text:
Talk:Hypocorism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BreaErwin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

History of spellings
Re the point, "a reduction (in English) of a longer word...." If anyone can give me a brief idea on the origins/difference between the y spelling and the ie spelling I would greatly appreciate it. My name is Lachlan; my mum spells it Lachie, I spell it Lachy. My feeling is y is the more Celtic in origin whereas ie is a French adaptation. (58.110.122.143 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC))

 * It seems whollie arbitrarie to me. —Tamfang (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

History and psychology
Some discussion on the history and psychology behind hypocoristics would be good, and probably protect it from WP:WINAD. I don't think Diminutive covers (or can cover) hypocoristics, or their history, well enough.

Anybody know much about them before I cobble together something? Until then, should this be marked as a stub? --Mark 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Diaphragm?
Given the many, and special, meanings of "diaphragm" in English I'm not keen on correcting this, but isn't the pitch of speech sounds dependent on the larynx? The way it it is said now, I think of big and small croaking frogs ... klaus --91.32.9.240 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese -chan and -tan
Strictly speaking, -tan is a diminutive of -chan which is a diminutive of -san which is a diminutive of -sama, which is an honorific. It is thus not part of the name itself.

I'm not sure about -pi.

While I'm commenting, the article should probably mention the almost universal dropping of "-ko" and "-mi" from girl's names. For example, a girl named Haruko might be called Hatchan by her closest friend(s), and Haru-chan by the rest of the class. Only strangers, distant relatives, and adults who were telling her off would bother with the full "Haruko-chan" form. --61.214.155.14 (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ernesto not Che
I deleted Che for Ernesto. Ernesto Guevara was called "Che" for his use of the interjection "che"; it doesn't mean that other Ernestos would have that nickname. 190.136.59.66 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

v. pet name
According to the OED, Hypocoristic is an adjective not a noun, and given that the OED actually defines Hypocoristic in terms of pet name: "of the nature of a pet name [Greek hupokoristikos from hupokorizomai ‘call by pet names’]" (Concise Oxford, 9th edn.) I have to question why pet name redirects here rather than vice versa. This is an unbelievably obscure word, why use Greek when there is a perfectly good English word that everyone knows? Checking the Shorter Oxford, the noun form is hypocorism (=pet name) (and it was already marked as "rare" several decades ago) so I have to say I think using Hypocoristic as the head word is factually incorrect. Samatarou (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know why the OED would say that, but linguists (like me) certainly use it in the plural "hypocoristics", and you will get thousands of hits for this on google (put a '+' in front of it to prevent Google from stripping the 's'). So it is a noun in English (and maybe an adjective too).

 * That doesn't address the issue of rarity, of course. But as a linguist, I would never have thought to look for this article under 'pet name'.Mcswell (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Mcswell, your response is unbelievable. Your claim to be a 'linguist' is questionable. If you truly are a trained linguist, you need to ask for your money back from the University where you received your training. Here in the United States, you first have to successfully complete four (4) years of high school English before you are eligible to be considered for acceptance at an accredited College or University. Your answer carries a hint that you are not even aware of who or what OED is. ("...I don't know why the OED would say that..."). Apparently, for you, Google search results outweigh any entry in the OED. In an apparent attempt to 'prove' that your erroneous misuse is 'okay', you invite us to Google-search for a different word (hypocoristics, rather than hypocoristic). Your apparent claim that 'thousands of hits' for that different word (hypocoristics) somehow justifies your misuse of an adjective (hypocoristic) as a noun is mind-boggling. The correct noun-form of hypocoristic is 'hypocorism'. The number of hits from a Google search is meaningless and irrelevant.

 * As proof of the meaninglessness of 'number of Google hits' as proof of anything, let's punch the misspelled word, Anabapist, into Google (missing the first 't'). Good Glory to God, I get over 500 hits! Using your methodology, the misspelling must be correct! We got tons of Google hits! NOT

 * Let's try another... let's punch in the misspelled 'Numerolgy' (missing the second 'o'). Good Glory God Almighty! I get over TEN THOUSAND hits! Using your methodology, the misspelling must be correct! We got thousands of Google hits! NOT

 * We could go on and on. Punch into Google Search ANY misspelling or incorrect usage and you'll get numerous 'hits' -- all meaningless when accuracy and correctness are desired.

 * This is not a personal attack against Mcswell. She has claimed that an incorrect usage is A-Okay. Somehow now the incorrect is correct because SHE says it is correct-- notwithstanding the contrary evidence found in a published reliable source, the OED. In a further attempt to bolster her wrongness and 'win' the argument, she makes a claim that she is a 'linguist'. This post of mine here is only a direct response to her clearly understood claim that 'wrong is right because Mcswell says so'. In fine, wrong is not right by any authority of Mcswell; the word 'hypocoristic' is an adjective; the noun-form of hypocoristic is 'hypocorism'; and, the name of this page should be Hypocorism (the noun), not hypocoristic (the adjective). Joe Hepperle (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 * See, below. -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

What?
Sarah → Sally where in the word is Sally a short form of Sarah? It's not even shorter, for one thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.162.175 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So it says at Sarah (given name) and Sally, though I'm not sure where citations for such a claim could be gotten. Mary → Molly → Polly is similar. Since Hypocorism apparently means "baby-talk", and since the "Derivation" section mentions reduplication, possibly "shorter form" should be removed from the definition. "Easier form"? "Relaxed form"? 213.122.60.95 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

British
Is it worth pointing out that the brits seem to use more of this sort of thing in their slang? Compared to other english speakers they seem to have a lot of baby talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No original research. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad Usage
Hypocorism is the encyclopedic subject. The term 'hypocoristic' is an adjective. The fact that, as in all languages, some few people misunderstand, are ignorant, or were taught incorrectly by ignorant predecessors does not 'validate' the error of usage. This article has only one reference listed, from OED, and that reference is from OED's entry on HYPOCORISM, not 'hypocoristic'. Several posters on the talk page have already made this point, apparently to deaf ears (so-to-speak) of other editors. I am initiating a page rename request: From 'hypocoristic' to 'hypocorism'. Those who wish to persist in their error have no need to worry. Entering 'hypocoristic' in the search box will still get you here because a redirect will exist. Joe Hepperle (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 * My apologies for the late response, but: Right is not wrong by any authority of Joe Hepperle; the word hypocoristic is either an adjective or a noun. See the OED, s.v. hypocoristic ("b. n. A pet name."). Or R. L. Trask, A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 1996), s.v. hypocorism ("hypocorism n. (also hypocoristic or, more rarely, hypocorisma) A diminutive, especially one used as an endearment or pet name...."). Or Laurie Bauer, A Glossary of Morphology (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004), s.v. hypocoristic ("A hypocoristic is a pet-name...."). In short, Mcswell was correct. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Historical examples?
Is there a place for historical examples, perhaps in a different article? For example, the daughter of Abigail Adams, was also named Abigail, but in the family she was called "Nabby" to distinguish her from her mother. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only names, but words as well? Also, "Gogo" in S. Africa
This article, from my quick scanning of it, seems to focus on hypocorisms of given names, when the summary mentions words as well. Examples of the latter would be helpful. (Sorry that I'm posting this without carefully reading the article, but I'm at my limit tonight.)

I ran across the hypocorism article while adding in a referenced definition for Gogo (South African for Granny) at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey_Leadership_Academy_for_Girls#Visiting_the_elderly

So, there's one hypocorism, complete with reference, that does not substitute for a given name. I think. I'm very tired (lopsided grin). I'm documenting this request and info tidbit here for whoever can take up the research and revision, and to those people, I give my sleepy thanks. Thank-yawwwwn-ks! --Geekdiva (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

IPA pronounciation guide - correct?
Is the given pronounciation, correct? I would have expected.

You sure these are all hypocorisms?
Most of these examples just look like nicknames to me. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

French examples lacking
There are some very typical French pet names which characterise a common way they do it that are not listed here.

Micheline → Mimi

Philipe → Fifi

My mother is French and I have spent time with my relatives in Normandy, so this is first hand information. There are many others like this.

Geoffpointer (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency, cleanup help needed.
The listing in the English section is very inconsistent. This article is referenced in MOS:NICKNAME, as a basis to decide for example whether to put a nickname in quote marks in the lead sentence of an article. It should be reasonably accurate. For example, "John → Jack" was listed as a "shortening" - in which case it should not be used in the lead sentence - and also under "A short form that differs significantly from the name", in which case it should. See Talk:John F. Kennedy for the uncertainty that produced. I've cleaned up the John/Jack entries, but a lot more work needs to be done. There are a number of other names that inconsistently appear both in "shortening" or "diminutive" as well as in "short form that differs significantly", e.g. Dorothy → Dot → Dottie; James → Jamie, Jim →Jimmy; etc., or are in an inappropriate category such as Adelaide → Heidi being in "shortening" when it ought to be in "short form that differs significantly". There are also some rather dubious entries like "Anne → Annie; Nan → Nancy". Furthermore, although it doesn't affect MOS:NICKNAME decisions as much, most "diminutive" names are duplicated in the "shortening" section, though some like Rosemary → Rose → Rosie are only listed in "diminutive" and not "shortening". It would be great if people could help clean it up! --IamNotU (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

just... no
Hi. Here's a suggestion: let's eliminate every given example that doesn't cite a credible source. At very least, cite a single online-accessible source for multiple instances.

I'll leave it alone for a couple of weeks, on the off chance that someone will fix this properly, or at least offer some defense of it. Weeb Dingle (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I would support the removal of unsourced content, there is no requirement that citations be online-accessible. Nzd   (talk)  12:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally, I might agree with you. However, in this instance, it would not be at all feasible to verify someone's claim to the effect "oh, it's okay, all of these 273 examples are covered in one hard-to-find out-of-print book (of which I happen to have the only known copy), here's the citation."

 * You might find it helpful to revisit Verifiability.

 * We can compromise: Since you are clearly ready to take on this project, all you need to do is find a credible in-print publication that verifies all of the entries in each language section. I'll be along eventually to remove any that are unsupported, per the seven-year-old EXAMPLE FARM template up at the top.

 * For the moment, I am blanking the big chunk of text in the middle that has no citations whatever, and is therefore clearly an original research vio and likely an NPOV problem as well. Per WP:PROVEIT, anything brought back had better cite a verifiable source. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was agreeing with you...However, having just 'revisited' WP:V, I note that it says Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).At no point did I say that I was ready to take on any kind of project (I have neither the time or the inclination). I was stating that I supported (agreed with) the removal of unsourced content, but with the proviso that "unsourced" doesn't include things that you (or I) happen to not have access to. Cheers, Nzd   (talk)  17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Split article
Suggestion (not yet a proposal): create "List of Hypocorisms" and move all the pointless examples there. IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced / original research moved
I have parked the sections that were discussed above by, and  at Talk:Hypocorism/Unsourced for the time being. For one, those sections are entirely unsourced and borderline original research. While many of the examples for languages I am familiar with are intuitively correct, this is not sufficient as threshold for inclusion. At the same time, the examples also mislead towards equating a hypocorism with a dimunitive of a name. From what I can see in dictionary references, any "pet name" is a hypocorism, e.g. if Paul is called "Buster" or my partner calls me "darling", that's all covered under this term. Essentially the list could be endless. I suggest that examples and explanations are moved back step by step as proper references are found in the context of "hypocorism". pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Interested editors should engage in merge discussion on talk page if relevant. Mike Cline (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hypocorism → Pet name – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Pet name" is vastly more common than hypocorism across all domains. The Google Ngram Viewer shows it as 100 times as common in books. Google Scholar shows it in 14,100 scholarly articles compared to 702 for hypocorism. Google Search shows it in 4 million web pages, compared with 47 thousand for hypocorism. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Obvious common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Or I was just one of stupid ones who never heard of this until WP.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I had never heard of this term either before today. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Merge to Term of endearment. It's the same topic. I would probably support a follow-up nom to move Term of endearment to Pet name, but I think the primary issue is that Hypocorism has a duplicate scope of an article that has a more appropriate name. (Hypocorism is basically the worst possible name for this because of WP:COMMON, so it easily loses out to Term of endearment). --Xurizuri (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ambiguous, as a hypocorism is not the name of a pet. Also, my impression is that it is more of a nickname than a "term of endearment". Oxford says it can be either familiar or diminutive, neither of which are necessarily indicating affection. When I refer to someone named Edward as Ed, it may just be a matter of noticing that this is what other people call him rather than expressing fondness. Instead we should redirect this to Nickname, since this article is just a WP:DICTDEF. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting the Oxford dictionary. First, you're leaving out the relevant part; the definition in its entirety says, "A familiar or diminutive form of a name; a pet name."  Second, to be clear, this is Lexico.  The OED, which is a different dictionary, just says, "A pet-name."  Also note that "pet name" doesn't mean the name of a pet. Having said all that, I don't object to redirecting hypocorism/pet name to nickname if there's general agreement that they mean the same thing, but that can be addressed separately. Dan Bloch (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I'd like to point out that a raw count from ngrams is not telling the full story here, since we tend to prefer to give more weight to the language used in dedicated scholarly treatments of a topic, rather than passing mentions in casual contexts. Hence why we have an article at Fellatio rather than Blow job. (Or, to take a different example from linguistics, we have an article called High rising terminal, rather than Uptalk). I'm not very familiar with this subject area, but, for example, this post on Language Log seems to suggest that hypocoristics are a precisely defined linguistic phenomenon that can't exactly be conflated with "pet name" or "nickname". Colin M (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ...prefer to give more weight to the language used in dedicated scholarly treatments of a topic...: Is there a similar guideline to medicine's WP:NCMED, to use "scientific or recognised medical name"? Otherwise, as for blow job, that would be discounted as a slang. Uptalk seems more technical, and not an everyday term, so would defer to common domain usage.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as I have not before seen the term used to refer to the meaning that hypocoristics may often convey, rather than the morphological process. From W.B McGregor (2015: 86, Linguistics - An Introduction): A variant on clipping that is common in Australian English is hypocorism. This involves first clipping a word down to a closed monosyllable. Next the suffix -y ~ -ie (/i/) is attached to the clipped form. Some examples are Aussie ‘Australian’, brekky ‘breakfast’, bickie ‘biscuit’, barbie ‘barbeque’ and telly ‘television’. The same suffix can be added to clipped personal names (e.g. Mickey, Robby, Lizzie); but there is no suffixless brek or bick corresponding to brekky and bickie. I interpret this to say that the term is used for the proces (closed-monosyllabification+/i/-sufffixation) and does not necessarily mean that the resulting word is a name or endearing. I guess it can also be taken to mean that the article should be merged with Clipping (morphology) instead though... Replayful (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a relevant footnote I came across in a 2001 paper, "Hypocoristics of place-names in Australian English" where the author talks about her reason for using the term "hypocoristic" over other alternatives: Alternative words and names are often discussed under names such as ‘shortenings’, ‘clippies’, ‘abbreviations’, ‘truncations’, which focus on one means for creating them, or under the name ‘hypocoristics’ which labels the meanings, or under the name ‘diminutives’ which labels one kind of meaning and, implicitly, one aspect of the form. Since there are several means for creating these alternative forms, we cannot use names like ‘clippies’. We adopt with some reluctance the label ‘hypocoristic’ which is more general, if less transparent. Though I don't know to what degree this taxonomy reflects scholarly consensus. Colin M (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Merge a hypocorism is different from a pet name. However, this article is so short that it doesn't explain the difference.  It should be merged to some other list, maybe List of words about words that XKCD has made jokes about in the context of Wikipedia. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 02:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I would argue that all of the above are actually arguments for this renaming. "Hypocorism" is currently linked as a synonym for "pet name" in hundreds of places.  If it means something else, the only way to write about that is to first rename the existing article to "pet name", freeing up hypocorism for other content.  (I would change the hypocorism links to point to pet name.) Dan Bloch (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would that be any different from removing the redirect "pet name">"hypocorism" and creating a separate Pet name article? Because I would support that if the two are kept separate (at least in some way) - I may simply not be too familiar with how (re)moving, redirects and renamings work on Wikipedia. Replayful (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this. This doesn't seem advisable, since it would result in two identical articles, at least to start with and possibly forever. Splitting first is also more error-prone, since all the current links to Hypocorism assume that it means the same thing as pet name. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Pet names a.k.a. terms of endearment are a subset of hypocorisms, and not the major subset (which is shortenings, like Liz and Beth for Elizabeth). There's nothing wrong with the name of the article; the problem is that this miserable stub is too badly written. And, no, neither type of hypocorism is synonymous with "nickname"; that refers to non-hypocoristic alternative names (e.g. my friend James who went by "Spanky").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see a taxonomy that showed that, but the reliable sources I've seen all say that hypocorism and pet name are synonyms. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That first sentence is unreadable
I'm going to change it; feel free to change what I wrote to make it better, but please don't leave it how it was Jeeibleh (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hypocorism


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

title: File:Starlord04.jpg


text: Template:Guinea-pref

title: Template:Guinea-pref


text:
1999 Pakistan Breguet 1150 Atlantic shootdown

The Atlantique incident  occurred on 10 August 1999, when a Breguet Atlantic maritime patrol aircraft of the Pakistan Naval Air Arm was shot down by a MiG-21 fighter of the Indian Air Force over the Rann of Kutch, on the border between India and Pakistan. Sixteen Pakistani personnel including the pilots were killed as a result. The episode took place just a month after the Kargil War ended, aggravating already tense relations between the two countries.

Foreign diplomats based in Pakistan who were escorted to the site by the Pakistan Army noted that the plane may have crossed the border. They also believed that India's reaction was unjustified. Pakistan later lodged a compensation claim at the International Court of Justice, blaming India for the incident, but the court dismissed the case, ruling that it had no jurisdiction in the matter.

Confrontation
The French-built Breguet Br.1150 Atlantic, c/n 33, flight Atlantic-91, of 29 Squadron, was one of the Pakistan Navy's frontline aircraft, used primarily for patrol and reconnaissance. Atlantic-91 left Mehran naval base in Pakistan at 9:15 am PKT (9:45 IST). Indian Air Force ground radar picked up the plane as it approached the India-Pakistan border. Two IAF MiG-21 interceptor aircraft of No. 45 Squadron, from the Indian airbase at Naliya in the Kutch region, were scrambled. After a series of manoeuvres—with conflicting versions of events from both sides—the two jets were given clearance to shoot down the Pakistani plane. At 11:17 am IST (10:47 am PKT), nearly two hours after takeoff from Pakistan, the Atlantic was intercepted and an infrared homing R-60 air-to-air missile was fired at it by Squadron Leader P.K. Bundela, hitting the engine on the port side of the plane.

Claims and counterclaims
The event immediately sparked claims and counter-claims by both nations. Pakistan claimed that the plane was unarmed and the debris was found on Pakistan's side of the border, and there was no violation of Indian airspace. According to the official Pakistan version of events, the plane was on a routine training mission inside Pakistan air space. The Pakistani Prime Minister stated during the funeral service of the airmen that the shooting was a barbaric act.

The Indian Air force claimed that the aeroplane did not respond to international protocol and that it acted in a "hostile" manner, adding that the debris of a downed aircraft could fall over a wide radius. Indian sources also stated that Pakistan's Information Minister, Mushahid Hussein, was initially quoted as saying that the aircraft was on a surveillance mission. India also alleged that the plane violated a bilateral agreement, signed by India and Pakistan in 1991, under which no military aircraft were to come within 10 km of the border (although Pakistan claimed the Atlantic was not a combat aircraft). Indian experts also questioned why a training mission was being carried out so close to the border, when all air forces conduct training flights in clearly demarcated training areas located well away from international boundaries. According to them, the Pakistani claim was untenable since the primary role of the Atlantic is for operations over the sea and that to carry out a training flight over land deep inside foreign territory was an indication of its use in a surveillance role. India displayed part of the wreckage of the Pakistani naval aircraft at New Delhi airport the next day. Pakistan stated that the wreckage was removed from its side of the border by Indian helicopters.

While Pakistan said that the plane was unarmed and the debris was within Pakistani territory, India maintained that warnings had been given to the Atlantic and that its flight trajectory meant it could have fallen on either side of the border. According to the Indian version of events, the MiGs tried to escort it to a nearby Indian base, when the Pakistani aircraft turned abruptly and tried to make a dash for the border; it was only then that it was fired upon. India claimed that the debris was found in a radius of 2 km on either side of the border and that the intrusion took place 10 km inside the Kori Creek, which is Indian territory. Pakistan requested that the matter be taken up in the UN. Indian officials claimed that there had been previous violations in the area and pointed out that in the previous year a Pakistani unmanned surveillance aircraft had intruded 150 km inside the Indian border, coming close to the Bhuj air base before the IAF spotted it and brought it down with several missiles.

Indian analysts state "flare-ups" in the Rann of Kutch region were routine, and despite bilateral agreements, both India and Pakistan had conducted air intrusions in the past. Thus, the fact that the Atlantic was shot down, despite coming close to the Indian border, came as a surprise. Indian officials add that Pakistan military aircraft had violated Indian airspace at least 50 times since January 1999, showing videotapes of Pakistani Atlantics "buzzing", or flying provocatively near the Indian Navy's warships in the Indian Ocean. Some Indian analysts stated that the Atlantic was nearly destroyed in 1983 on a similar encounter and noted other close encounters and violations from Pakistani naval planes.

Some experts stated that the Atlantic was probably conducting a "probe" on India's air defence system, mainly the radar equipment in the border area; they advised that it was not part of any planned aggressive military action by Pakistan. Foreign diplomats who visited the crash site noted that the plane "may have strayed into restricted space", and that Islamabad was unable to explain why it was flying so close to the border; they added that India's reaction to the incident was not justified. Many countries, the G8, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as the western media questioned the wisdom behind Pakistan's decision to fly military aircraft so close to the Indian border.

Rise in tensions
On the day following the attack, an IAF helicopter carrying journalists to the site of the attack was attacked by the Pakistan Marines with a surface-to-air missile. Pakistani officials asserted that two Indian jets had intruded into Pakistani airspace near the Atlantic wreckage site, along the border between the Indian state of Gujarat and Pakistan's Sindh Province, and were then fired upon by Pakistan marines. No damage was recorded as the missiles missed the target. The IAF thus aborted their mission and could safely return. The helicopter carrying the journalists also returned without any damage.

Following this, and the rising tensions in the area coupled by the fact that the Sir Creek was a disputed territory, both the countries' militaries near the Rann of Kutch and nearby were put on high alert. Pakistan sent a company of marines, equipped with both laser guided and infrared homing shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, to the site near the border. Coming barely weeks after the Kargil Conflict where both nuclear armed countries fought high altitude warfare, this incident was seen with growing concern around the world. The US State Department termed the subcontinent as being in a state of "continued high-stakes tension."

Lawsuit
On 21 September 1999, Pakistan lodged a compensation claim at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, accusing India of shooting down a military aircraft. Pakistan sought about US$60 million in reparations from India and compensation for the victims' families. India's attorney general, Soli Sorabjee, argued that the court did not have jurisdiction, citing an exemption it filed in 1974 to exclude disputes between India and other Commonwealth States, and disputes covered by multi-lateral treaties. In the buildup to the case, India also contended that Pakistan had violated the 1991 bilateral agreement between Pakistan and India on air violations, which states: "Combat aircraft (including, Bombers, Reconnaissance aircraft, Jet military trainers and Armed helicopters) will not fly within 10 km of each other's airspace including air defence identification zone."

On 21 June 2000, the 16-judge Bench headed by Gilbert Guillaume of France ruled, with a 14–2 verdict, upholding India's submission that the court had no jurisdiction in this matter. Pakistan's claims were dropped, without recourse to appeal, and the outcome was seen as a decision highly favourable to India. The Pakistan government had spent close to 25 million Pakistani rupees (approx. $400,000) on the case.

Aftermath
In India, the incident made the two pilots of the MiG-21s into instant heroes. On 8 October 2000, the prestigious Vayusena medal was awarded to Squadron Leader P. K. Bundela. The medal was also awarded to Wing Commander V. S. Sharma (the fighter controller who tracked the Atlantic, guided the pilot and ordered him to attack the plane) and Squadron Leader Pankaj Vishnoi, the helicopter pilot who recovered a part of the Atlantic's debris from the marshy border regions of the Rann.


text:
Šárka (Janáček)

Šárka is an opera in three acts by Leoš Janáček to a Czech libretto by Julius Zeyer, based on Bohemian legends of Šárka in Dalimil's Chronicle. Written in 1887, the opera lay unproduced for many years and was first performed at the Divadlo na Hradbách (today's Mahen Theatre) in Brno on 11 November 1925 in honour of Janáček's 71st birthday.

Performance history
The premiere of the Ur-version (1887) of Šárka took place on 26 November 2010 at the Reduta Studio Theatre Brno as part of the Janáček Biennale, conducted from the piano by Ondrej Olos, with Lucie Kašparová in the title role. This first version (of which 30% of the music is retained in the score generally performed today) was sent to Dvořák for comment, but rested in the Janáček archive until 2010; the final version, with fewer motives and longer set-pieces, presages his mature works.

The composer had never completed the work, but, after the success of his later operas, Šárka was revised and the orchestration completed by his pupil Osvald Chlubna who had been given the task in preparation for the opera's eventual publication.

In 2000, Jiří Zahrádka edited a new edition of the score. A recording was made later that year based on this edition, with Sir Charles Mackerras conducting the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra and with Eva Urbanová in the title role; it was issued the following year (Supraphon SU 3485-2-631).

The premiere stage setting was designed by the architect and painter Vlastislav Hofman.

Synopsis

 * Time:
 * Place:

Before the opera begins, during Libuše's reign, women experienced a golden age and the female population had become the privileged members of society, but after her death this was not the case, causing a revolt that produced a female army, of whom Šárka was the fiercest warrior.

As the opera opens, the morale of the male troops is flagging, yet is restored by the young Ctirad, who guards Libuše's tomb. The women enter the sepulchre, but are scared by the appearance of Ctirad, and swear vengeance. Šárka plans to trap the young male warrior, and the maidens tie her to a tree, apparently open and helpless. Ctirad finds her, takes pity and unties her, falling in love with Šárka, but she also falls in love with him. As they sleep in each other's arms, Šárka remembers her resolve and uses her horn to call for the maidens to come and kill Ctirad and his warriors. During the funeral for Ctirad, Šárka, grief-stricken, throws herself onto his pyre and dies in the flames, the chorus sings a lament for the lovers.

Other musical depictions of Šárka
Czech Bedřich Smetana composed the tone poem Šárka as the third part of his cycle "Má Vlast", which does not contain the final suicide narrated in the opera.

title: Šárka (Janáček)


text:
Talk:Starlord (comics)

Publication Dates.
I’ve just had a brief exchange of comments with the 2000AD on Facebook.

They’ve reminded me that the 13th May date given here, is the cover date, the date newsagents are supposed take something off the shelves: rather than the publication date.

Is it possible to get that fact checked checked: and the article amended appropriately? Cuddy2977 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Cuddy2977 (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Done. Richard75 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, Richard?
 * I notice only one date in the Story index section has been changed: is it possible to change all of them, please? Cuddy2977 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need to change the dates, just provide the cover dates and note what they mean. Richard75 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK: but …?
 * Changing one date — for the entry on Planet of the Damned — seems insufficient.
 * Putting in a note, explaining that the dates given are cover dates, rather than publication date, and possibly explaining the difference, seems a better way for handling things. Cuddy2977 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Richard75 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Richard75, you’re a gentleman. Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Starlord (comics)


text:
User talk:Boil1202

Hi, i notice that you haven't been greeted by an administrator. i am not one, by i'd like to welcome you to the Wikipedia all the same.

Looking through the few articles you've created or made edits to, i'd like to remind you to first read through the Help Page, particularly the section "Modifying a Wikipedia page", before proceeding further. It will give you a head-up on how to make your article friendly for use by readers.

Once again, welcome! :)

--Plastictv 07:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, i saw your message on my talk page, so here're a few pointers to get you started perhaps?
 * Firstly, you can sign off messages using four tildes (~). It will be automatically converted into a link to your user page as well as the time and date of your message.
 * Secondly, you should not copy wholesale from another source and paste it in Wikipedia. It could well violate copyrights. That is the more paramount reason why i had to edit Ningde than mere bad layout.
 * That's all for now. Enjoy this place! :) Oh by the way, just out of curiosity, are you personally from Ningde? --Plastictv 03:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

test
測試

Personal pages
Please create personal pages as subpages of your user page at User:Boil1202. You can do so by using names with slashes, as in User:Boil1202/Garden. Note that I have moved all your pages to such subpages so that they don't clutter the main "User:" namespace. Although it's unlikely that we'll ever have a user named "Boil1202 Garden", this might happen, and he or she might be very confused to find that his or her user page looked like User:Boil1202/Garden... Lupo 13:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Language
I know you're interested in raising your English to the next level. Here are a few pointers from your earlier messages on Plastictv's page. More natural would be: "So far it hasn't come true." Also you can't say "haven't" because it's a singular noun (it). This is not accurate English. You must say, "Where do you come from?" OR "Where are you from?" Both are perfect. Try not to directly translate (e.g. 你是那裡來的--Where are you come from...we must say "Where do you come from" because "do" is a auxiliary verb of "come", using a different structure without "be/is" like in Chinese) Hometown is very overused by Chinese-native-speakers learning English. Try synonyms. "Push my wife", generally, would sound very aggressive here. "Encourage" might be good, among others. This is correct English, but not very colloquial. Instead of literal translation (請你吃飯), perhaps you can adopt a different expression altogether: "My wife and I will take you out to eat"...but I recognize one difficulty is that it's impossible in this circumstance to specify dinner, lunch, etc. Also, it's best to put "me/I" last: "My wife and I" 讓 and 叫 are in certain contexts translated as "make": "make the article more friendly" (instead of "let", which is accurate in other contexts). 好複雜! You may or may not have done this here, but be careful when using "have" for past tense...you should probably say "I saw" here. And don't let yourself say "I have been home" (I am home).
 * But till now it haven't come true.
 * Where are you come from?
 * Where is your hometown?
 * I will push my wife to write more about Gutian County.
 * I and my wife will treat you to a meal.
 * Could you help me to let the article more friendly?
 * I have seen the newest article "PBB" in Wikipedia.

Dec in PBB article
Hello Boil1202: Can you clarify what "Dec" means in the PBB article? It says that Dec occurs at 300C. Thanks Jimaginator 12:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Boil1202


text:
Talk:Island line (MTR)

Untitled
Did the Central station change its livery from crimson to amber? I saw a yellow mosiac of Hong Kong skyline once in that station. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The former Chater and Peddar station (i.e. Island Line and Tsuen Wan Line portion of the station) have different liveries. The mosiac at platform number 4 (?) is part of MTR's art project. — Instantnood 08:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * The color in Island Line Platform is read in color which has Chinese Writing.Instammlcs36 21:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Livery of the 3 new stations
Has MTR announced the livery that will be used on the 3 new stations on the island line yet?

 * It's under planning, so no ideas on the liveries. However, I would like the 3 new stations have Chinese calligraphy of station names on the wall. --Xavier Fung 18:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Siu Sai Wan Station
Has the MTR announced that the Siu Sai Wan station would be built? If built, where would it be? Near the Siu Sai Wan Bus Terminus? Xavier Fung 04:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The MTR is now planning such an extension, but details will not be released to the public till mid-2006. However, it is known that the MTRC plans to locate the Siu Sai Wan Station under-ground right below the bus terminus.

Planned Operation Date for the Western Extension
Is there a planned operation date for the western extension? Has the construction of the extension started yet?

K.C.Lo218.103.143.210 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Disneyland Resort Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ChinaRailwayHighspeed-notext.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * MTR-High Speed Rail logo.svg

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * MTR logo.svg

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) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PRDIR logo without text.svg

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MTR logo.svg

Source found for the name of retired architect of MTR whose calligraphy writings are present
Website used: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/transport/article/3138018/writing-wall-hong-kongs-mtr-stations-are-retired

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) 14:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PRDIR logo without text.svg

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) 18:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * HK MTR logo (PD).svg

title: Talk:Island line (MTR)


text:
Wilton Persons

Wilton Burton "Jerry" Persons (January 19, 1896 – September 5, 1977) was an American military officer who served as the White House Chief of Staff to President Dwight D. Eisenhower from October 7, 1958, until January 20, 1961.

A 1916 graduate Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Persons served in World War I and World War II. He was Chief of the legislative division in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1942 to 1948, and the office of legislative liaison for the Department of Defense from 1948 to 1949. In 1951 he was called back to active duty as a special assistant to General Dwight D. Eisenhower at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe. He became a deputy assistant to Eisenhower in 1953, assistant to the president in 1958, and chief of staff later that year.

Early life
Wilton Burton Persons was born in Montgomery, Alabama, on January 10, 1896, one of five brothers. Persons was nicknamed "Jerry". He was educated at Starke University School in Montgomery, and Alabama Polytechnic Institute, where he studied electrical engineering, and from which he graduated in 1916. He then went to work for the Western Electric Company in Lynn, Massachusetts.

World War I
Persons volunteered for service in World War I, but was initially rejected because he only weighed 129 lb, four pounds below the minimum acceptable weight. However, as an honor graduate, he was commissioned into the Coast Artillery Corps, and served with the American Expeditionary Forces in France in the Signal Corps.

Between the wars
After the war Persons remained in the Army as a professor of military science and tactics at the University of Minnesota from 1924 to 1929. He graduated from Harvard University with a Master of Business Administration in 1931. He met Major Dwight D. Eisenhower Dwight D. Eisenhower that year while on duty in the Office of the Secretary of War in Washington, D.C.

World War II
After graduating from the United States Army Command and General Staff College in 1938, Persons served in the Office of the Chief of Staff as a liaison officer to Congress from 1939 to 1941. Although war was imminent, Congress was still reluctant to approve armament programs, especially for weapons that it regarded as "aggressive". He was able to secure funding for the secret work on radar by showing Congressmen the work being done by the Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth. A major triumph was persuading Congress to extend the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, the first peacetime draft in the United States, which was ultimately passed by 203 votes to 202.

Persons was Chief of the legislative division in the Office of the Chief of Staff from 1942 to 1948. He was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in June 1942, by which time the country had entered World War II, and major general in November 1944. Eisenhower requested that Persons be assigned to his Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF), but the request was turned down on the grounds that Persons was essential in Washington. For his services, Persons was awarded the Army Distinguished Service Medal.

Post war
After the war Persons headed the office of legislative liaison for the Department of Defense between 1948 and his retirement in 1949 with the rank of major general. For his services, he was awarded the Legion of Merit. Awards from other countries included the Grand Officer of the Cross of the Sun and the Medal of War from Brazil, Order of Abdon Calderon from Ecuador. He was superintendent of Staunton Military Academy from 1949 to 1950.

Persons was recalled to active duty as a special assistant to Eisenhower at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe from 1951 to 1952. He retired from the Army for a second time in 1952, to work on Eisenhower's presidential campaign. He became a deputy assistant to the president on January 20, 1953, and then was made an assistant to the president in 1958. He handled congressional liaison until he replaced Sherman Adams as Eisenhower's chief of staff on October 7, 1958.

Following the 1960 presidential election, Persons was heavily involved as Eisenhower's representative in the transition of government between the Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy administrations. He met frequently with Clark Clifford, President-elect Kennedy's transition representative, to work out the details for a smooth transfer of government. He remained chief of staff until January 20, 1961. He then became director of the Graham‐Dex Preparatory School in Palm Beach, Florida.

Persons's brother Gordon Persons was Governor of Alabama from 1951 to 1955, and his son Wilton B. Persons Jr. was Judge Advocate General of the United States Army from 1975 to 1979.

Persons died in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on September 5, 1977, and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. His papers are in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kansas.

title: Wilton Persons