text:
Talk:Matroid

Independence structure
From the article:
 * "a matroid or independence structure "

This is NOT the same. An independance structure does NOT have to fulfill the third independance axion (according to "Korte/Vygen - Combinatorial Optimization" and the german wikipedia article). 84.60.98.171 (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Absurd
I don't know anything about matroids, but the definition as stated is clearly absurd:

 * the empty set is independent
 * every subset of an independent set is independent
 * if A and B are two independent sets and A has more elements than B, then there exists an element in A which is not in B and when added to B still gives an independent set

Suppose there exists an nonempty independent set A. Then by the third property with B=$$\emptyset$$, there exists an element in the empty set (!) which is not in A. --Saforrest 23:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * No ... what the third property implies is that there exists an element of A which is not in the empty set, and which, when added to the empty set gives a (now non-empty) independent set. Michael Hardy 01:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm an idiot. Thanks. --Saforrest 01:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

On a historical note: the current article makes it sound (to me) as if Edmonds single-handedly first showed that matroids have a connection with greedy algorithms. I'm fairly certain this is not true. For example, I think I read in Oxley (?) that Whitney's 1935 paper refers to the idea that in some sense matroids are exactly those structures for which the greedy algorithm does work. Maybe we should add a sentence to this effect (I'm not doing it myself though since I don't have any reference available to double-check exactly who should get credit first, etc.)

 * There is an article by Richard Rado, 1957 that show the connexion between matroids and the greedy algorithm, generalising an earlier result by Kruskal for graphs.

 * It certainly wasn't Whitney! Zaslav 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Exchange property paragraph question
I have a question about this paragraph:

 * The first two properties are simple, but the motivation behind the third property is not obvious. The property implies the fact that given two independent sets of the same size, any element of one can be replaced by some element of the other; thus the name "exchange." The examples in the example section below will make its motivation clearer.

I will try to construct an counter-example using the tree/forest/graph example:

Imagine 2 graphs with 5 vertices and 3 edges each: x---x            x   x    |     and       \ | x  x             x   x \                   / x                x Like this we should have two independent sets of the same size.

Now the above paragraph says: We can replace any elemnt between the two forests and they should stay indepent (means circular-free).

But what about this exachange though: x---x            x   x  \ |     and         | x  x             x   x                     \ / x                x

So now there is a circle in the left forest --> we don't have two independent sets of the same size anymore, or???

And like this the above paragraph should be wrong?!

Any hint / help / correction would be very apreciated!

Tormen 11:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right you are. An excellent counterexample. I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that - I guess I have no idea why it's called the exchange property after all. A better name would be like "the expansion property" or something. Deco 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a correct counterexample. The basis exchange property is valid. You are misunderstanding what it is saying. It says that if you choose an element from the first independent set, there exists an element in the second that you can swap with. It does not say that any two elements can be swapped. Lmdemasi 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 * That is still not correct. Elements are not swapped.  The exchange property says there is an element in the second such that, putting it into the first set and removing the original first-set element, you get an independent set.  You do not expect anything nice to happen in the second set. Zaslav 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * True. My choice of the word swap was poor.  I was only referring to what you have said. Lmdemasi 14:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

non-example
the following nonexample removed as incorrect:
 * On the other hand, consider this non-example: let E be the vertices of a graph, and let the independent sets be those that can be colored with three colors. The empty set can be three-colored, and any subset of a three-colorable set is three-colorable, but the exchange property does not hold, because it's possible to have two maximal three-colorable subgraphs of different sizes, as shown to the right.

The picture is wrong: the text speaks about colorable, but the pucture shows colored. The left graph is colorable in 3 colors (only in a different way), hence the (1,2,3) is not maximal colorable. `'mikka (t) 16:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right you are. I wrote this example and rewrote it to be correct, speaking of colorings instead of colorability. Dcoetzee 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

column matroid vs. vector matroid
The article currently (Sep 2006) claims that the column matroid of a matrix is the same thing as a vector matroid. This cannot be true. A matrix can have repeated columns, wheras a subset of a vector space can not have repeated vectors in it. So it seems to me that there is some overlap between the notions, but they differ. Can someone familiar with matroids please fix this? Thanks.--345Kai 04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing to fix. Even if the matrix in question has a whole bunch of repeated columns, it will still give rise to the same matroid as if it had no repetitions.  Or, at any rate, the one based on the matrix without repetitions will be the "simple matroid" of the one with repetitions (because the repeated columns will form "parallel classes" of the ground set E), and hence they are the same for most purposes relating to matroids.

 * OK, I don't think the article goes into simple matroids and all that. Think of it like this. If two columns are identical, then they form two identical members of the ground set E of the matroid (they are interchangeable when building up the set I of independent sets, which of course correspond to independent vectors in the vector space); So, we can effectively reduce the ground set of the matroid by dealing only with non-identical members -by picking one (arbitrary) member from each "parallel class", with a "parallel class" being a group of identical columns.  So the vector space which is represented by the two matroids will be the same vector space (the isomorphism is best seen as being between the matroids, not between the matrix and the vector space).

 * Here's another way to think of it. Imagine each column to be a vector in the vector space (don't worry if two different columns describe the same vector, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we realise they are describing the same vector).  Now, find the maximally independent set of columns (i.e. the basis of the vector space).  Take away the repeated columns.  Does the vector space change? Of course not.  So both matroids will be describing the same vector space, only the vector matroid will be the "simple matroid" of the column matroid (and identical if there are no repeated columns).

 * I do want to give the article a workover at some stage (it needs it), but thought I should allay your fears now. When I get the chance I'll add some blab about simple matroids (which are, of course, related to simple graphs) and then the troublesome statement can be meaningfully reworded.  Byrgenwulf 10:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * This explanation is not quite right, but thank you both for bringing up the question. I added a comment to the article.  The fact is that a vector matroid, strictly, does not have a repeated vector but it need not be a simple matroid because (a) it can have the 0 vector, which is a loop, and (b) it can have nonzero scalar multiples, which make 2-element circuits. Zaslav 02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Independent sets definition
The axioms given for "independent sets" is not the standard set of axioms. We have:

The empty set is independent.

Every subset of an independent set is independent; this is sometimes called the hereditary property.

If A and B are two independent sets and A has more elements than B, then there exists an element in A which is not in B and when added to B still gives an independent set; this property is called the augmentation property.

But the standard axioms are:

The empty set is independent

Every subset of the independent set is independent

For each X subset of E, every maximal independent subset of X has the same size.

The first two are clearly the same. I believe the third two are logically equivalent, but I have never seen it stated the way it is written here. Perhaps someone was confusing it with part of the Bases definitions. Also, I have never heard use of the terminology augmentation property. It seems like someone just decided to change to that because "Exchange" didn't fit.

The Bases Definitions are:

There is a basis.

If B1 and B2 are bases, and e is in B_1 \ B_2, then there exists f in B_2 \ B_1 such that B_1 \ e U f is a basis.

The second one is called the basis exchange axiom. Lmdemasi 18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 * No. The standard axioms are the ones currently on the page. With "standard" I mean the ones proposed by Whitney in his original paper, and those in Oxley's book. In fact, exercise 3 of Section 1.1 of Oxley asks to show that your set of axioms is equivalent to the first one. Also, Oxley mentions the name "independence augmentation property".Wandrer2 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Let me add that any definition about "maximal independent sets" is a basis definition, not an independent set definition. The equality of size of two bases is usually a theorem, not an axiom, but its equivalence is important.  (This is one more example of how many different equivalent ways there are to define matroids.)

 * The term "independent set exchange" is more common than "augmentation", even if it doesn't seem to make sense to some (understandably). I will add it.  [Oops, I or someone else already added it!] Zaslav 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I have recently picked up Oxley's book, and it defines and names things differently than what I have seen before. Lmdemasi 14:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "coatom"
This article mentions "coatom" without defining what it is. Please fix. - 74.112.174.192 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you. It's done. Zaslav 09:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Real matroids and forbidden minors
I didn't know that it wasn't possible to distinguish matroids representable over the reals by finitely many forbidden minors. Is this at all easy to see? Changbao 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No! Good question.  It's a significant theorem.  See
 * P. Vamos, The missing axiom of matroid theory is lost forever. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, II. Ser., Vol. 18 (1978), pp. 403-408.
 * Worth adding to the article. Zaslav (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Vamos doesn't actually prove that the class of real-representable matroids has infinitely many excluded minors. He shows that there are infinitely many minor-minimal matroids that are not representable. In other words, the class of matroids that are representable over at least one field has an infinite set of excluded minors. Lazarson (1958) constructed an infinite sequence of matroids that are not real-representable, but he didn't make they observation that they are excluded minors for real representability. The 2011 edition of Oxley's book shows that there are infinitely many excluded minors for representability over any infinite field (Theorem 6.5.17).

Cheers,

Dillon 130.195.2.100 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Matroid union vs Direct sum
The text states:
 * If E and F are disjoint, the union is the direct sum.

Should that be "the union is isomorphic to the direct sum" or some such? The Wikipedia definition of the disjoint union of two sets does not reduce to the union when the sets are disjoint, and I assume that matroids over two different underlying sets cannot be the same matroid. LachlanA 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The WP definition has two forms. The appropriate definition for direct sum is a union in which the two sets are disjoint. Zaslav (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor point, in "non-examples" the picture overlaps the text slightly. Tiny point, but correcting it takes a step closer to perfection. (Unlike my grammer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.33.81 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Fano matroid
I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure the circuits of the Fano matroid are the sets of three points with curves through them and their complements.

The description given appears to imply that only the sets of three points on curves are circuits. It doesn't necessarily imply this, but it does appear to at first sight.

Can someone tell me if, as I think, the complements of these sets are also circuits, as if so I'd like to edit the page for clarity.

Thanks! James mcl (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * You're right. Since the matroid has rank 3 and is simple, any set of 4 points that doesn't contain a circuit of 3 points (i.e., a 3-point line) is predictably a circuit.  Thus, one could say the 3-point lines are the "essential" circuits.  However, they aren't the only circuits and the article should not give that impression.  Zaslav (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Takeo Nakasawa: The Forgotten Father of Matroid Theory
This book is about a japanese mathematician who worked on matroids and is not mentioned in the article:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3764385723 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.116.195 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Garrett Birkhoff
Birkhoff's paper and his lattice-theoretic work may deserve mention, also. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference style
I would be much happier with the references if they conformed to the usual mathematical publishing conventions. These include I think these conventions (except #5) make the reference list relatively readable, especially compared with the now-existing style. Other desirable conventions for an encyclopedia, to keep it most accessible to general readers who happen upon a technical (or nontechnical) article, include
 * 1) Name in natural order,
 * 2) Missing "and" before name of last coauthor,
 * 3) "VOLUME, PAGES" instead of "VOLUME:PAGES",
 * 4) "PUBLISHER, PLACE" instead of "PLACE: PUBLISHER".
 * 5) The order NAME, TITLE, PUBLICATION INFO, DATE instead of putting date after authors' names.
 * 1) Full journal names,
 * 2) "Vol." before volume number and "pp." before page numbers.

Someone has changed the original reference style, which conformed to these guidelines (except #5), by converting to a template. I don't know how to change the template so I can't do anything except by throwing out the template. Anyway, I shouldn't just change it all without discussion.

I point out that, the last time I read WP reference guidelines, they said the reference style should conform to the conventions of the field. I feel that way about this and other math articles.

I hope several users will respond to these remarks. Zaslav (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Zaslav (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree. I believe it is more useful to conform to similar styles used in other Wikipedia articles than to conform to the styles of some mathematics journals. I also believe that having the citations in templates helps due to their machine-readability (e.g. DOIbot can fix up mistakes in the citations) and that, similarly to BibTeX, using citation templates instead of hand-formatted citations is much likelier to lead to consistency of formatting. But I further believe that our time and energy as editors is better spent working on content than on fighting about minutiae. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * First, I strongly request that the full author name as printed in the book/article be used. This is a courtesy to authors and is potentially helpful to readers.

 * I agree about templates; it makes sense. I would prefer it if templates were adjustable to the needs of individual fields, but as I'm not an expert in WP it's clear that will never happen.  No doubt someone will alter the references I've just put in, into template form, which will have the (desirable) advantage of consistency.

 * Related to that, though: Who decided what style to use?  Were they "RIGHT"?  Your remark about "some mathematics journals" would be more forceful if it were not actually "most mathematics journals" that use something close to the style I request.

 * As for fighting about minutiae, you have your opinions which are strongly held and which you enforced on this article, and I differ. Does that make yours right?  Should not this have been discussed with other users or editors interested in math articles (especially) before making major changes?  I say this without disagreeing that content is most important.  I don't intend to continue this argument, since we both agree it's pointless.  I just wanted to make my viewpoint clear.  Zaslav (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I am a nit-picker; in real-world technical writing, I pay a lot of attention to details such as correct reference formatting. However, I can live with any reasonable style of formatting references, as long as everything is 100% internally consistent within an article (and no bibliographic details are missing). In practice, manual formatting of references leads to inconsistencies, some of which are very hard to spot, and it also causes a lot of extra work when re-using the same citations in another article with a different style of references. I strongly feel that we should use automatic reference formatting whenever possible; in the case of Wikipedia, this means that we should use citation templates. I think that while the template could be better, it is already good enough for use in any article. And the most important part is that when someone creates a compatible citation template that produces output that follows the conventions of a particular field, it is very easy to change the name of the template in an article, with very little manual work and without any risk of introducing internal inconsistencies. — Miym (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm convinced that templates are useful. I hope some variety of format, along the lines you suggest, will become available, though I'm not the person who can do it.  It doesn't seem a major issue.  Zaslav (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * And another comment regarding full author names: please, add full author names (and wikilinks) whenever possible; I don't see any need to use abbreviations for author names (or journals or conferences) in Wikipedia. You can easily enter the full names when you are using the templates, so this is an orthogonal issue. — Miym (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that full author names are good, and not only for Chinese authors (though they are essential there). I incline to stick to the published name, mostly for pedantry, also in order to make it easiest to find the item; sometimes a search with a full name will fail to turn up an item authored under an abbreviated name.  But it's easy to get around that.
 * I'm in *total* agreement regarding journal and conference names. Can you imagine seeing "IPSAIC 06" and trying to decipher it?
 * Wikilinking authors is also good idea. My problem is that I find the templates too hard to navigate, but I'll learn. Zaslav (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the above thread, I can't help but get the impression that people are talking past each other. Besides nitpicks on how citations are formatted on Wikipedia (direct inquiries to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources), there seems to be broad agreement that citation templates should be used, and should contain as much information as possible (including authors' full names, when available). May I make a further suggestion that, in addition to citation templates, Harvard citation (or simply harv) should be used to make the inline citations links to the relevant item of the bibliography? I will do a few of these to demonstrate. Revert if you think this is not an improvement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * harvs can also be useful, in instances where one wants both a link to the author's article (on their name) and a link to the bibliography (on the year). I added an example, the Whitney 1935 citation at the start of the history section. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. I always just use #CITEREF directly, but this is nice too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference formats should not be decided by the citation templates; they also generally decrease readability of edit space. You are free to write your own template with the format you want, which seems entirely sensible; or you can do by hand. Any one who argues should be told to write another article the way they want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Matroid Software
The section on "matroid software" seems irrelevant to the rest of the article. It is not "encyclopedic".

It contains many external links, and seems that the writer of this section is simply "plugging" his/her own projects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory Jwesley78 (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Plugging something, that's for sure! It's very poor.  I think I can improve it quickly, at any rate. Zaslav (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Greedy Algorithms
Hey, does anyone actually have citations where one could look up the two theorems and their proofs cited in the "Greedy Algorithms" sections? I've seen them (vaugely) attributed to Edmonds, but I'm having the hardest time actually finding them in his paper Bruce IV (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 * See Oxley's book. It will help you.  Zaslav (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pages 62-64 of the 1992 edition to be precise. The assertion about the independence oracle is more-or-less explicit.  Deltahedron (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Expository Features
I am reading this topic having little prior knowledge of it. It is nice that the exposition is very teacherly, but seems to contain a few confusing non-sequitors. For instance, after giving the three properties of matroids it is claimed that the first two are obviously motivated but the third isn't. Why?? This is familiar from linear algebra as the statement that a basis for a subspace can be extended to a basis of the ambient space.

Just after this it is said concerning circuits, that "in spite of the similarity to the definition of basis this notion has no analogue in classical linear algebra." The only "similarity" to the definition of a basis is that it is the opposite in a certain sense. That is not much of a similarity and no one knowing linear algebra would think that a minimally dependent set is anything like a basis. At the same time one could easily define such a thing --for instance in finite-dimensional linear algebra-- but it's not a useful concept there. Geminatea (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your removal of this editorialization is an improvement — thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Zaslav (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Terminology and citations
Copied from my talk page

Deltahedron, you restored the inline references in Matroid for elementary, standard terminology, that I had deleted. (E.g., "simple", "simplification".) Is it policy to refer to a source separately for every technical term? Obviously not! So, please explain the reason for giving citations. Thanks!

By the way, I don't question the usefulness of the citations you provided for aspects of the greedy algorithm. Zaslav (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Certainly. It is in fact policy that any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.  Guidelines say editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia.  Indeed, inline citations are required for Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class Articles — standards we should presumably aspire to.  I am not directly challenging the correctness of the terminology, but providing a specific reference for the definition of each new term is, in my view, highly desirable in the light of that policy and guidance, since the use of the term must be verifiable.  To remove the specific references and say that the material is available somewhere in the book is to decrease the helpfulness of the article to a reader who wants to check the reference and take their reading further.  In general I would say that each paragraph, or each specific major assertion, in an article should be supported by inline citations.  Obviously this is open for discussion and consensus, and there is room for difference of opinion or style.  However, I maintain that removing citations once given requires more justification than simply asserting that they are not needed.

 * What I do take issue with is the opinion in the article that this terminology, which is standard. This is simply a personal opinion, and I dispute it.  Terminology in matroid theory is not completely standard.  To say this as your personal opinion in a discussion like the one we're having here is just that, your opinion.  To say that in an article positively requires an independent reliable source that directly supports the assertions that the terminology is standard, which it did not have, and I took it out on those grounds.  Deltahedron (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I misunderstood your reference to the article, as I had forgotten that it said "standard" in the article. See below.  Very sorry! Zaslav (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I think you have misunderstood the policy. You wrote "Certainly [it is policy to refer to a source separately for every technical term]".  That is clearly not true.  I read the policy on verifiability and found the following: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)."  (Emphasis added.)  Now, citing for every single technical term is poor scholarly writing.  The proper method is to give one citation to the source (assuming for the moment there is one source).  Please note that technical books come with indexes, and in particular Oxley has a good index, so there is no need to cite a page for each term.  Also, please note that I have read the text at Citing_sources; I hope you would agree the rule there, like almost all rules for good writing, should be used with judgement; but regardless, I disagree with your personal preference " that each paragraph, or each specific major assertion, in an article should be supported by inline citations." [See below, though.]
 * I think you misunderstood the meaning of "standard terminology". (1) The standardness of the terminology is not a random personal opinion, it is the conclusion obtained by observing what people in the area write.  I'm sure you know the difference.  (2) Please note that stating some terminology is "standard" does not imply it is the only standard.  There can be more than one standard technical term for the same thing, but if the terms are both well known and widely used, then they are both standard.  (3) Please let me know your basis for deciding that terminology is not standard.  Are you familiar with the field?  If so, I would be interested to know.  If not, then you have an uninformed opinion; for an informed opinion, consult persons in the field.  Do not consult me, consult others, but do it.
 * In the meantime, I suggest one citation of Oxley as the source for the terminology and results, unless otherwise credited. As Oxley has a good index, it is not necessary nor wise to load the article with citation notes.  Zaslav (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe our different is that I agree it's reasonable "that each paragraph, or each specific major assertion, in an article should be supported by inline citations" but I don't see every technical term as major. For instance, the citations to Welsh for the axioms, one citation per axiom system, seem reasonable to me.  Zaslav (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I think that for basic introductory material like this one inline citation per paragraph is a good rule — less than that makes it look unsourced but more than that is overkill. On the other hand, I do think it's almost always useful when citing a book to cite specific page numbers rather than making people look things up in the index. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 * There are a number of issues being conflated here
 * Should the definition of a new concept, such as "co-simple matroid", which might well be the target of a re-direct, be supported by an inline citations per verifiability policy? I think it should.
 * Does the statement this terminology, which is standard imply that terminology in this area is standardised, or there is a single standard, or simply that one particular set of terminology is commonly understood? I say it could reasonably mean either, that as it stands it is fatally ambiguous and that the distinction, which is important, should be made explicit before sensible discussion can occur.
 * Should the statement this terminology, which is standard, in either meaning, be included in the article> I say no, unless it is directly supported by an independent reliable source.  To say that this "is not a random personal opinion, it is the conclusion obtained by observing what people in the area write" is to say that this is original research, and this is not permitted.
 * Is the statement this terminology, which is standard, in either meaning, correct? I maintain that there is sufficient variey in usage to say that while there are commonly understood usages, there is not one single standard.
 * How should we work together the editing of the article? Zaslav implies that he is an expert and I am not.  I am not going to engage in those games.  Whoever we are, we need to support any text we add to an article by citing independent reliable sources.  The way we edit is governed by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as developed by editor consensus here on this talk page.  That consensus has not yet emerged, and I hope that it will do so as a result of reasoned discussion based on verifiable facts and policy, rather than appeals, implict or explicit, to some notional of personal authority.
 * Deltahedron (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, there are several issues here. I hope we can discuss them calmly.  I wish to withdraw any and all remarks that were offensive.  I'm going to try not to be snarky.  I hope I succeed!
 * I agree with David Eppstein that one citation per paragraph is a plausible average, in general.
 * The article should not say terminology is "standard". I don't remember that I wrote that, but I guess I did and I now apologize.
 * Zaslav did imply that he is an expert and that you may not be, or you may be. That is not a game; calling it a game is a game.  Claiming to be an expert is not an assertion of personal authority, it is an assertion of expertise.  An expert is someone who knows the subject.  That is a kind of person who should be involved in writing articles.  I do not say non-experts should not be involved in writing articles; far from it.  I have seen articles by experts that need improvement by non-experts, and I have seen articles by non-experts that need improvement by experts.  Experts do not necessarily write good articles (often they don't), but they can contribute expertise.
 * The reason I mention expertise is that an expert tends to know things non-experts don't know. Those things are not all written down, or in places where one can put one's hands on them easily.  Adding citations to existing text can be very helpful; I just think it can sometimes be excessive.
 * Also, the viewpoint of an expert and that of a non-expert tend to be different. The non-expert viewpoint often makes for a better article, in a way that can be hard to do for an expert.  That doesn't mean (to me) that it is irrelevant whether a certain writer is or is not an expert.
 * (N.B. I am personally curious about Deltahedron's expertise, solely for the purpose of knowing his/her point of view.  I repeat: a non-expert can do a great deal of good for an article; it is not supposed to be a put-down.  If Deltahedron is one of the rare people who can take the viewpoint of both an expert and a non-expert at the same time (which is wonderful), I would also be interested to know it.  All this is just curiosity and doesn't require any answer.)

 * Deltahedron quotes WP policies about 'support[ing] any text we add to an article by citing independent reliable sources.' I observe in WP (original research?) that most articles do not cite a source for every statement.  Those that do strike me as overwritten (yes, that is a personal opinion!).  I have noticed that the tendency to footnote is increasing, and it strikes me as a symptom of calcification in WP (personal opinion, admittedly), although sometimes it is justified.
 * 'I maintain that there is sufficient variey in usage to say that while there are commonly understood usages, there is not one single standard.' (Deltahedron) I tried to explain that by "standard" I don't necessarily mean a unique standard.  I meant generally understood.  It was a mistake to put "standard" into the article; please accept my apology.
 * 'Should the definition of a new concept, ... which might well be the target of a re-direct, be supported by an inline citations...?' I think that is not needed.  A person who follows a redirect ought to be able to read the entire paragraph, at least.  Thus, I again support David Eppstein's opinion.  If that's what Deltahedron is suggesting, then I agree.  If Deltahedron is suggesting that every new term get its own citation, I disagree.
 * 'How should we work together the editing of the article?' By cooperating, assuming good faith (a WP guideline), and being willing to accept alternative opinions.
 * I hope that we can work together amicably. I hate to fight.  A consensus doesn't emerge by fighting.  I'm willing to argue, but let's avoid personal attacks, and assume good faith.  Zaslav (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's consider the paragraph that defines simple, simplification and co-simple. These terms are defined on three different pages in Oxley.  Is it better to have the individual page references, or to have a single reference without page numbers?  I think the latter former.  Deltahedron (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like citations to books that don't include page numbers. Too many times it means "I think this book is relevant but I don't really know what's inside it". In this case, I would give a single reference that includes all three page numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why less precise references would be better than more precise. Deltahedron (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Didn't you just immediately above advocate for omitting page numbers? Isn't that less precise? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I mis-wrote, corrected now. Thanks for spotting that!  I have always preferred more citations with exact page references, and that is what I have been gradually adding (and which Zaslav has been disputing).  Deltahedron (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I find footnotes intrusive and having a high density of them is very irritating, except in a scholarly article where they cannot be avoided. If they can be collected in one footnote per paragraph, as sometimes advocated by David Eppstein, that is better.  There is a difference in WP, that the footnote can be read without jumping to the footnotes.  That's a major improvement and makes footnotes much less annoying.
 * I still think footnotes should be minimized, and as the citations to Oxley are not of the kind objected to (rightly) by David Eppstein, I don't think his objection applies. Can we not try for one footnote per (short) paragraph, as a general guide?  Most of the opinions expressed here by me, Eppstein, and Deltahedron are merely personal opinions.  You prefer more page numbers, I prefer the reader be expected to use the book's index when it is a good index (Oxley's is), you prefer footnoting every term, I find that interferes with reading ... what is objective about it?  Why is your opinion better than mine?  Please explain how we decide this sort of dispute.
 * One more remark: In a scholarly article, one does not cite for every specialized term.  One would give the sources and leave the details to the reader, barring special circumstances.  It's different if you're quoting or paraphrasing comments by other writers.  Zaslav (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Still one more remark to Deltahedron. I do appreciate your effort in trying to improve the article.  I don't fully agree with every aspect, but I know you're putting a lot of work into it and there's reason behind it.  Thanks.  Zaslav (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Frame matroid
The definition A matroid M is called a frame matroid if it, or a matroid that contains it, has a basis such that all the points of M are contained in the lines that join pairs of basis elements appears to be taken from. On the other hand, there appears to be a different definition at  Are these in fact the same, and if so, is there a reliable source that reconciles them, or is this terminology non-standard? Deltahedron (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

 * The paper of Zaslavsky shows that the definitions are equivalent. Zaslav (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Characteristic polynomial
I presume that in the formula
 * $$p_M(\lambda) := \sum_A \mu(\emptyset,A) \lambda^{r(M)-r(S)} $$

the otherwise undefined function μ is the Möbius function of the matroid lattice? Is there a reliable source for this? Deltahedron (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Found it — White (1987)  Deltahedron (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Did you add the WP link for μ? If so, thank you.  Is the White citation for the characteristic polynomial?  If so, ditto.  Zaslav (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Cryptomorphic
This is a cute term, but it is not in common usage, and it is not specific to the subject. I think there is no point to introduce it here. It only distracts from the subject and violates the neutral point of view. BSpringborn (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the link in the Definition section, but I agree that it is distracting and irrelevant in the lead, I’ll remove it from there.—Emil J. 13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that this term was introduced specifically in the context of matroids to describe the large number of different ways that they can be axiomatized. So it definitely belongs somewhere in an article on matroid theory, but I don't have a strong opinion about whether it belongs in the lead section. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * According to our own article, the term was introduced by Birkhoff in the context of universal algebra.—Emil J. 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The term is used extensively in White (1986) and referred to in Oxley (2006), Handbook of Algebra, Handbook of Combinatorics, and dozens of other books returned by a Google Books search for matroid cryptomorphism. In what sense is this not "common usage"?  Deltahedron (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many important concepts in many areas of mathematics have apparently different but equivalent definitions. Consider Real number and Tangent space, to name but two random examples. Compared to how often the phenomenon occurs everywhere in mathematics, the use of the term cryptomorphism is relatively rare. I made the above comment because I was actually distracted from the subject when I came to the page to read about matroids. Please take it as friendly feedback by a real user, who would like to apologize for the harsh wording. BSpringborn (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the real line, cryptomorphism is less of an issue because only model theorists and people who have to teach this stuff care about the underlying Dedekind cut stuff, whether you pass to the completion before or after doing negatives, etc. It's more prominent in subjects like matroid theory or (a WP article I've been working on the last couple of days) weak orderings that are not as much common knowledge, because to communicate these subjects you always have to start by explaining "a matroid is..." and then realizing that whatever definition you pick to finish the sentence is going to be incompatible with the definition chosen by many others. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not get your argument. First, you exclude model theorists and people who have to teach this stuff from the group who's point of view should be taken into consideration, then you argue that the matroid cryptomorphism is an issue when you teach matroids. BSpringborn (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument is not about *who* should be considered wrt cryptomorphism, but *what subjects*. Not the real line because we can just say "real line" when introducing it. Yes for matroids and antimatroids because they have too many competing cryptomorphic definitions. Maybe for weak orders because you can simply say "strict weak order" or whatever to refer to one particular definition but because again, if you just want to say "weak otrder", there are too many competing definitions. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we go by what is stated in independent reliable sources. Clearly the term is used in numerous works on the subject of this article, and hence is appropriate for the article.   Use of the term in other articles can be discussed on other talk pages.  Deltahedron (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The author of a texbook or journal article is of course allowed to make up words in order to make a point. These may get picked up by other authors. In an encyclopedia, the vocabulary should be more conservative. "Cryptomorphism" is a spoof on the terminology of category theory. It is a tongue-in-cheek technical term like "generalized nonsense" or "diagram chase".
 * Matroid theory is a part of mathematics, and this article is categorized as mathematics. Of course it is admissible to take a step back and consider it in a broader context. BSpringborn (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation for your assertion that this is not a seriously used notation? Because the word "cryptomorphism" has ~200 hits in Google scholar (in both matroid theory and universal algebra). That seems far from being some textbook author's idiosyncratic notation to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How many of these hits actually refer the meaning of cryptomorphic we are talking about? Many have titles like "Microbiotic crusts and ecosystem processes", "Cryptomorphic structures of the lithosphere: Their reflection on space images and the Earth's surface", or "Characteristics of the serum lipid of high school freshmen cryptomorphic obesity sufferers". Can we maybe get away from these purely formal arguments? It is not a question of right or wrong but a question of style, and these cannot be settled by counting. As for a citation, have a look at Cryptomorphism: "This word is a play on the many morphisms in mathematics, but 'cryptomorphism' is only very distantly related to 'isomorphism', 'homomorphism', or 'morphisms'. [...] Its informal sense was popularized (and greatly expanded in scope) by Gian-Carlo Rota in the context of matroid theory. [...] Though there are many cryptomorphic concepts in mathematics outside of matroid theory and universal algebra, the word has not caught on among mathematicians generally. It is, however, in fairly wide use among researchers in matroid theory." BSpringborn (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

KORTE
Everyone knows that Prof. Dr. Korte is a matroid-genius´, but why is his name not mentioned in this article.

Add at least his book: Korte, Vygen - Combinatorial Optimization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.21.168 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bernhard Korte's Wikipedia article does not mention matroids, and my impression is that he is better known for his work on greedoids (although he has a reasonably well-cited paper with Jensen in SICOMP 1982 on computational complexity issues related to matroids). In any case, what should his book be added as a reference for, that does not already have better references listed? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible improvements
The matroid page should be improved by adding the following information: 1) clearly define substructures (submatroids) and quotient structures, 2) clearly define morphisms of matroids, especially matroid isomorphisms, 3) more rigorously define matroid representability using matroid morphisms, 4) describe isomorphism classes for small cardinalities of the underlying set, 5) describe the current progress in matroid enumeration and classification of matroid isomorphism types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteris.daugulis (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in Vamos matroid picture
The point is supposed to be that the middle four points are *not* on a plane, so it's confusing that there is a plane drawn through them. See for example figure 17(c) and its caption on page 28 of these notes by Vic Reiner. Ctourneur (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. Reiner's description in the figure caption seems to contradict both this source (used in the Vámos matroid article) and Reiner's figure itself (what are edges ce and df there for, if not to show that cdef is a fifth coplanar 4-tuple?). Besides, a matroid with only the outer four 4-tuples coplanar is easy to realize in 3d and therefore linear, unlike the Vámos matroid. Perturb the six planes of a cube into general position (so that each pair of opposite edges becomes skew) and then choose four used-to-be-parallel edges (say the vertical ones) and perturb all eight vertices along the lines of those edges into general position (so that the top and bottom faces of the cube stop being coplanar). My guess is that the omission of the fifth 4-tuple from Reiner's notes is just a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think you're right. The crucial thing I was missing is that the top line and the bottom line (as drawn in the Wikipedia picture) are supposed to be skew, which isn't super obvious from the picture.  Ctourneur (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Minimum spanning trees
It seems like this page should mention minimum spanning trees at least once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.120.136 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Axiom I2 Subset E
In the second axiom for independence it states:

for each $$A'\subset A\subset E$$, if $$A\in\mathcal{I}$$ then $$A'\in\mathcal{I}$$

Shouldn't this be

for each $$A'\subset A\subseteq E$$, if $$A\in\mathcal{I}$$ then $$A'\in\mathcal{I}$$

since $$A$$ might be the entire ground set. Otherwise this test wouldn't apply to $$E=\left\{1, 2, 3\right\}$$, $$\mathcal{I}=\left\{\left\{1, 2, 3\right\}\right\}$$ since $$\left\{1, 2, 3\right\}$$ isn't a strict subset of $$\left\{1, 2, 3\right\}$$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee A. Christie (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Definition
In axiom/definition 3, "A has more elements than B" seems a poor/loose definition if not pointing to the related theory. Can it be clarified? (from which theory it is taken, axiomatic set theory? vector space ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.113.207 (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to specify an axiom systems to be able to count? Everything is finite here, so the number of elements is just a natural number. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Why finite?
What if we merely omit finiteness from the definition? Same question about definition of matroid from vector space, at least finite-dimentional.79.179.15.250 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * infinite matroids are subject of current research e.g. most of classical definitions e.g. Whitney and Tutte are all for the finite case. Going to the infinite case is quite a big step, in layman terms is like the difference between a finite polynomial and an analytical function or between algebraic and non algebraic. Historically in Quantum Mechanics there are a lot of references around infinite matrixes but from a rigorous mathematical standpoint they are not well accepted, in fact it becomes about operators and Hilbert spaces. In the scope of matroids you can imagine that a functional definition/representation of matroids like rank functions is similar/analogous to functors or operators on hilbert spaces, where for example an infinite basis can be well defined.

Finally matroids belong to the realm of non-pure mathematics e.g. see the reference of Pierre Cartier in the Nicolas_Bourbaki page which means that sometime there is often little integration from something like matroids that is assigned to belong to "applied mathematics" with the "pure math stuff". Matroids have huge relationships with algebra and topology and this "infinite matroids" is actually a topic that bridges from matroids to the other two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyredeagle (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Applications?
Missing a section on applications - whether theoretical or practical PolyCreator (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

vector matroid vs. representable or linear matroid
The article currently says:

"If $$E$$ is any finite subset of a vector space $$V$$, then we can define a matroid $$M$$ on $$E$$ by taking the independent sets of $$M$$ to be the linearly independent subsets of $$E$$. [...] If $$M$$ is a matroid that can be defined in this way, we say the set $$E$$ represents $$M$$.  Matroids of this kind are called vector matroids. [...] A matroid that is equivalent to a vector matroid, although it may be presented differently, is called representable or linear.  If $$M$$ is equivalent to a vector matroid over a field $$F$$, then we say $$M$$ is representable over  in particular, $$M$$ is real-representable if it is representable over the real numbers.  For instance, although a graphic matroid (see below) is presented in terms of a graph, it is also representable by vectors over any field."

It's not clear to me which distinction is being made here between vector matroids and representable/linear matroids. The term "equivalent" hasn't been defined (this is a problem in itself); I presume it's meant to be synonymous with "isomorphic" (which also hasn't been defined but which is generally understood to refer to the existence of a structure-preserving bijection). But if two matroids $$M$$ and $$M'$$ are isomorphic and $$M$$ can be defined as a finite subset of a vector space (with independent sets being the linearly independent sets), then $$M'$$ can also be defined in this way (simply by considering the same vector space with the elements of the $$M$$ replaced by those of $$M'$$). (The example of a graphic matroid even explicitly states that a graphic matroid "is also representable by vectors".) But then "vector matroid" is synonymous with "representable/linear matroid".

I suspect that what the article might be trying to say is that "vector matroid" is an informal term that one uses for matroids that are defined via a vector space construction, whereas "representable/linear matroid" is a formal term that refers to matroids that can be constructed in this way, whether they naturally arise in this way or are defined via another construction and just turn out to also be constructible in this way. But that's not at all obvious from the current formulation – by saying that "Matroids of this kind are called vector matroids", where "matroids of this kind" refers to "a matroid that can be defined in this way", "vector matroid" is being defined to mean the same thing as "representable/linear matroid".

Or am I missing something?

Joriki (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

simple cycle ?!
Examples/Matroids from graph theory:

"Every finite graph (or multigraph) G gives rise to a matroid M(G) as follows: take as E the set of all edges in G and consider a set of edges independent if and only if it is a forest; that is, if it does not contain a simple cycle."

Now in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_(graph_theory), you can read:

"A cycle or simple circuit is a circuit in which only the first and last vertices are equal."

Thus, according to Wikipedia, there is no such notion as simple cycle. There is just a simple circuit, and that is a cycle. 2001:4C4D:1C08:8100:EDF4:7965:F231:D213 (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 * In the same article you can also read "The term cycle may also refer to an element of the cycle space of a graph." The adjective "simple" disambiguates this as referring to the first meaning, not the second. The phrase "simple cycle" is very common on the mathematical literature. You should not read the Wikipedia cycle article as forbidding its use. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Matroid


text:
Steve Sabol

Stephen Douglas Sabol (October 2, 1942 – September 18, 2012) was an American filmmaker. He was the president and one of the founders of NFL Films, along with his father Ed. He was also a widely exhibited visual artist.

Early life
Sabol was born in Moorestown, New Jersey, the son of film-maker Ed Sabol and art collector Audrey Sabol. He attended Colorado College, where he majored in art history and was an All-Rocky Mountain Conference football as a running back and was a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity.

He was the subject of a humorous article about his self-promotion exploits in the November 22, 1965, issue of Sports Illustrated.

Career
After graduation, he began his career in 1964 as a cameraman alongside his father Ed Sabol (1916–2015) when his father got the filming rights to the 1962 NFL Championship Game, played in Yankee Stadium. With his degree in art history and experience playing football, Sabol was, as his father put it, "uniquely qualified to make football movies."

This company eventually grew into NFL Films, with Sabol serving mainly as a cameraman, editor, and writer in the 1960s and 1970s. When ESPN was founded in 1979, they soon signed NFL Films as a production company and Sabol became an on-air personality in the 1980s. He won 35 Emmy Awards and was featured in an episode of 60 Minutes Sports. Sabol played a part in founding the NFL Network.

In 1985, Sabol took over NFL Films from his father, Ed Sabol. NFL Films was the first company to wire coaches and players for sound as well as the first to use slow motion and montage editing in sports. The Broadcast Pioneers of Philadelphia inducted Sabol into their Hall of Fame in 1996.

In March 2011, NFL Films was recognized with the Lamar Hunt Award for Professional Football.

Awards and recognitions
Sabol was named the 2002 Sports Executive of the Year by Sporting News magazine. Sabol also received the Pete Rozelle Award, which is presented each year to someone who has made an outstanding contribution to the National Football League and to professional football.

Sabol and his father, Ed, were honored in 2003 with the Lifetime Achievement Emmy from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for "revolutionizing the way America watches football and setting the standard in sports filmmaking."

In 2007, the Pro Football Hall of Fame honored Sabol with the Dan Reeves Pioneer Award. Sabol was the recipient of the 2010 Sports Leadership Award presented to him at the March of Dimes 27th Annual Sports Luncheon.

Both Sabol and his father were elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame on February 5, 2011 They were inducted into the Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame in November 2011, which was followed by Sabol's induction into the Sports Broadcasting Hall of Fame in December.

Sabol received the Sports Business Journals "Champions – Pioneers & Innovators in Sports Business" award in March 2012.

Sabol won over 40 Emmys during his time with NFL Films.

Personal life
Sabol was married for over a decade to his first wife, Lisa, mother of his only son, Casey Sabol. After their divorce, Lisa married John DeBella. Sabol then married his second wife, Penny Sabol. He was of Romanian descent.

Sabol was the author of the poem "The Autumn Wind", later adopted by the Oakland Raiders as an unofficial anthem.

Death and legacy
On September 18, 2012, Sabol died of brain cancer in Moorestown, New Jersey, 18 months after being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor in March 2011. He died at age 69, a week after his father's (Ed Sabol) 96th birthday. He was honored before every NFL game in Week 3 with a video tribute.

The NFL paid tribute to his life and contributions to the league, at a ceremony on February 12, 2013, in Philadelphia.

On January 15, 2020 Sabol was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2020.

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

title: Steve Sabol


text:
Talk:Darwin 1942

I hold the copyright for the article.

Tom Lewis ''... added at 23:21, 13 June 2005 by 203.10.231.231''

And verified on User talk:Tom Lewis as well. -- Hoary 09:43, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

title: Talk:Darwin 1942


text:
Talk:Joint (disambiguation)

There's a food definition for this term, as well. See bacon for an example of this usage. Perhaps something encyclopedic can be said about this food item? (I don't know what it means yet...)--Joel 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joint (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Děčín

This image is orphaned and may be of use here. Nigosh 23:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. Pavel Vozenilek 00:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid the caption for the night picture is wrong, the castle is on the other bank. JanSuchy 19:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Silver mine
I deleted the reference to a silver mine; I lived in D. for a long time and never heard of any. But if there indeed is one please revert my edit and educate me. 216.165.126.11 05:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Děčín


text: Talk:JFK (film)

title: Talk:JFK (film)


text: User talk:168.150.251.36

title: User talk:168.150.251.36


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 the Ranting Gryphon

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2_the_Ranting_Gryphon

 * Delete. nn.
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic vanity article--not a notable person. -- Krishva 03:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I found this article started by a fan and edited it to clean it up, clarify elements, and proceed with a proper entry.  Like the entries surrounding such members of filk fandom as Leslie Fish and Heather Alexander, 2 is an actual producer of original material.  In other words, he's not just some schmuck getting a vanity piece on Wikipedia; he's actually created original art, writing, and has made a living within fandom.  As long as he is more than just a fanboy geek, he -and all others who work as semi- or full-fledged-pros- should be considered for an entry.
 * Also, he didn't start the article and hence this is not a vanity piece. -- Sylvan012 04:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (Sylvan012 originally posted this unsigned in the discussion area of this template; moved into normal discussion by Almafeta 06:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC))
 * Do Not Delete. Who defines "a notable person"?  As it is, he's produced original works, is rather well known in his fundamental community, and makes his living in this fashion. -- Sylvan012 11:09pm, May 29, 2005 (Central Time Zone)
 * Keep. "Not notable" is a matter of opinion, and a poor justification for the deletion of a page.  As a musician, a stand-up comedian who regularly performs, and with his weekly radio program having an audience of thousands, I think he's definately notable enough to stay around.  Almafeta 04:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, note: A page about this comedian has already been put up for VfD twice, under a different name; it survived the first vote, however, it was re-nominated and deleted within a month by User:WhisperToMe because he felt 'it did not get enough attention from the community.'  That this page was recreated later by someone unrelated to that vote should be considered before voting on this VfD.  Almafeta 06:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn --Xcali 05:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete just to counter the "notable is a matter of opinion" argument, which is a non-argument. The guy is a podcaster, for God's sake, how many thousands of those are there?  And any musician that is unknown to allmusic.com and artistdirect.com, then they are by definition not notable.  RickK 05:57, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quale 07:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hardly notable if the person is just a podcaster. -- Grumpyhan 08:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Expanded the article some, as I was in the process of doing before this vote came along. Most podcasters don't make a living off of their DVD sales.  Almafeta 23:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn as expressed by RickK. --FCYTravis 17:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 00:51, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - RickK may have his comments about this being a vanity entry, but -honestly- it's still the entry of a professional comedian who is no less famous than others who have listings such as Leslie Fish. --Sylvan012 22:40, 29 May 2005 (Central Time)
 * Comment. 2 is pretty well known within the furry fandom, and certainly counts as notable within that community, but I don't know how notable he'd be considered in the world as a whole. Loganberry 02:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. Perhaps merge into an article on furry fandom or shock radio in general, but 2 does not merit his own wikipedia page.  Stiv 21:39, 2 Jun 2005 (Mountain)
 * History shows the above vote was cast by 67.173.255.141, not by Stiv. Almafeta 03:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake; I forgot to log in before casting my vote. My motion for deletion still stands for the reasons stated. -- Stiv 05:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. Prangton 05:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. Probably a vanity page.  Making money on DVDs doesn't mean anything, DVD pirates also make money on DVDs as does Bob the happy Best Buy salesperson.  Neither of these people are notable. Keffy 05:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-noteable outside furry fandom. --MWMiller 05:17, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Comment As this page has been up for a week with more than 2/3 of votes going for deletion, should this page be deleted? -- Grumpyhan 04:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fancruft. Nightwatch 05:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. I'm a big fan of the guy, but even I have to admit that he isn't encyclopedia material.
 * Keep.. In an ever-expanding and updated internet encylopedia, I feel that we need to keep the concept of "notable people" rather loose. I don't feel its a vanity page since he appears to be a regular contributer to the artistic and broadcasting community.
 * Above vote made by 67.183.18.143, not that it matters at this point. Almafeta 02:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable - Tεx  τ  urε  16:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User talk:Terry.Servant

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- 23:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Terry.Servant


text:
Talk:Latveria

Wait, what?
Is this even a real place? LOL! XD

LATERVERIA?!

POV: Me and my bros going to Laterveria later:

(-_-) <(zzZ)

Euro
currently latverian franc, i wondered if anyone had information regarding latveria and the euro

 * It is unlikley that the European Union would accept any petition from Doom for membership due to his human rights record. It is equally, if not more unlikely that Doom would subordinate Latverian (his) law to EU parliment decisions, accept EU immigration standards, or find any advantage in EU economic or trade accords.  Because of Latveria's superior economy there would be little advantage to his entering the Common Market :) —Clarknova 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * True, but he might well see the advantage in having a universally recognised currency - it is possible to use the Euro as your national currency without being an EU member - Vatican City and several other states do it. Of course, even that might be too much like surrender to someone like Doom.  On the other hand, he's not there anymore.  Lokicarbis 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * So, no Romanian language speakers in Latveria? Hmm...Stan Lee's parents were Romanian Jews, you know...Alexander 007 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Neighboring countries on the map
The new close-up map is nice, but not very informative - Latveria is a small green triangle in a large white expanse cris-crossed by dotted lines. Could someone who knows the fictional geography put in some country names for its neighbors, perhaps? Bryan 06:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Puff Piece
Considering this country is ruled by one of the most villanous tyrants in the world, doesn't this article seems overly kind to the nation and their "beloved" ruler. I suggest we get some anti-Doom commentary on this page and perhaps some perspectives of the people that have to live under his tyranny. Ownzilla 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * How dare you attack our Great Leader! I will use his time machine to travel backwards in time and ensure that you were never born and thus this criticism was never expressed! 137.82.188.68 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Ignore any edits from this IP, it's obviously just a Doombot. Bryan 05:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * That's Doctor Doombot to you, puny human. If it was not for an inexplicable correlation of your existence with a hard to predict time nexus I would erase you too from the timeline.   137.82.82.136 03:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a outrage! lol! I must mobilize the Doombots!

 * Was this posted by Reed Richards? I grow weary of his meddling ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.229.148 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thor "Standoff" story-arc/crossover
A three-part Thor crossover which started in Thor v2 #58, continued in Iron Man v3 #64, and concluded in Avengers v3 #63 revealed that a tiny country called Slokovia existed on Latveria's borders (which side was never specified), in the conclusion it was revealed that Latveria had annexed Slokovia, making it an official part of Latveria. I believe this should be noted in the article. Along with any other areas that Doom has conquered and absorbed into his country.

NPOV and unsourced
This article is completely kissy-face to Doom's dictatorship. It definitely needs to be rewritten with sources for its preposterous claims like "Latveria boasts freedom from the racism that the Roma are greeted with in other countries", "Latveria boasts an unparalleled rate of safety", and "Due to technological advancements far beyond anything in any other nation, Latveria has managed to remain unfoulled by industrial pollutants". There is no mention here of Latveria's multiple attempts at world domination, and their numerous pre-9/11 attacks on U.S. soil. wikipediatrix 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You do realise its a fictional comic book country, and not real? --217.65.158.91 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Why do you ask? wikipediatrix 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the person wanted to point out that the current article (as well as the suggestions you made) is mostly written as if the country was real, and does not conform to Manual of Style (writing about fiction). --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Latveria has never attempted to take over the world. Doom has. Latveria never made an attack on U.S. soil, only Doom has (and a few Doombots; never anything like a Latverian army). To my knowledge, no state of war has ever been formally declared between Latveria and any other country. As for how "kissy-face" his dictatorship is -- I do recall some comics showing that Latverians sincerely do like Doom, better than his predecessor, and that under him their lot in life has improved. He brought them technology, he protects them from neighboring countries who would exploit them (the same countries that were quick to rush in and try and claim Latverian soil the last time Doom died, at the end of the Unthinkable arc), and the Rom/Gypsy people are not looked down upon in Latveria as they are in most other countries, so Latveria is a safe haven of sorts for them. Seems the trend of the past several years, though, has been to show that all his people have nothing but contempt for him. --Dr Archeville 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Return
Doom's return is known to the Fantastic Four, and also, presumably, to the US goverment since Doom staged an attack on an Oklahoma millitary base.

Lots42 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

um... Esperanto? please
As noted above, Doom is unlikely to bow to internationalization and globalization. The likelihood that an international auxiliary language such as Esperanto would be used in Latveria is mostly preposterous. Unless I can see some attest fact as to Esperanto being used in Latveria, I'd likely suggest that it not be included in the list of major languages used in the country. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag?
does Latveria have a flag? does anyone have an image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.223 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it is a country, Latveria certainly has a flag, but it has never been shown. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Location of embassy
Do the comics ever develop a reason as to why the Latverian Embassy is located in New York City instead of Washington, D.C.? I came to the article looking for it; if such an in-universe reason does exist, it might be nice to include. -BaronGrackle (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latveria. 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/20050209121120/http://www.ffplaza.com/commcenter/articles/Latveria.shtml to http://www.ffplaza.com/commcenter/articles/Latveria.shtml

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) 00:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Fictional location sources?
Ok so I created an account just to ask this and I'm sorry if this isn't how it's done here. Anyway, I happen to live in a town in Romania within Latveria as shown on the map and I would very much like to see sources for this location. Is it just an artist's rendition, if so, how can I contact the author to ask why they placed it there specifically. This is extremely intriguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyasdfck (talk • contribs) 09:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of Latveria.svg

Probably notable
During my WP:BEFORE I found some sources that suggest this is probably notable: rather weak article in Bustle,, a decent article in Screenrant , and surprisingly enough, some academic coverage: ,. This is still rather borderline but could be enough. Ping User:BOZ, maybe you would have time to write up at least a tiny reception section here? Or ping someone else who might. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Current ruler
I thought it was Egils Levits? Flacidunderscorepancake (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Latveria


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberta Separatism

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. — Xezbeth 15:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alberta Separatism
While I'm not an expert on Canadian politics, it seems to me that this is a concept that hasn't caught on yet. Google estimates ~280 hits on "Alberta Separatism". Two sites (a blog and a forum) account for over a third of them. Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Xcali 23:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) --
 * Well, I've heard it numerous times in the media, so an article is appropriate, but this one is full of unverifiable nonsense- "growing feeling" and "1 in 4 Albertans want to secede". It needs a massive edit, but keep. --Scimitar 23:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, note that we also have Separation Party of Alberta, Western Independence Party, and this is mentioned on Secessionist movements of Canada. Adam Bishop 23:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Secessionist movements of Canada. Living in Alberta, this has come up quite a few times (mainly as blank threats again gay marriage or stopping privitization of medicene) and has even been hinted by at our Premier. however, there is not enough information to justify its own page, so merging seems like the logical thing to do. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep after another great rewrite. I think it's definetly Wikipedia now. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically this article should be called Western separatism as the idea is for the Prairie provinces and (depending who you ask) B.C. to separate. This term also gets far more Google hits. However if an article on secessionist movements exists, then merge for now. 23skidoo 00:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 00:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Reason?? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Sasquatch, and possibly fix capitalization. Radiant_ >|< 09:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Secessionist movements of Canada. Agree with Sasquatch. JamesBurns 10:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have re-written the article to address the concerns raised here. Please take another look, and reconsider your votes. I think that the article is substantial enough now to stand on its own. Adding it to Secessionist movements of Canada would unbalance that article and make it less useful. Further edits to improve Alberta Separatism are welcome. Sure, it's a fringe movement, but there are lots of articles on fringe movements on Wikipedia, and that's one of Wikipedia's strengths over other encyclopedias -- its ability to cover more obscure topics. Ground Zero 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewritten version by Ground Zero. --Deathphoenix 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, new version is much improved. - SimonP 20:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Yannick 05:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Rupertslander 00:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Old Mortality

Old Mortality is one of the Waverley novels by Walter Scott. Set in south west Scotland, it forms, along with The Black Dwarf, the 1st series of his Tales of My Landlord (1816). The novel deals with the period of the Covenanters, featuring their victory at Loudoun Hill (also known as the Battle of Drumclog) and their defeat at Bothwell Bridge, both in June 1679; a final section is set in 1689 at the time of the royalist defeat at Killiecrankie.

Scott's original title was The Tale of Old Mortality, but this is generally shortened in most references.

Composition and sources
On 30 April 1816 Scott signed a contract with William Blackwood for a four-volume work of fiction, and on 22 August James Ballantyne, Scott's printer and partner, indicated to Blackwood that it was to be entitled Tales of My Landlord, which was planned to consist of four tales relating to four regions of Scotland. In the event the second tale, Old Mortality, expanded to take up the final three volumes, leaving The Black Dwarf as the only story to appear exactly as intended. Scott completed The Black Dwarf in August, and composed Old Mortality during the next three months.

Scott was steeped in 17th-century literature, but among the printed sources drawn on for The Tale of Old Mortality the following may be singled out for special mention:
 * Memoirs of Captain John Creichton in The Works of Jonathan Swift D. D., which Scott edited in 1814
 * The Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland by James Kirkton, edited by Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe in 1817
 * Some Remarkable Passages of the Life and Death of Mr. Alexander Peden, by Patrick Walker (1724)
 * The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, by Robert Wodrow (1721–22).

Editions
Old Mortality appeared as the second, third, and fourth volumes of Tales of My Landlord, published by Blackwood's in Edinburgh on 2 December and by John Murray in London three days later. As with all the Waverley novels before 1827 publication was anonymous. The title-page indicated that the Tales were 'collected and arranged by Jedediah Cleishbotham', reinforcing the sense of a new venture moving on from the first three novels with 'the Author of Waverley' and his publishers, Archibald Constable in Edinburgh and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown in London. The print run was 2000 copies, and the price £1 8s (£1.40). Two further editions with minor changes followed in the next two months. There is no clear evidence for authorial involvement in these, or in any of the novel's subsequent appearances except for the 18mo Novels and Tales (1823) and the 'Magnum' edition. Some of the small changes to the text in 1823 are attributable to Scott, but that edition was a textual dead end. In October 1828 he provided the novel with an introduction and notes, and revised the text, for the Magnum edition in which it appeared in February to April 1830 as part of the ninth volume, the whole of the tenth, and part of the eleventh.

The standard modern edition, by Douglas Mack, was published with Scott's apparently preferred title "The Tale of Old Mortality", as Volume 4b of the Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels in 1993: this is based on the first edition with emendations from manuscript and the editions immediately following the initial publication; the Magnum material appears in Volume 25a.

Plot summary
After an Introduction to the Tales of My Landlord, supposedly written by the novel's (fictional) editor Jedediah Cleishbotham, the first chapter by the (fictional) author Peter Pattieson describes Robert Paterson ('Old Mortality'), a Scotsman of the 18th century, who late in life decided to travel around Scotland re-engraving the tombs of 17th-century Covenanter martyrs. Pattieson describes at length meeting Robert Paterson, hearing his anecdotes, and finding other stories of the events to present an unbiased picture.

The novel then describes a wapenshaw held in 1679 by Lady Margaret Bellenden, life-rentrix of the barony of Tillietudlem. This was a show of her support for the Royalist cause, but most of her tenants favoured the opposing Covenanters (who wanted the re-establishment of presbyterianism in Scotland) and she has to enlist her unwilling servants. After her supporters are duly mustered, the main sport is a shoot at the popinjay in which the Cavalier favourite is narrowly defeated by Henry Morton, son of a Covenanter. He is introduced to Lady Margaret and her lovely granddaughter Edith Bellenden, with whom he is in love.

During celebrations of his popinjay victory in the inn that evening, Morton stands up for John Balfour of Burley against bullying by Cavalier dragoons. That night, Burley seeks shelter at Morton's house; Morton reluctantly agrees. It emerges that Burley was one of the assassins of Archbishop James Sharp. In the morning they have to flee Cavalier patrols. As a consequence, Morton finds himself outlawed, and joins Burley in the uprising at the Battle of Drumclog. During this battle a small but well organised group of Covenanters defeated a force of dragoons led by John Graham of Claverhouse. However, after this initial success, Scott traces the growth of factionalism, which hastened its defeat at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge in 1679, by forces led by the Duke of Monmouth and John Graham of Claverhouse.

Henry Morton's involvement in the rebellion causes a conflict of loyalties for him, since Edith Bellenden belongs to a Royalist family who oppose the uprising. Henry's beliefs are not as extreme as those of Burley and many other rebel leaders, which leads to his involvement in the factional disputes. The novel also shows their oppressors, led by Claverhouse, to be extreme in their beliefs and methods. Comic relief is provided by Cuddie Headrigg, a peasant who works as a manservant to Morton. He reluctantly joins the rebellion because of his personal loyalty to Morton, as well as his own fanatical Covenanting mother, Mause Headrigg.

Following the defeat at Bothwell Bridge, Morton flees the battle field. He is soon captured by some of the extreme Covenanters, who see him as a traitor, and get ready to execute him. He is rescued by Claverhouse, who has been led to the scene by Cuddie Headrigg. Morton later witnesses the trial and torture of fellow rebels, before going into exile.

The novel ends with Morton returning to Scotland in 1689 to find a changed political and religious climate following the overthrow of James VII, and to be reconciled with Edith.

Characters
Principal characters in bold

Mr Morton of Milnewood, a Presbyterian

Henry Morton, his nephew

Alison Wilson, his housekeeper

Lady Margaret Bellenden of Tillietudlem

Edith, her granddaughter

Major Bellenden, her brother-in-law

Gudyill, her butler

Goose Gibbie, her half-witted servant

Jenny Dennison, Edith's maid

Mause Headrigg

Cuddie, her son

Lord Evandale

Lady Emily Hamilton, his sister

Niel Blane, a publican

Jenny, his daughter

John Grahame of Claverhouse

Francis Stuart (Bothwell), his sergeant

Cornet Richard Grahame, his nephew

Tam Halliday, Bothwell's comrade

Gabriel Kettledrummle, Peter Poundtext, Ephraim Macbriar, and Habbakuk Mucklewraith, Covenanting preachers

John Balfour or Burley, a Covenanter

The Duke of Monmouth

General Dalzell, his aide-de-camp

The Duke of Lauderdale

Basil Olifant

Bessie MacClure

Peggy, her granddaughter

Wittenbold, a Dutch dragoon commander

Volume One
Ch. 1: An assistant schoolmaster at Gandercleugh, Peter Pattieson, tells of his encounter with Old Mortality repairing Covenanters' gravestones, and of the stories he told that form the basis of the following narrative.

Ch. 2: Lady Margaret Bellenden has difficulty in finding enough willing servants to fulfil her obligation to send a prescribed number to the wappen-schaw (muster).

Ch. 3: At the wappen-schaw Henry Morton wins the contest of shooting at the popinjay (parrot), defeating Lord Evandale and a young plebeian [later identified as Cuddie Headrigg]. Lady Margaret's half-witted servant Goose Gibbie takes a tumble.

Ch. 4: At Niel Blane's inn John Balfour (or Burley) defeats Francis Stuart (Bothwell) in a wrestling bout. After Burley has left, Cornet Grahame arrives to announce that the Archbishop of St Andrews has been murdered by a band under Burley's command.

Ch. 5: Henry shelters Burley in the stable at Milnewood, securing for him provisions obtained ostensibly for his own refreshment from the garrulous housekeeper Alison Wilson.

Ch. 6: Next morning Henry sees Burley on his way, rejecting his extremism. He abandons a plan to make a career abroad in the face of opposition by his uncle and Alison.

Ch. 7: Lady Bellenden expels Mause and Cuddie Headrigg from Tillietudlem for whiggery.

Ch. 8: Mause and Cuddie find shelter at Milnewood. Bothwell arrests Henry for succouring Burley. Mause and Cuddie prepare to leave Milnewood after she has uttered fanatically extreme Covenanting sentiments.

Ch. 9: Lady Bellenden makes Bothwell's party welcome at Tullietudlem.

Ch. 10: With Jenny Dennison's help Edith Bellenden persuades the guard Tam Halliday to allow her to see Henry Edith. She writes a letter, to be conveyed by Goose Gibbie, suggesting that her uncle Major Miles Bellenden should speak in Henry's behalf to Claverhouse.

Ch. 11: Major Bellenden arrives at Tillietudlem in response to Edith's letter, shortly followed by Claverhouse.

Ch. 12: After breakfast Claverhouse declines to spare Henry at the Major's request, and he is confirmed in his decision when Lord Evandale arrives to report that the Covenantening forces are expecting to be joined by a strong body headed by Henry. Evandale agrees at Edith's suit to intercede in Henry's behalf.

Ch. 13: An old jealousy of Henry's is reawakened by his misinterpretation of Edith's relationship with Evandale. Claverhouse agrees to spare him from instant execution at Evandale's request.

Volume Two
Ch. 1 (14): Henry discusses current affairs with Cuddie on the march under Bothwell's guard. Mause and Gabriel Kettledrummle give unbridled vent to their convictions.

Ch. 2 (15): The body arrives at Loudon Hill where the royalist force is preparing for battle with the Covenanters.

Ch. 3 (16): The Covenanters triumph in the battle: Cornet Grahame is shot before it begins, and Burley kills Bothwell in the conflict.

Ch. 4 (17): Henry, who has observed the battle, intervenes to save Evandale from Burley, enabling him to avoid captivity.

Ch. 5 (18): Kettledrummle and Ephraim Macbriar preach after the battle.

Ch. 6 (19): Major Bellenden prepares Tillietudlem for siege by the Covenanters.

Ch. 7 (20): Claverhouse provides Tillietudlem with a detachment of dragoons for its defence as the surrounding country prepares for war.

Ch. 8 (21): Burley persuades Henry to join the Covenanting forces, albeit with some misgivings.

Ch. 9 (22): Henry is horrified by the extreme views expressed at a council of the Covenanters.

Ch. 10 (23): Henry accepts Cuddie's offer to enter his service and receives from him the deceased Bothwell's pocket-book. He joins in a council of six to plan the reduction of Tillietudlem.

Ch. 11 (24): Evandale arrives at Tillietudlem. Edith is distressed to learn from Jenny Dennison that Henry has joined the Covenanters.

Ch. 12 (25): After Major Bellenden rejects a letter from Henry proposing terms of surrender there is an indecisive skirmish.

Ch. 13 (26): Leaving the Tullietudlem siege with reluctance at Burley's insistence, Henry joins in an unsuccessful attempt to take Glasgow. The Duke of Monmouth is nominated to command the royalist army in Scotland.

Ch. 14 (27): Henry returns with Peter Poundtext to Tillietudlem village and they persuade Burley to spare Evandale, captured in a sally, from execution.

Ch. 15 (28): After an appeal by Jenny Dennison to Henry, he releases Evandale, who arranges the surrender of Tillietudlem before setting out for Edinburgh to join Monmouth, in company with the women folk.

Ch. 16 (29): On the road to Edinburgh Henry briefly joins the party and discusses his conduct with Edith, as do the Bellendens and Evandale among themselves. Joining the Covenanters at Hamilton, Henry tries to keep up their spirits while seeking an accommodation with the royalists.

Ch. 17 (30): With the agreement of the Covenanting council Henry meets Monmouth to explore possible peace terms; Monmouth puts an end to the discussion by demanding that the Covenanters lay down their arms before negotiations commence.

Volume Three
Ch. 1 (31): Henry finds the Covenanters split doctrinally and tactically.

Ch. 2 (32): The Covenanters are defeated and dispersed at the battle of Bothwell Bridge.

Ch. 3 (33): Henry is threatened with death by a group of Cameronians, including Macbriar and Habakkuk Meiklewrath. He is rescued by Claverhouse.

Ch. 4 (34): Claverhouse shows great calmness in disposing of the Cameronians.

Ch. 5 (35): Claverhouse and Henry debate on the way to Edinburgh and witness the procession of prisoners into the city.

Ch. 6 (36): The Privy Council of Scotland sentences Henry to exile before pardoning Cuddie and torturing Macbriar and condemning him to death.

Ch. 7 (37): After ten years Henry returns to Scotland, visiting Cuddie incognito at his cottage near Bothwell Bridge to ascertain the present state of affairs, including Basil Olifant's success in obtaining ownership of Tillietudlem and Edith's engagement to Evandale.

Ch. 8 (38): Jenny Dennison, now Headrigg, recognises Henry but advises Cuddie that to acknowledge him would be to endanger their tenancy. Evandale asks Edith to marry him before he leaves for the campaign against Claverhouse (now Viscount Dundee) but after catching sight of Henry looking in through the window she breaks off the engagement.

Ch. 9 (39): Henry returns to Milnewood to learn that his uncle is dead.

Ch. 10 (40): Henry tells his story to Alison and passes on.

Ch. 11 (41): Following directions from Niel Blane, Henry arrives at Bessie Maclure's inn.

Ch. 12 (42): Bessie tells her own story and updates Henry on Burley's recent history and his current retreat at the Black Linn of Linklater.

Ch. 13 (43): Bessie's granddaughter Peggy conducts Henry to the Black Linn where Burley has a document which would restore Edith to Tillietudlem in place of Olifant, but Henry refuses his terms. Returning to Bessie's inn he overhears two dragoons plotting to attack Evandale on Olifant 's behalf.

Ch. 14 (44): Henry's warning note to Evandale, entrusted to Goose Gibbie, miscarries and Evandale is killed, as is Burley on the arrival of a party of Dutch dragoons under Wittenbold.

Conclusion: At Martha Buskbody's request Peter Pattieson sketches in the later history of the main surviving characters.

Peroration: Jedidiah Cleishbotham, who has arranged for Pattieson's manuscript to be published, indicates that more volumes of the Tales of my Landlord will be forthcoming.

Historical background
In an introduction written by Scott in 1830, he describes his own chance meeting with 'Old Mortality' at Dunottar, which he describes as having happened about 30 years before the time of writing.

The novel centres on the actual events of a Covenanter uprising in 1679, and describes the battles of Drumclog and Bothwell Bridge. The character of Henry Morton is fictional, as is Tillietudlem Castle, but readers identified the place with Craignethan Castle which Scott had visited. This castle soon attracted literary tourists, and a railway halt built nearby became the hamlet of Tillietudlem.

Reception
Most of the reviewers rated Old Mortality considerably higher than The Black Dwarf, with particular appreciation of the characters and descriptions, though there were several objections to the weakness of the hero Henry Morton. Although four critics, including Francis Jeffrey in The Edinburgh Review, judged the presentation of the Covenanters and the royalists to be fair, there were several assertions that the Covenanters were caricatured and the royalists whitewashed, most notably in a long (and otherwise generally appreciative) article by the Rev. Thomas McCrie the elder in The Edinburgh Christian Instructor. Scott himself responded indirectly to McCrie's criticisms in an anonymous self-review for The Quarterly Review. The Eclectic Review accused Scott of distorting and diminishing history for the sake of amusing his readers, while admitting he did it well. Henry Duncan, who opened the first savings bank, published a set of three novels attempting to counteract the negative view of the Covenanters given in Old Mortality.

Adaptations and cultural references
The play Têtes rondes et Cavaliers (1833) by Jacques-François Ancelot and Joseph Xavier Saintine is based on Scott's novel.

Vincenzo Bellini's opera I puritani (1835), with a libretto written by Italian emigre in Paris, Count Carlo Pepoli, is in turn based on that play. It has become one of Bellini's major operas.

Letitia Elizabeth Landon's poetical illustration to a painting by Alexander Chisholm is effectively a eulogy on Sir Walter Scott himself following his death and also recounts his visit to Italy. The titled picture is of a location mentioned in Old Mortality.

title: Old Mortality


text: User talk:68.55.222.230

title: User talk:68.55.222.230


text:
Category talk:Mortal Kombat characters

Untitled
Is Shao Kahn in Mortal kombat Deception.
 * He's in the Gamecube version, yes.

Suggestion
This category seems oddly structured. Every character in the "minor characters" section is from Mortal Kombat: Conquest, and every character in the "major characters" section is a playable character from the games (as far as I can tell). I don't want to put this up for CfR right off the bt, but doesn't it make more sense to, e.g., have a "Mortal Kombat: Conquest characters" category and a "Mortal Kombat playable characters" category? This would help categorising the Conquest characters at least, and the only real difference would be that "Great Kung Lao" and the "list of minor characters" would have to be shifted or duplicated to this parent category. (I made similar comments at Category talk:Mortal Kombat minor characters.) -- Supermorff 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Cage
Johny Cage is under C when he should be under J. I don't know how to fix this Sp0 (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Mortal Kombat characters