential, Logistic-exponential, Yamada-Rayleigh, generalized inverted exponential, transmuted inverse exponential, transmuted log-logistic, Kumaraswamy-Dagum log-logistic, Kumaraswamy quasi Lindley

 * Now that is a lot(!) of theoretical approaches I would say. And finally, we have this NASA article from 2001: Practical software reliability modeling (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/992668?arnumber=992668) with 4 indicated paper citations...
 * I conclude: I try to mention (include it), but definitely is a specialty in the last 5% of Software quality.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi again, I take my done back, because the reliability part of the main article cannot be amended briefly, it should be re-written and I currently do not have my resource available for detail-change.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Software security has no place in this article
The software security should not be included in this article: it is a completely separate topic. How does this:

''Does the software protect itself and its data against unauthorized access and use? Does it allow its operator to enforce security policies? Are security mechanisms appropriate, adequate and correctly implemented? Can the software withstand attacks that can be anticipated in its intended environment? Is the software free of errors that would make it possible to circumvent its security mechanisms?''

relate to software quality? I am currently writing an open source program for mathematical computations. As such, it has no security features whatsover. What does "unauthorised access" mean to a computational open source program? Please, move software security to a software security article, where it belongs. 95.33.126.194 (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 * You are mistaken. Security is an important quality factor of software.  It is not a feature and it is not optional.  You are right that many of the features listed will not be relevant to many programs.  Not all questions you list are relevant to your program, but the last one is. Rp (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Security is certainly an important factor that contributes to the overall quality. It is one of the sub-characteristics identified in the Software Quality Model ISO/IEC 9126.  The model can help to achieve quality in product.  However, a product may have considered all characteristics and sub-characteristics in the model.  But, it can still be labelled as poor quality if it cannot meet it user's expectation.  Therefore, the model should be a tool to help materialize the user's expectation into atomic and testable requirements. Francis Law (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi, closing this discussion because it's 2021 and Security has a clear place in overall software quality cycle. Main article including Security as part of quality characteristic of a product. Yes of course Security is its own highly specialized area of software engineering, but nevertheless, bad security grills your software and company immediately (see IBM data breach report) and must be governed by overall quality management. ✅

Who Wants to Help?
I am currently studying Software Engineering and am researching Measuring Software Quality. I will begin editing this page soon. I will review the comments posted in this discussion and try to act on them as best as possible. Dfletter (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I have just flagged my interests to update this page before I notice your post. How's your update?  I think this page requires a well thought out plot and a major restructure.  Francis Law (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * software quality is indeed an age old subject! I am retired now but I started dealing with these issues something like 35 years ago. I even wrote guidelines for Fortran developers in those days. Anyhow this is not at all well developed for business systems on which so much relies and I am willing to contribute but I am not sure how to proceed. I would like to add a specific section describing what critical architecture issues and source code quality checks to ensure reliability, performance efficiency, and maintainability of IT business applications. Please adviseFrancois grassot (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi, this comment seems very old and in the meantime hopefully you completed your studies. Closing so we can have clearer picture of the Talk page. Feel free to reach out with a specific new comment/section if you have a new question or request for help.✅

Proposal for contribution
Software Quality has been a subject of great interest and importance to me -- I would like to help contribute to the discussion and the content of the page. Mbarberony (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

I have been an IT practitioner for over 25 years now, mostly as a consultant (I was head of Technology Consulting - which included System Integration - for the Financial Service Industry at BearingPoint in North America) but in the past few years, I have been working for a major swiss bank first as interim CTO for their North American Wealth Management group and now as Head of Strategy for the Global CTO organization.

Software quality is of major importance to us and we are in the process of setting up a bank-wide Key Performance Indicator aiming at measuring, improving and monitoring the quality of our software portfolio and I would like to share the perspective I gained and that we are gaining from this and prior experience.

It seems to me that the article as of now has a wealth of information but some of it might be extraneous and confusing to the reader, so my first suggestion would be to restructure (refactor!) the content to make it more concise and helpful to anyone consulting this article.

In that context, I would suggest that the first thing to do is to reword the definition section to present a simple but not simplistic definition of the topic – with another section presenting alternative view: with respect to the formal definition and in keeping with the suggestions made by others in that page, I would submit that that software quality regroup two very complementary but rather distinct notions: functional quality and structural quality.

Unless someone has an alternative proposal, I’ll propose a more structured approach based on my recent work at the CISQ, a SEI and OMG joint effort, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CISQ where I’ve had the chance to get exposed to the work performed by luminary industry experts in SW quality, universities’ research labs, as well as Caper Jones, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capers_Jones CISQ Distinguished Advisor.

Citation
Could you please add a citation for where the CISQ criteria come from - is there a formal document somewhere? (I like the definition, but where does it come from? I couldn't find anything on the CISQ website).

129.215.63.105 (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I did insert the link to one of the key document published by CISQ: (see CISQ 2009 Executive Forums Report) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarberony (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I added the CISQ document on http://it-cisq.org/cisqwiki/images/a/a2/CISQ_Function_Point_Specification.pdf which is the first first metric standard published by CISQ - It deals with Automated Function Points measurement. CISQ has also announced to its membership that definitions for metrics associated to for the four Quality Characteristics—Maintainability, Reliability, Security, and Performance Efficiency—will be released and submitted to OMG in Request for Comment form at its March 2012 Technical Meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarberony (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Automated Function Points specification was updated to beta 2 and can be found at https://www.omg.org/spec/AFP/1.0/Beta2/ 210.9.30.170 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Hi, can we call this section closed? Comments nearly a decade old and CISQ is a real thing today. References exist. Let's move this article and discussion into a new light. Inserting a Done here. ✅--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Major Cleanup
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarberony (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As proposed in my last entry, I updated the introduction section a few weeks back and I just changed the overall definition and regroup some material in other section. I am working on a more systematic description of quality characteristics which I will be able to post very soon.
 * Added end of the edit today -- I will be working on adding links to the text particularly by leveraging the links in the previous version.

 * Hi, I started working on it. I'm a SW/QA/RM professional.✅--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

re-Major Cleanup for objectivity: article is too CISQ-oriented
After some thoughts, I believe this article mainly covers CISQ's definition of quality, which is a partial and incomplete point of view. The article is fine and quite well written, but I believe this should be moved to something more CISQ-specific, like a specific section in the CISQ wikipedia's main page. Here are my arguments:
 * Many others have had different (and quite more generic) views on quality. They should be cited as reference, instead of quoting only one vision on this hot subject of debate.
 * Many quality models have been published, for many different organisation types and domains. CISQ covers only a part of what is addressed in other quality models. This is unfair for them.
 * The attributes of quality are partial. They mainly cover the manufacturing view on quality (which is the most proeminent view in the industry, ok), but miss several aspects (e.g. transcendental view from Garvin, conformance to requirements from Feigenbaum, fitness for use from Juran, community in FLOSS models...).
 * Recent research in software quality models has highlighted many shortcomings in modern standards (ISO 9126, SQuaRE, or even CMM), and CISQ doesn't behave better than other models. In that sense, the article misses many aspects of quality models and once again constitutes a partial view on quality and quality models.

Boris Baldassari (Talk) 12:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose the following plan for a major rewrite:

 * 1) Software quality: Definitions of Garvin, Kitchenham, Feigenbaum, Juran, Deming, Shewhart, Ishikawa, and others. (I can provide them all).
 * 2) Software Measurement
 * 3) Issues with software measurement: fenton, pfleeger,
 * 4) Methods for software measurement: Basili's GQM, Lessons learned from software measurement programs.
 * 5) Software quality models
 * 6) Early models: McCall, Boehm, Dromey
 * 7) Standards: ISO 9126, ISO SQuaRE,
 * 8) FLOSS quality models: OSMM Capgemini, OSMM Navia, QSOS, OpenBRR, QualiPSo, QualOSS, SQO-OSS

Boris Baldassari (Talk) 12:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The CISQ is a neutral, non-profit consortium, backed by the OMG and the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, which is a good and credible voice of the IT industry, which does not focus only on embedded system. It’s actually good to talk about software quality for business IT, and not only – as it is too often the case – for embedded system. The latest is sometime “life critical”, and as such very important, but IT is business critical. Nothing wrong with that I think. Also, it’s a consortium open to everyone, free of charge membership.

DamienPo (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But referencing them directly rather than using WP:SECONDARY sources may not be ideal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

DamienPo, you missed my point. CISQ is free, open, fine, and so on, ok. But it doesn't mean it defines quality. I mean, I've nothing against CISQ, really, and like what they are doing. But software quality (for IT and embedded/desktop/whatsoever software, btw) is a lot more than just what CISQ includes. An encyclopaedic article must talk about what has been said before, and what is said apart from, one single source. Having CISQ- or IT-related information seems fine to me, but having only it completely misses the objectivity and completeness requirements of wikipedia. What about the few arguments I've listed above? Boris Baldassari (Talk) 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Software Engineering: A PRACTITIONER’S APPROACH
The reference mentions the author as Scott Pressman. The book bears the name of Roger S Pressman. Is this the same person? Also I have access to the 5th edition of the book (electronic), and I cannot find the definition near the specified page. Can someone verify the reference. Doesn't seem right that something as basic as the definition will not exist in the 5th edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.92.108 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the author of the book is Roger S. Pressman, who perhaps has the middle name Scott. I updated the reference. I don't have a copy handy to verify it. It is odd that we have both full references and a bibliography - seems that we should simplify this. Faught (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

CISQ quality characteristics
There are not five but four characteristics defined in the CISQ software quality model as I read it now. I could not find if historically it was the case, but Size should not be listed at the same level as the other 4, and it should sit under Maintainability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucian.ciufudean (talk • contribs) 09:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I updated the part.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding a Done to this section ✅--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Interpretation regarding to W. Edwards Deming??
Does this statement have any reference/source? "As a consequence, code quality without the context of the whole system, as W. Edwards Deming described it, has limited value." --Ignxst (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, it does not make sense. The whole article needs to be re-focused away from generalists in quality such as Deming towards the software specialty with its own experts and gurus. Combing Deming with software quality, an interesting article can be found here https://deming.org/software-code-reviews-from-a-deming-perspective/ but the meaning above is without reference no good. I agree however that the system context needs to be understood, but from a quality perspective and with focus on software the "software systems" as such needs to be understood and measured. This article https://deming.org/applying-w-edwards-demings-ideas-in-software-development/ combines Deming with software but points to "management system" and its behaviors. Now, the following article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002627149290058S is mapping Deming's 14-points (see here https://deming.org/explore/fourteen-points/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) to software (quality). "Deming's system" is a bit different from a "technical system". To conclude: Firstly, I would not call it (or ask) "code quality" but rather "software quality". There is different. Secondly, the meaning here is that "software quality" (driven by the excellence of a quality department or group) influences the value of an overall product or service, and that can be a sofware or system. Thridly, as the article mentions, "The traditional technique is too focused: the final code." and hence, it is highly recommended to look at the "whole system" and "Improve constantly and forever the system development process", again, meaning the system-context here. The connection with value is not ideal, but the connection "whole system" (but meaning a technical system, such as a embedded ECU) is valid. Text should therefore be altered, maybe I do it later.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk-page restructuring
Hi, I noticed many old talk sections. I will re-structure and re-name for more clarity so we drill down the situation as the main article clearly needs updating. --𝔏92934923525 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Motivation
Major cleanup of motivation part. Removing the following which is not cited and connected to the motivation aspect: ''"However, the distinction between measuring and improving software quality in an embedded system (with emphasis on risk management) and software quality in business software (with emphasis on cost and maintainability management) is becoming somewhat irrelevant. Embedded systems now often include a user interface and their designers are as much concerned with issues affecting usability and user productivity as their counterparts who focus on business applications. The latter are in turn looking at ERP or CRM system as a corporate nervous system whose uptime and performance are vital to the well-being of the enterprise. This convergence is most visible in mobile computing: a user who accesses an ERP application on their smartphone is depending on the quality of software across all types of software layers.

Both types of software now use multi-layered technology stacks and complex architecture so software quality analysis and measurement have to be managed in a comprehensive and consistent manner, decoupled from the software's ultimate purpose or use. In both cases, engineers and management need to be able to make rational decisions based on measurement and fact-based analysis in adherence to the precept "In God (we) trust. All others bring data" ((mis-)attributed to W. Edwards Deming and others)."''

Further, the Deming quote is mis-attributed. We don't need such stuff on a QUALITY page. "Embedded systems now often include a user interface" is a bit of a joke, thanks for that. And this "uptime and performance are vital to the well-being of the enterprise." ... seriously, the well-being of the enterprise? Doubt it, despite knowing what for example an SAP does. Uptime is a very specific topic. Agree with "a user who accesses an ERP application on their smartphone is depending on the quality of software across all types of software layers." but without referencing this not ideal.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

DeMarco quote
Hi, I cannot find the quote "a product's quality is a function of how much it changes the world for the better." which was referenced to https://www.cutter.com/search?search_api_fulltext=Tom%20DeMarco&f%5B0%5D=author%3A38806&f%5B1%5D=authored_on%3A1998&f%5B2%5D=authored_on_mobile%3A1998 ... from 1999, there is nothing from DeMarco at Cutter in 1999.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Software quality


text:
Minami-Fukumitsu Frequency Converter

Minami-Fukumitsu Frequency Converter (南福光連系所) is the name given to an HVDC back-to-back station for the interconnection of the power grids of western and eastern Japan. This facility went in service in March 1999. It operates with a voltage of 125 kV and can transfer a power up to 300 megawatts. The station is located in Nanto, Toyama Prefecture.

title: Minami-Fukumitsu Frequency Converter


text:
Earth's crust

Earth's crust is its thick outer shell of rock, referring to less than one percent of the planet's radius and volume. It is the top component of the lithosphere, a division of Earth's layers that includes the crust and the upper part of the mantle. The lithosphere is broken into tectonic plates whose motion allows heat to escape the interior of Earth into space.

The crust lies on top of the mantle, a configuration that is stable because the upper mantle is made of peridotite and is therefore significantly denser than the crust. The boundary between the crust and mantle is conventionally placed at the Mohorovičić discontinuity, a boundary defined by a contrast in seismic velocity.

The temperature of the crust increases with depth, reaching values typically in the range from about 100 °C to 600 °C at the boundary with the underlying mantle. The temperature increases by as much as 30 C-change for every kilometer locally in the upper part of the crust.

Earth's thin, 40-kilometre (25-mile) deep crust—just one percent of Earth’s mass—contains all known life in the Universe.

Composition

The crust of Earth is of two distinct types:

 * 1) Continental: 30 - 50 km (20 - 30 mi) thick and mostly composed of less dense, more felsic rocks, such as granite. In a few places, such as the Tibetan Plateau, the Altiplano, and the eastern Baltic Shield, the continental crust is thicker (50 - 80 km (30 - 50 mi)).
 * 2) Oceanic: 5 - 10 km (3 - 6 mi) thick and composed primarily of denser, more mafic rocks, such as basalt, diabase, and gabbro.

The average thickness of the crust is about 15 - 20 km (9 - 12 mi).

Because both the continental and oceanic crust are less dense than the mantle below, both types of crust "float" on the mantle. The surface of the continental crust is significantly higher than the surface of the oceanic crust, due to the greater buoyancy of the thicker, less dense continental crust (an example of isostasy). As a result, the continents form high ground surrounded by deep ocean basins.

The continental crust has an average composition similar to that of andesite, though the composition is not uniform, with the upper crust averaging a more felsic composition similar to that of dacite, while the lower crust averages a more mafic composition resembling basalt. The most abundant minerals in Earth's continental crust are feldspars, which make up about 41% of the crust by weight, followed by quartz at 12%, and pyroxenes at 11%.

All the other constituents except water occur only in very small quantities and total less than 1%.

Continental crust is enriched in incompatible elements compared to the basaltic ocean crust and much enriched compared to the underlying mantle. The most incompatible elements are enriched by a factor of 50 to 100 in the continental crust relative to primitive mantle rock, while oceanic crust is enriched with incompatible elements by a factor of about 10.

The estimated average density of the continental crust is 2.835 g/cm3, with density increasing with depth from an average of 2.66 g/cm3 in the uppermost crust to 3.1 g/cm3 at the base of the crust.

In contrast to the continental crust, the oceanic crust is composed predominantly of pillow lava and sheeted dikes with the composition of mid-ocean ridge basalt, with a thin upper layer of sediments and a lower layer of gabbro.

Formation and evolution
Earth formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago from a disk of dust and gas orbiting the newly formed Sun. It formed via accretion, where planetesimals and other smaller rocky bodies collided and stuck, gradually growing into a planet. This process generated an enormous amount of heat, which caused early Earth to melt completely. As planetary accretion slowed, Earth began to cool, forming its first crust, called a primary or primordial crust. This crust was likely repeatedly destroyed by large impacts, then reformed from the magma ocean left by the impact. None of Earth's primary crust has survived to today; all was destroyed by erosion, impacts, and plate tectonics over the past several billion years.

Since then, Earth has been forming a secondary and tertiary crust, which correspond to oceanic and continental crust, respectively. Secondary crust forms at mid-ocean spreading centers, where partial-melting of the underlying mantle yields basaltic magmas and new ocean crust forms. This "ridge push" is one of the driving forces of plate tectonics, and it is constantly creating new ocean crust. Consequently, old crust must be destroyed, so opposite a spreading center, there is usually a subduction zone: a trench where an ocean plate is sinking back into the mantle. This constant process of creating a new ocean crust and destroying the old ocean crust means that the oldest ocean crust on Earth today is only about 200 million years old.

In contrast, the bulk of the continental crust is much older. The oldest continental crustal rocks on Earth have ages in the range from about 3.7 to 4.28 billion years and have been found in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane in Western Australia, in the Acasta Gneiss in the Northwest Territories on the Canadian Shield, and on other cratonic regions such as those on the Fennoscandian Shield. Some zircon with age as great as 4.3 billion years has been found in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane. Continental crust is a tertiary crust, formed at subduction zones through recycling of subducted secondary (oceanic) crust.

The average age of Earth's current continental crust has been estimated to be about 2.0 billion years. Most crustal rocks formed before 2.5 billion years ago are located in cratons. Such an old continental crust and the underlying mantle asthenosphere are less dense than elsewhere on Earth and so are not readily destroyed by subduction. Formation of new continental crust is linked to periods of intense orogeny, which coincide with the formation of the supercontinents such as Rodinia, Pangaea and Gondwana. The crust forms in part by aggregation of island arcs including granite and metamorphic fold belts, and it is preserved in part by depletion of the underlying mantle to form buoyant lithospheric mantle. Crustal movement on continents may result in earthquakes, while movement under the seabed can lead to tidal waves.

title: Earth's crust


text:
Dennis Boyd

Dennis Boyd may refer to:

 * Dennis Boyd (American football) (born 1955), NFL player from 1977 to 1982
 * Dennis Boyd (basketball) (born 1954), American basketball player
 * Dennis Boyd (rugby league), British rugby league footballer in 1978 Kangaroo tour of Great Britain and France
 * Oil Can Boyd (Dennis Ray Boyd, born 1959), Major League Baseball pitcher

title: Dennis Boyd


text:
Talk:Wang Zhizhi

First Asian NBA player?
Wang is not the first Asian NBA player. Wataru Misaka is. See http://www.asiansportsnet.com/basketball/history_nba.html and http://www.nba.com/features/global_misaka_010417.html –MementoVivere 19:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically, Wang's not even the first Asian-born player, since Tom Meschery was born in Manchuria to Russian parents. Zagalejo 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some clarification necessary; Wang must not be a great ballhandler or something like that, because being known for long range shooting in the NBA is a height of athletic ability; this must be a tx typo kind of thing. I don't know Wang's game or I would fix it now.--McDogm 19:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Shooting long range isn't the height of athletic ability in the NBA - driving to the hoop and scoring is. The league's most athletic players aren't consistent 3-point shooters (Jason Richardson, Corey Maggette, Josh Smith, Allen Iverson, Richard Jefferson). But they can all get to the hoop and score. In fact, less athletic players like Peja Stojakovic tend to rely more on 3's than athletic swingmen do, even though a lot of them like to shoot them. Also, in the article Wang ZhiZhi is listed at 6'11 but he is easily a 7 footer, in fact, he's listed at 7'1. Habs24 02:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Family?
Is he an only child or did he have siblings? This should definitely be added to the article. 75.4.244.40 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wang Zhizhi


text:
Talk:List of Czechs

Untitled

 * see Archive 1 for previous discussions

Before adding a name to this main list, the name should first be added to the list below, unless the user feels that the person is so important they need an immediate article on the main page.

Comment
Ha haa thats funny: Czech intelligible people. Its in the text on the main page.

writers

 * Zbynek Hejda
 * Antonín Matěj Píša
 * Jan Vlastislav Plánek
 * Antonín Jaroslav Puchmajer
 * Přibík Pulkava of Radenín
 * Mark Slouka
 * Fráňa Šrámek
 * Karolina Světlá
 * Ladislav Stroupežnický
 * Antonín Sova
 * Maxmilián Štván
 * Natanael Vodňanský of Uračov
 * Jan Campanus Vodňanský
 * Bohumil Havlasa
 * Alois Mrštík
 * Vilém Mrštík
 * Josef Holeček
 * František Herites
 * Stanislav Komárek
 * Jan Jeník z Bratřic
 * Jiří Karásek z Lvovic
 * Ludvík Kundera
 * Jan Pravoslav Koubek
 * Jiří Mařánek
 * Tereza Nováková
 * Ladislav Mikeš Pařízek
 * Růžena Svobodová
 * Václav Jamek (1949), writer, translator
 * Bedřich Fučík (1900 - 1984), translator, literary critic
 * Karel Sabina (1811 - 1877)

composers

 * Břetislav Bakala
 * Jiří Ignác Línek, Classicist ,
 * Pavel Blatný
 * Vaclav Kalous
 * Josef Matej
 * Otakar Ostrčil,
 * Ferdinand Sládek,http://www.ledenice.wz.cz/sladek_ferdinand.htm]
 * Tomas Svoboda,
 * Vaclav Tomášek, ,
 * František Tůma,
 * Karel Weis,
 * Jiří Lubarda
 * Jiří Bělohlávek
 * Viktor Kalabis

actors

 * Josef Abrhám (1939), very popular
 * Libuše Šafránková (1953)
 * Jindřich Mošna (1837-1911), a comedian
 * Miroslav Donutil (1951), one popular these days
 * František Filipovský (1907 - 1993), a must
 * Ferenc Futurista (1891 - 1947)
 * Nataša Gollová (1912 - 1988)
 * Boris Hybner (1941), a mim
 * Oldřich Nový (1899 - 1983)
 * Gustav Nezval (1907 - 1998)
 * Jaroslav Marvan (1901 - 1974), another a must
 * Boris Rösner (1951)
 * Václav Thám (1765 - cca 1816)
 * Svatoluk Beneš
 * Ladislav Boháč
 * Jiřina Bohdalová
 * Vlastimil Brodský
 * Radoslav Brzobohatý
 * Rudolf Deyl ml.
 * Rudolf Deyl st.
 * Karel Dostal
 * Bedřich Karen
 * Josef Kemr
 * Eduard Kohout
 * Lubomír Lipský
 * Radovan Lukavský
 * Jaroslav Marvan
 * Jindřich Mošna
 * Jaroslav Průcha
 * Boris Rösner
 * Martin Růžek
 * Jiří Sovák
 * Martin Štěpánek (there is currently an article about diver of the same name)
 * Petr Štěpánek
 * Zdeněk Štěpánek
 * Václav Vydra I.
 * Václav Vydra II.
 * Václav Vydra III.
 * Hugo Haas

artists

 * Jiří Kroha
 * Jan Víšek
 * Jiří Šlitr
 * Jiří Suchý
 * Miloslav Šimek
 * Vaclav Jansa
 * Jakub Obrovský
 * Jan Preisler
 * Josef Wenig
 * Karel Spillar
 * Julius Mařák
 * Otakar Sedloň - painter
 * Rudolf Kremlička
 * Bořek Šípek designer
 * Tavik Frantisek Simon
 * Jiří Grossmann
 * Jan Bauch,
 * Cyril Chramosta,
 * Richard Lauda,
 * Vlastimil Rada,
 * Karel Stehlík,
 * Vratislav Effenberger, a surrealist
 * Josef Mařatka
 * Josef Václav Myslbek
 * Karel Novák
 * Ladislav Šaloun
 * František Uprka
 * Bohumil Kafka
 * Věra Bílá — a singer

historians

 * Antonín Klimek (1937 - 2005), history of Czechoslovakia
 * Josef Macek
 * Josef Pekař (1870 - 1937), a must
 * Josef Polišenský
 * Dušan Třeštík (1933)
 * Vít Vlnas (1962)

others

 * Alberto Vojtěch Frič (1882 - 1944), traveller to South America, ethnographer
 * Adam Hubinger Famous Boxer
 * Jan Čapek ze Sán, Hussite warlord
 * Jiří Hanzelka, traveller
 * Aleš Hrdlička
 * Josef John, famous forester
 * Jan Kašpar, (1883 - 1927), early pilot
 * Hans Kohn, historian
 * Antonín Koniáš, Jesuit famous for burning books
 * Matěj Kopecký, marionetter
 * Jaroslav Kvapil
 * Vojtěch Lanna, industrialist
 * Vojtěch Náprstek, journalist
 * Mikuláš of Pelhřimov, famous Priest, Hussite
 * Evžen Plocek, political suicide
 * Lev of Rožmitál, famous nobleman
 * Mikuláš Ruthard of Malešov, aristocrat
 * Pavel Joachym Sebesta
 * Martin Štěpánek, world free-diving champion
 * Miloslav Stingl (1930), traveller, writer, popular
 * Miroslav Zikmund, traveller
 * Tomáš Verner, European Ice-Skating champion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.189.230 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

scientists

 * Oldřich Marek - entomologist
 * Karel Löwner, mathematician
 * Jan Vlachy, physicist
 * Alois Kovařík, physicist
 * Vincenz Kosteletzky, physician
 * Jan Hraše, archaeologist
 * Antonín Vašíček, mathematician
 * Zdeněk Neubauer, biologist
 * Václav Pačes, biochemist
 * Vilem Gajdušek, optician, manufacturer
 * Zdeněk Nejedlý, historian, musicologist
 * Alexander Ženíšek, mathematician
 * Miroslav Plavec, astronomer
 * Josef Sekanina, mineralogist (see Sekaninaite)
 * Pavel Pavel, engineer and anthropological researcher
 * Josef Allen Hynek, astronomer, professor, ufologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.129.244 (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Czechs. 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/20070610194114/http://www.czech.cz/en/czech-republic/history/famous-czechs-of-the-past-century/ to http://www.czech.cz/en/czech-republic/history/famous-czechs-of-the-past-century/

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) 01:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Czechs