text: Template:HI-print

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

title: Template:HI-print


text:
File:OakenThrone.jpg

Summary
The Oaken Throne

This is an image of the cover of the book The Oaken Throne. Use of this page on the article The Oaken Throne, which is about that book, to identify that book, is fair use. The copyright holder uses this image primarily to promote the book, not independently, so there is no loss of market for the copyright holder. Use of a book cover on an article about the book is classic fair use. The image is not replaceable because it is highly unlikely that the publisher would release the cover under a free license, and no other image would be the cover of this book (except the cover of another edition, which wouldn't be free either). DES (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

title: File:OakenThrone.jpg


text:
Electoral division of Port Darwin

Port Darwin is an electoral division of the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory of Australia. It was first created in 1974. It is an entirely urban electorate, covering only 5 km² and taking in the Darwin central business district, as well as the suburb of Larrakeyah and part of Stuart Park. There were 5,699 people enrolled in the electorate as of August 2020.

Unlike most state and territory electorates based on CBDs, Port Darwin historically tilted conservative. For most of the first four decades of its existence, Port Darwin was a safe seat for the Country Liberal Party, although it was one of only two seats the party did not hold in the first parliament from 1974 to 1977. It was widely considered as CLP heartland, and was their safest seat in Darwin for many years. The strength of the CLP vote in the seat was seen at the 2000 by-election caused by the resignation of controversial former Chief Minister Shane Stone, when a struggling CLP still managed to easily fend off any challenge in the seat.

After the Labor Party victory at the 2001 election, it became the only CLP-held seat west of Palmerston, and the only CLP seat in the capital. As a result, there were very few signs in the lead-up to the 2005 election that sitting member Sue Carter was in danger, with most commentators expecting her to win another term. However, on election day, there was a surprise significant and unprecedented swing to the ALP across the Territory. Though the result was so close that it was not known for several days after the election, Carter was ultimately defeated by Labor opponent Kerry Sacilotto by 73 votes. Sacilotto actually won just enough primary votes to take the seat without the need for preferences. She held the seat for only one term, until when John Elferink regained the seat for the CLP at the 2008 election.

Elferink seemingly consolidated his hold on the seat in 2012. However, he retired ahead of the 2016 election. At that election, the CLP lost over 12.9 percent of its primary vote amid its collapse in the Darwin/Palmerston area, allowing Paul Kirby to become only the second Labor member to win it. Kirby successfully retained the seat four years later.

title: Electoral division of Port Darwin


text:
User talk:Sam Spade/Quotes

 * archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * archive 5

title: User talk:Sam Spade/Quotes


text:
Umi Tenjin

Umi Tenjin (天神 有海) is a Japanese voice actress from Tochigi Prefecture, Japan.

TV

 * 1997
 * Cojicoji (Harehare)
 * 1998
 * Fushigi Mahou Fun Fun Pharmacy (Pinchy)
 * Kocchi Muite! Miiko (Miiko Yamada)
 * 1999
 * Ojamajo Doremi series (Misaki Shibayama, various others)
 * Digimon Adventure (Koushiro Izumi) aka izzy
 * Magic User's Club (Michiko Mikote, Rie)
 * Hunter × Hunter (Ponzu, Zushi, Kortopi)
 * 2000
 * Digimon Adventure 02 (Koushiro Izumi)
 * 2002
 * Digimon Frontier (Pandamon)
 * Full Moon o Sagashite (Sora)
 * 2004
 * Battle B-Daman (Jinbee)
 * 2005
 * Mahoraba Heartful Days (Asami Kurosaki)
 * 2006
 * Digimon Savers (Pandamon)
 * 2010
 * Digimon Xros Wars (Pandamon)

OVA

 * 2002
 * Hunter × Hunter OVA (Kortopi)

Movie

 * 2000
 * Digimon Adventure (Koushiro Izumi)
 * 2001
 * Digimon Adventure 02 (Koushiro Izumi)

Video games

 * Summon Night (Akane)
 * Digimon World (Main Character)

title: Umi Tenjin


text:
Zellweger

The name Zellweger is a noble lineage of the Appenzell area, Switzerland, and may refer to:

People with the surname Zellweger:
 * Hans Zellweger (1909–1990), Swiss-American pediatrician and namesake of Zellweger syndrome
 * Marc Zellweger (born 1973), Swiss football defender
 * Olen Zellweger (born 2003), Canadian ice hockey player
 * Renée Zellweger (born 1969), Academy Award-winning American film actress
 * Shea Zellweger (1925–2022), American educator

Furthermore, the name Zellweger may refer to:

 * Zellweger off-peak, the brand-name of an electric switching device
 * Zellweger syndrome, a rare congenital disorder
 * Zellweger spectrum disorders, a group of rare disorders

title: Zellweger


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Conservative Clubs Of Ameica

 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 ambiguous.

I count 11 "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes and 2 people who abstained. The article was moved (to correct a typo in the title) and edited during the discussion. One of the keep votes was conditional on a "major rewrite" but was made after the rewrite had been accomplished (which implies that the rewrite may not have been sufficient). Reviewing the history, the rewrite strikes me more as copyedit and formatting that the major overhaul requested by the "delete" voters.

I am going to call this one as a "no concensus" which defaults to keep for now. If the article is not substantially improved in a reasonable period of time, it may become appropriate to renominate the article. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

High School Conservative Clubs Of Ameica, now moved to High School Conservative Clubs Of America
Non-encyclopedic organization, 610 Google hits do not notability make FCYTravis 07:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe the spelling error had something to do with the lack of hits? Mgm|(talk) 11:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I corrected for the spelling error unconsciously when I typed it into Google. --FCYTravis 11:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Reads like vanity, and every school or university has several dozens of different clubs, some of which are conservative, and most of which are extremely not notable. Delete. Radiant_ >|< 11:18, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral The title is wrong so it should be moved if it is kept, when doing a search for "High School Conservative Clubs Of America" on google there seems to be a lot of news articles on it though, but I didn't notice any mainstream papers though. If GNAA can have it's own article then perhaps this group as well? --ShaunMacPherson 12:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's apples and oranges, since the GNAA is one group with a reasonable amount of fame, and the HSCCOA are a large number of small local groups, none of which are particularly special. Radiant_ >|< 13:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've never seen Wikipedia's systemic bias so nakedly demonstrated. GNAA, if it's famous at all, is known only as a bunch of Slashdot trolls.  This group made headlines and has been noticed by UCB School or Law and the National School Boards Association, and the founder has spoken at the California Republican Assembly's anniversary convention. There's no comparison. HSCA is one organization an ordinary person might in fact have read about in a newspaper and want to know about.  GNAA is not even well known to anybody who sets his Slashdot filter to a reasonable level. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Tony Sidaway that this is most certainly a sign of systemic bias on wikipedia.  However, I believe we are best served by eliminating both articles.  I see no evidence here that this group has done anything important. Indrian 04:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity of `Tim`, nothing else. Bad bad article. -Snorre/Antwelm 13:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite more NPOV and less vainly. The way the article is written currently, it borders on needing deletion for vanity, but the organization does at least have momentary notoriety in the sphere of freedom of speech in the public school setting, in the form of a Washington Times article.  As such, it is part of a discourse which the Wikipedia should make an effort to protect.  --Dachannien 14:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to "make an effort to protect" anything. It is Wikipedia's purpose to be an encyclopedia.  RickK 19:52, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity, not-notable, and not even spelled right! Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 16:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Very poorly written, I would support it with heavy revision. Too much personal promotion of a realatively insignificant figure outside of the local community to which he belongs. - LouieS17:03 Jun 10 2005

 * Delete: Not a single thing at all, but rather a collection of things not discussed as a topic, but, rather, as if they were coherent. I.e. there is no subject here for a discussion of this type.  Instead, there would be a mere whiff of a mention at some conservative-politics-related lemma.  However, the clubs in question appear to have next to no effect on the world, so it's very doubtful that even such a mention would be worthwhile.  (HS clubs in general don't have much effect, except on themselves.) Geogre 19:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for exactly the reasons listed by Andrew Lenahan. -- BD2412 talk 19:44, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Made San Francisco Chronicle and was recorded in the "Faculty in the news" page at UCB School of Law . Also made the Boston Globe and was recorded in the clippings library of the National School Boards Association .  With UCB and NSBA recording this activity, I'd feel uncomfortable describing this entry as vanity.  It does need cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Lots of things make the newspaper once. It remains to be seen whether this has any long-lasting impact on society - which can only be judged into the future. Right now this organization has done nothing of note except be in the paper. --FCYTravis 10:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds like special pleading to me. We're not making value judgements about the achievements of an organization, we're deciding whether it's reached the level at which it is of interest to more than a few people.  We know that UCB School of Law and National School Boards Association are tracking this organisation.  We also know that Bueler shared a podium with a Republican Congressman, Tom Tancredo, at the California Republican Assembly's 70th anniversary conference in April, in his role as founder of this organisation.  That's more than enough.  Defending this article feels rather odd to me as a person whose politics are extreme left wing by US standards and virtually diametrically opposed to everything Bueler stands for, but there you are. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Vanity. Delete, at least until something this organization does something more notable than merely existing. -- Karada 10:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep... but watch closely for NPOV problems. -- Un focused 04:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tony's comparison with the GNAA and other arguments. Kappa 07:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. News coverage makes this notable, and there is enough verifiable information to usefully report on the subject.  Quale 18:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep under condition of a major rewrite per Dachannien and Tony Sidaway. StopTheFiling 18:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I gave this article a more-or-less total rewrite on 11th, shortly after Dachannien made his comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:44, 17 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:
Applewild School

Applewild School is an independent, coeducational, day and junior boarding school centrally located in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. Founded in 1957, it has approximately 200 students aged 4 to 15, with a Preschool for children 2.9 years and older on two locations: the Main Campus is located in Fitchburg, Massachusetts and Applewild Preschool at Devens is located in Devens, Massachusetts. The average class size is 14 students. The school's motto is "A Belief in the Future." The school is accredited by the Association of Independent Schools of New England and belongs to the National Association of Independent Schools.

Campus and facilities
Applewild School sits on a 26 acre campus in the Massachusetts countryside, with seven buildings. The campus is located on a hill next to a Massachusetts Audubon Society wildlife sanctuary (Flat Rock) and abuts the North County Land Trust's Crocker Conservation Land.

As well as the usual school facilities, the school has two centers for woodworking and shop, a ceramics studio and a 400-seat performing arts center.

Interscholastic Teams

 * Soccer, Field Hockey, Basketball, Lacrosse, Cross-Country and Track, and recently skiing

title: Applewild School


text:
Bistorta vivipara

Bistorta vivipara (synonym Persicaria vivipara) is a perennial herbaceous flowering plant in the knotweed and buckwheat family Polygonaceae, commonly known as alpine bistort. Scientific synonyms include Bistorta vivipara and Polygonum viviparum. It is common all over the high Arctic through Europe, North America, incl. Greenland, and temperate and tropical Asia. Its range stretches further south in high mountainous areas such as the Alps, Carpathians, Pyrenees, Caucasus, Alaska and the Tibetan Plateau.

Taxonomy
Molecular phylogenetic work has demonstrated that the genus Bistorta represents a distinct lineage within the family Polygonaceae. The genus Bistorta contains at least 42 accepted species.

Description
Alpine bistort is a perennial herb that grows to 5 to 15 cm tall. It has a thick rhizomatous rootstock and an erect, unbranched, hairless stem. The leaves are hairless on the upper surfaces, but hairy and greyish-green below. The basal ones are longish-elliptical with long stalks and rounded bases; the upper ones are few and are linear and stalkless. The tiny flowers are white or pink in the upper part of the spike with five perianth segments, eight stamens with purple anthers and three fused carpels. The lower ones are replaced by bulbils. Flowers rarely produce viable seeds and reproduction is normally by the bulbils, which are small bulb-like structures that develop in the axils of the leaves and may develop into new plants. Very often, a small leaf develops when the bulbil is still attached to the mother plant. The bulbils are rich in starch and are a preferred food for rock ptarmigans (Lagopus mutus) and reindeer; they are also occasionally used by Arctic peoples. Alpine bistort flowers in June and July.

Habitat
Alpine bistort grows in many different plant communities, very often in abundance. Typical habitats include moist short grassland, yards, the edges of tracks, and nutrient-rich fens.

As with many other alpine plants, Alpine bistort is slow-growing and produces embryonic buds one year that grow and open a few years after their formation (flower preformation), with an individual leaf or inflorescence taking three to four years to reach maturity from the time the buds are formed.

Mycorrhiza
Alpine bistort has been shown to form an ectomycorrhizal root symbiosis with fungi.

Uses
The bulbils can be stripped from the lower flower stalks and eaten raw. The young roots are edible raw, while older ones must be cooked. The young leaves can be eaten raw or cooked.

The roots are eaten in Russia, especially by the Samoyed peoples.

In place names
The Kokolik River in Alaska is named after Qaqalik, the Iñupiaq name for alpine bistort.

title: Bistorta vivipara


text:
Amphionides

Amphionides reynaudii is a species of caridean shrimp, whose identity and position in the crustacean system remained enigmatic for a long time. It is a small (less than one inch long) planktonic crustacean found throughout the world's tropical oceans, which until 2015 was considered the sole representative of the order Amphionidacea, due to unusual morphological features. Molecular data however confirm it as a member of the caridean family Pandalidae, and the confusion of morphology is because only larval phases have so far been studied.

Description
Amphionides specimens observed have been up to 25 mm long. In view of adult shrimp morphology, Amphionides appears unusual, with many body parts being reduced or absent. For example, it has only one pair of mouthparts – the maxillae – the mandibles and maxillules being vestigial.

Males and females differ in the form of the antennae, and also by the presence in males of the eighth thoracic appendage, albeit in a reduced form. This is the site of the male gonopore (the female's gonopore is on the sixth thoracic appendage). The first pleopod of the female is greatly enlarged and almost encloses the enlarged carapace. This is assumed to be a chamber in which the eggs are fertilised and retained until hatching. The more streamlined carapace and pleopods of the male make it more hydrodynamic, so fewer males are caught than females.

Distribution and ecology
A. reynaudii has a cosmopolitan distribution in the world's tropical oceans. It is planktonic, inhabiting waters less than 100 m deep as a larva, but more often at depths of 700 - 1700 m as an adult.

Classification
Originally described from earlier larval stages, Amphionides was actually first thought to be a shrimp. In 1969 it was connected to a supposed adult form described earlier by Carl Zimmer (1904), not recognisable as a caridean shrimp, and in 1973 was Amphionides placed in its own order Amphionidacea by Donald I. Williamson, i.e., at the same rank as the Decapoda and Euphausiacea. The specific epithet reynaudii was given by Henri Milne-Edwards in honour of a friend of his, possibly Count François Dominique Reynaud de Montlosier.

Based on molecular comparisons, the species was moved back to Decapoda and to the shrimp infraorder Caridea in 2015, while the adult stage still remains undiscovered. It was speculated that observations from different oceans represent larval stages of different shrimp species. Broader analyses confirmed that Amphionides belongs to the family Pandalidae, but it does not seem to be associated with any of the previously recognised pandalid genera, while it indeed has an inter-oceanic distribution.

title: Amphionides


text:
Seyahatnâme

Seyahatname (سياحتنامه) is the name of a literary form and tradition whose examples can be found throughout centuries in the Middle Ages around the Islamic world, starting with the Arab travellers of the Umayyad period. In a more specific sense, the name refers to the travel notes by the Ottoman Turkish traveller Evliya Çelebi (1611–1682).

The Seyahâtnâme of Evliya Çelebi is one example of this tradition.

The author's personal name is Derviş Mehmed Zilli, and “Evliya” is his pen name, which he adopted in honor of his teacher, Evliya Mehmed Efendi. Evliya Çelebi's father was the chief jeweller to the courts, and thanks to the talent of his father Evliya was allowed to enjoy the favor of the court. Because of his gift in reciting the Quran, Evliya was presented to Sultan Murad IV and admitted to the palace, where he received extensive training in calligraphy, music, Arabic grammar, and tajwid. Shortly before Murad IV's expedition to Baghdad in 1638, Evliya was appointed a sipahi of the Porte. Despite his diverse talents and the opportunity to climb the social ladder, Evliya had a keen interest in geography and invested his wealth into life goal of traveling. He set out on a journey to assemble a complete description of the Ottoman Empire and its neighbors and to provide a complete record of his travels as a first-person narrative.

Volumes and content
In his ten-volume Seyâhatnâme, Evliya describes:

 * Volume I: the capital city of Istanbul (his birthplace) and its surroundings

 * Volume II: Bursa, İzmir, Batumi, Trabzon, Abkhazia, Crete, Erzurum, Azerbaijan, Georgia

 * Volume III: Damascus, Syria, Palestine, Urmia, Sivas, Kurdistan, Armenia, Rumelia (Bulgaria and Dobruja)
 * Volume IV: Van, Tabriz, Baghdad, Basra

 * Volume V: Van, Basra, Hungary, Russia, Anatolia, Bursa, the Dardanelles, Adrianople, Moldavia, Transylvania, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Sofia

 * Volume VI: Transylvania, Albania, Hungary, Nové Zámky, Belgrade, Herzegovina, Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Montenegro, Kanizsa, Croatia

 * Volume VII: Hungary, Buda, Erlau, Temesvár, Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldavia, the Crimea, Kazak, South Russia, the Caucasus, Dagestan, Azak

 * Volume VIII: Azak, Kafa, Bahçesaray (Crimea), Istanbul, Crete, Macedonia, Greece, Athens, the Dodecanese, Peloponnesus, Albania, Valona, Ochrida, Adrianople, Istanbul

 * Volume IX: (Pilgrimage to Mecca) south-west Anatolia, Smyrna, Ephesus, Rhodes, south Anatolia, Syria, Aleppo, Damascus, Medina, Mecca, Suez

 * Volume X: Egypt (with historical excursus), Cairo, Upper Egypt, Sudan, Abyssinia.

Features and limitations
Evliya prefers legend to bare historical fact, and at times exaggerates or creates anecdotes designed for comic effect. His Seyâhatnâme thus appears as a work of 17th-century light literature, which was intelligible to a wide circle thanks to the mixed use of the colloquial Turkish of the 17th century with occasional borrowings of phrases and expressions from the ornate style. Such attempt to appeal to a wide audience may explain the author's lack of concern for historical truth. He even recorded certain occurrences as though he had seen or experienced them himself even though a close examination reveals that he knows of them only from hearsay or literary sources, which he does not cite.

In spite of these reservations, Evliya's Seyâhatnâme offers a wealth of information on cultural history, folklore, and geography. The significance of the work lies in the fact that it reflects the mental approach of the 17th century Ottoman Turkish intellectuals in their attitudes to the non-Muslim Occident, and sheds light on the administration and internal organization of the Ottoman empire of that time.

Because of the value of his work, the generic term of Seyâhatnâme is often used to refer to Evliya Çelebi's books in particular, as far as the Turkish language and studies are concerned.

Translations
Aside from several translations into modern Turkish, substantial portions of Evliya's Seyâhatnâme have been translated into Arabic, Armenian, Bosnian, Greek, Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, and Serbian. The most recent English translation is Robert Dankoff and Sooyong Kim's 2010 translation, An Ottoman Traveller: Selections from the Book of Travels of Evliya Çelebi, which includes sections from all volumes.

A related genre, specific to the journeys and experiences of Ottoman ambassadors, is the sefâretnâme (سفارت نامه), whose examples were edited by their authors with a view to their presentation to the Sultan and the high administration, thus also bearing a semi-official character, although they remained of interest for the general reader as well.

title: Seyahatnâme


text:
Talk:DreamWorks Pictures

Filmography
It would probably be quite interesting to see the box office numbers for each film. Should an additional column be inserted into the table? 62.202.32.88 (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Error?: Ratchet and Clank are Sony SCEI??
HOW DO THESE MOVIE COMAPNIES WORK WITH BLU RAY AND HD-DVD. WHAT IS THE BUSINESS MODEL ?? PLEASE ANSWER .............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.190.186 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

article says Dreamworks are pub of Ratchet and Clank game, but Amazon says it is Sony
 * It is definitely false information. Spyro is also not owned or developed by Dreamworks. Spyro is owned by Universal Studios. While Ratchet & Clank is a registered trademark of Sony and developed by Insomniac Games. No affiliation with Dreamworks. --Chill Pill Bill 01:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Come on people. If you just did a little Google search on Ratchet & Clank, then you know the Dreamworks connection is false. Just look at the official website for Ratchet & Clank, and look at the bottom of the page. All the copyrights, ownerships, and development are by Sony and Insomniac Games. Insomnaic made both the original Playstation 1 Spyro games and Ratchet & Clank but they're no way releated to Dreamworks. --Chill Pill Bill 01:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Films in chronological order?
I feel that these lists of DreamWorks films should be in chronological rather than alphabetical order... shouldn't they? --Ihope127 8 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

"for obvious reasons"
What is the obvious reason they haven't worked with MGM? And haven't they effectively done so anyway by working with Sony Pictures?

I actually sat in a entertainment law class in law school back in 1998 when a movie exec. from MGM came it to speak with us. I've been looking for my notes and cannot find his damn name. Anyway, at that time, there was bad blood between the companies. I will continue to look through my notes. If I can't find them, then I will pull this notation. If I find it, I'll quote the guy. His problem not mine. He also gave good reasons as to why he thought the venture would fail. Which it did. I really need to find my notes.

Shark Tale 2
Shark Tale 2 has not been "announced." The possibility was only discussed before Shark Tale came out. So, I am removing it...

Disney co-productions
Regarding Disney co-productions, they've done some more recently than Dragonslayer and Popeye: Chronicles of Narnia and some others with Walden Media, the Pixar features before the merger. And Miramax does them relatively frequently: Cinderella Man with Universal, The Hours with Paramount, Once Upon a Time in Mexico with Sony, The Aviator with Warner Bros., and more recent ones with The Weinstein Company. —tregoweth (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Television Group
Removed from article: "As for DreamWorks' television library, it is expected that CBS Paramount Television, the successor-in-interest to Paramount's television division now owned by CBS Corporation, will take over the TV rights to the shows."
 * I removed this because I don't think its correct. Viacom/Paramount bought Dreamworks in 2006 after the 2005 split of Viacom/CBS, so it does not make sense.  I actually remember one of the rationales for Paramount buying Dreamworks was to get a TV Unit...  If there is a cite for this please add it back into the article.  --Cliffb 10:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Dreamworks Animation Be here?
Should the movies for Dreamworks animation that were produced after the spinoff be mentioned on this page? I think we're getting a bit redundant by listing them here. —Cliffb 06:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No they shouldn't. They are two seperate companies and listed as it is is very confusing. 90.209.250.118 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * agree, totally separate companies post-2004. These shouldn't be listed in this article riffic (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping everything DWA related post-2004 is doing nothing but confusing users. 75.84.123.169 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of failed studio headquarters deal at Playa Vista
I came to this article looking for information about DreamWorks' erstwhile bid to transform the Playa Vista development into their own studio lot, the environmental outcry over the planned project, and the financial reasons for its failure to come to fruition. Can someone add some details to a new section of this article? Thanks! Robert K S 11:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Aardman
It's a bit odd that Aardman isn't mentioned with connection to Flushed Away, considering that it was largely their film. Esn 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Shreks
Shrek the Third is not more successful than Shrek 2. Correct?
 * No. Shrek the Third has so far only grossed 400 million, 200 in the US and 200 elsewhere but Shrek 2 grossed over 900 million worldwide. I changed it.

72.49.205.8 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoever keeps changing the dreamworks highest grossing film, please stop and look at the following link: ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=dreamworks.htm ) that clearly shows that Shrek 2 is the most successful film by that studio.

The Modern Prometheus 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed! a better site, though, is http://www.noblemind.com/toptenlists/Highest_Grossing_Movies_of_All-Time, you will see shrek 2 as the highest grossing DWKS film.

Shrek Goes Forth Music Trivia
The last line in the "Trivia" section indicates the theme song for Shrek Goes Forth. Doesn't this seem like Shrek trivia, more than Dreamworks? Does this belong on this page? 12.69.202.2 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Dylan

Count Duckula
Is there any evidence of Dreamworks making a movie about Count Duckula beyond 2009? 82.4.79.173 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Logo?
Why is the studio logo represented in shades of purple? It's always been blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.121 (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, where did the comment about the Neverland Ranch logo originate? It says "Some say" but does not cite anyone. Is this just hearsay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OgreKiller (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

SKG
Anybody care to write what SKG stands for in DreamWorks SKG? Or does nobody know? Or does it not stand for anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwdog (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, if you'd care to read the article, it says what SKG stands for. Next time, instead of looking for others to give you the answer, try looking for it on your own. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Most successful film?
This article formerly stated that Dreamworks' most successful film was Shrek 2, which made $441 million dollars. This may have been true when the source provided was written, but it no longer is; the article on Shrek 3 states that it made $798,958,162. I'm not sure if that's their highest-grossing film now, or if it's something else, but it's definitely not Shrek 2 anymore. I have removed the statement; if anyone knows what it should be, they can re-add it. Robofish (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous fan website listed
I'm not really good at "editing" on Wiki... I tried, but my edit got rejected. So after some searching around, I thought I would try this, and maybe someone who knows what they are doing can fix this!!

At the bottom of the Dreamworks page, it lists "links"... one of those links is for a supposed "fan site"... but that is NOT a fan site. I went to it out of curiosity and found that it was not related. Luckily I used a fake phone number and email adress to get through until it wouldn't let me go any further. But as far as I got, it is obvious that it is a SCAM site that pretends to offer you a "prize/reward" after completing a bunch of "offers" in different "levels" like "level 1, 2, 3 & 4... or silver level, gold level, or platinum level"... as with all of these sites, they just gather your info (phone, address, email, etc) and get you to sign up for things you shouldn't or normally wouldn't, and usually they sell all your info, so you get slammed with spam, and possibly other issues!

So in my opinion, that link should be removed completely, or have a note added that it is FALSE/FRAUDULENT and say that it has nothing to do with Dreamworks, or it's fans! Again, I attempted to do this, but it was rejected as "negative"... like DUH, it IS negative, the link is a scam and I am trying to warn people! I hope someone who knows their way around Wiki can help with this! I hate seeing people get in trouble with those websites, and I really hate people putting fake info in order to trick people! 72.193.194.214 (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with you that the website is nonsense. I've removed it. Thanks for the heads-up! Hope you'll stick around and edit some more. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph: King of Dreams
Joseph: King of Dreams is missing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264734/ --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a direct-to-video movie produced by the animation unit. It doesn't belong here.

Spshu's major changes
Spshu claims that a source indicates that a new DreamWorks is a new company. Please show us this source before edit-warring over a major article like this. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source: Dreamworks Studios history
 * "DreamWorks Studios is a motion picture company formed by partners Steven Spielberg, Stacey Snider and The Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group." TM 2010 DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC. COPYRIGHT 2010 DW II DISTRIBUTION CO, LLC
 * http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007358.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 cached: "The latest incarnation of DreamWorks launched Monday as principal partners Steven Spielberg and Stacey Snider and India's Reliance Big Pictures announced completion of the first phase of funding for DreamWorks 3.0.
 * Anil Dhirubhai Ambani, chair of Reliance Big parent company Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, made the joint announcement with Spielberg and Snider."
 * "It last year provided $325m of equity to fund recreating Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks studio as an independent entity." source: benziga.com
 * "■No Strings Attached © (2011) DW Studios LLC. All rights reserved." ...
 * ■I Am Number Four © DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All rights reserved." source
 * "This website is operated by: DW II Distribution Co., LLC on its own or in combination with DW II Production Co., LLC and/or DW II Development Co., LLC" source - No mention of DW Studios LLC.
 * Bolding is mine. These mostly are the sources directly from the DreamWorks article.  None of these indicate that they bought DW Studios LLC from Viacom/Paramount, but create a new company with staff coming over (and getting the use of the name, DreamWorks, from DreamWorks Animation). Spshu (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Distribution companies change names all the time. Disney has had several over the last 25 years, yet it's still The Walt Disney Company. It's not recreated every few years whenever they come up with a new one. Even if it did change, it's still the same company as before, so its history continues through any name change. Further, per WP:COMMONNAME, the most commonly used search name should be used for the article name, and that will still be "DreamWorks". -- McDoob  AU  93  23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What McDoob said - it's still the same Dreamworks. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But that like sticking John Adams and John Q. Adams, or some other father/son that have a same name in the same article when they are long enough for their own article. I gave a source that show DW Studio (the former DreamWorks) and DW Distribution (the new DreamWorks) exist at the same time and another that shows there is no relationship between the two.  That is not the same as Disney just changing their name over the year.  The Common Name rule then might just have us name the two companies's articles as DreamWorks (1994) and DreamWorks (2008) and does not support your position. Spshu (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I did include a disamg. link to DW Studios from DreamWorks. Spshu (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * John Adams and John Quincy Adams are two individuals, not the same company undergoing a name change, if what you suggest is correct. Again, you're confusing a film distribution company (like Silver Screen Partners II and Silver Screen Partners III, both of which distributed films from The Walt Disney Company) with the actual company. -- McDoob  AU  93  00:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * OK, better example. Check out the article for US Airways ... it began life as US Air, then renamed itself US Airways, then was bought by America West, which decided to keep the US Airways name since it was more well-known than America West was. Even though the entity is now owned by something completely different and is actually a renamed America West, essentially, the WP:COMMONNAME rule has the article name as US Airways, with all the history in one article. -- McDoob  AU  93  00:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Corporations (and possibly LLCs) are seperated "individual" as they are legal persons. Both Adams would be commonly be refered to as "President Adams" these days as most US Presidents are known. McDoobAU93, your Silver Screen Partners example does not make any sense, Silver Screen Partners, LP are 1) limited partnerships, 2) no one commonly refers to them  and 3) they don't have any ownership entanglements with Walt Disney and 4) does not parallel the situation here as they were not purchased by Disney, they were movie financing partners. Your US Airways/America West example doesn't parallel the situation here as it was a merger and America West Airlines has its own article previous to merger and is not included in the US Airways article. US Airways Group is commonly not refered to as any but US Airways, but it has it own article. Back to the Walt Disney Company example, there are a host of article where the common name would dictate they all should be in the "Disney" article as we all just refer to it as Disney: The Walt Disney Company, Walter Elias Disney, Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, DisneyToon Studios, Disneynature, Disney Music Group, Walt Disney Records, Walt Disney Theatrical, Disney on Broadway, Disney on Ice, Disney Live!, Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, Disney-ABC Television Group, Disney TV, Disney TV Animation, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Disney Family Movies, Disney Cinemagic, Radio Disney, Disney-ABC Domestic TV, Disney-ABC International TV, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Disneyland Resort, Walt Disney World Resort, Tokyo Disney Resort, Disneyland Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland Resort, Shanghai Disney Resort, Disney Cruise Line, Disney Vacation Club, Adventures by Disney, Disney Regional Entertainment, Walt Disney Imagineering, Walt Disney Creative Entertainment, Disney Consumer Products, Disney Publishing Worldwide, Disney Press, and more.  We commonly refer to these and other Disney subsidaries and divisions as Disney and yes some time we use a longer name to refer to a part of Disney.  For public reporting purposes (to the SEC), they are all seen as one entity, but yet here they have there own article.  In the DreamWorks situation, Dream Works Animation owns the rights to the Dream Works name (in the entertainment field).  So the original DreamWorks Studios spun out Dream Works Animation as a public company with the trademark of "DreamWorks".  DreamWorks Studios thus rents the use of the name there after.  Paramount/Viacom purchase the original DreamWorks Studios (DW Studios).  Having problems with Paramount, a new company, DW II Distribution, is formed and gets the right to use DreamWorks Studios from DreamWorks Animation.  So, DW Studios and DW II Distribution, exist at the same time!  This is a reverse of a merger and more like a spin out except mostly the personal is leaving, but personal leave companies all the time even in mass.  CBS and Viacom are case is point as there are articles for Viacom, CBS Corporation, Viacom (1971–2005). Go look at the latest Transformer poster, no mention of "DreamWorks" dispite it being a DW Studios (as DreamWorks Pictures) production that the movie's article indicates.  Thus you could say now that as a common name, DW Studios is just Paramount, not DreamWorks.   So perhaps a better naming of the 2 seperate and unrelated companies  is "DreamWorks (Paramount)" or "DreamWorks (DW Studios)" (for DW Studio in 1998) and "DreamWorks (Relaint)" or "DreamWorks (DW Dist.)" (for DW II Dist. of 2008). Spshu (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * After slogging through all that, I came to the same realization that I had before ... even if there has been an ownership change and temporary name change, it would still be DreamWorks. Yes, the animation division has been spun off, and as such operates separately. It would also be reasonable for separate articles for DreamWorks Records (not sure it's still a going concern, but bear with me) or a DreamWorks Publishing, much as there are several separate operating units of The Walt Disney Company. It seems that there is another potential parallel situation, this time to Chrysler, which again has gone through numerous ownership changes, including a recent point (wait for it ...) when two separate versions existed at once ("old Chrysler" and "new Chrysler"), yet it all comes here to this one article. Again, sorry, but the level of separation you're proposing is too great and potentially too confusing for most readers. -- McDoob  AU  93  16:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One there has not been a ownership change in the original DW Studios, it is still owned by Paramount. There isn't a spilt as in the case of old & new Chrysler or the old (Motors Liquidation Company, which under this name has an article) and new GM.  The old car companies take a new name and are liquated unneed assets to pay off liabilities of that company, they don't continue making autos.  DW Studios and DW II Distributions are both making films, so you have an article that IS -- not potentially -- confusing for most readers.   I understand what is going on, and the article is confusing to me as it is written.  Based on the current article the following question arise-- If Reliant took over DreamWorks why is there no mention of this being a purchase from Paramount? (If you go to the source of course this is all explain as a new company.)   Why are there movies being released by DreamWorks through Paramount post-2008 now that DreamWorks post-2008 exclusively releases through Disney?
 * So under my last compromises of having a disambiguation page at DreamWorks and the 2 DreamWorks Studios have article titles like "DreamWorks Studios (DW Studio)" and "DreamWorks Studio (DW II Distribution) is too confusing for readers? So giving an explaination to them over the difference is too hard?  There are ones for Disney, Superboy (which even has a full article with divisions for the various versions with Main|Superboy (Kal-El) for each respective Superboy.  Spshu (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK you're arguing your points well, but there's something still bugging me about this, and maybe this will help solve it ... how about posting a proposed lead paragraph for each of your potential articles as you suggest? Since the lead paragraph summarizes each article's contents (establishing what it is), this may answer a question that those who are opposed to this move are probably all asking: how different would these articles be from the others ... in other words, is DW 3 doing something so totally different from DW 2 and DW 1 that it merits a completely different article? -- McDoob  AU  93  19:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE
We have a new problem on our hands. User:TheWikiMan95 wants to split the DreamWorks articles between the pre-Reliance and post-Reliance years. Is this split feasible? Freshh (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the split is feasible as the post- and pre- DreamWorks are seperate entities. --Spshu (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Names as history subsection
DreamWorks Studios SKG, DreamWorks Pictures and DreamWorks Studios are all names available to both DreamWorks, so breaking up the history section by them is "fudging", ie made up. --Spshu (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This page needs a rewrite...
What does a sentence like "Later in the marriage between DreamWorks SKG and Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks SKG became intoxicated and would later have trouble distributing their own films and even fully financing them" even mean?

There's paragraph and paragraph of indecipherable chronology about deals -- and an entire section on who designed the company's logo?

I'd do this if I knew enough about the company...

Djcheburashka (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

NBCUniversal
Someone had changed the Parent company to be NBCUniversal. Please note that NBCUniversal/Comcast has only purchased Dreamworks Animation, a distinctly separate company. Stabani (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Pacific Data Images
Dreamwork's did not buy Pacific Data Images till 2000. At first they were partners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.56.40 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Edit war over NBCUniversal category
Actually, I agree with Spshu's edits. The category Predecessors of NBCUniversal is seemingly for individual companies that comprised NBC Universal when it was first formed. DreamWorks was not owned by the company at the time it was formed, so nothing DreamWorks related should be in there at all. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The only predecessor of NBCUni is MCA and Vivendi Universal as those two companies became NBCUniversal. DreamWorks isn't even an acquisition of NBCUni. DReamWorks is now a part of Ambline Partners and is only distributed by Universal. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2019

 * 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: Moved. No objections given. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

DreamWorks → DreamWorks Pictures – The move is blocked by a redirect. The correct name of this production company is DreamWorks Pictures. It is inaccurate and confusing to call this company DreamWorks. There are several production companies with DreamWorks in the name, as listed in the DreamWorks disambiguation page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks_(disambiguation) and none of these companies is called just DreamWorks (not even DreamWorks animation, which uses dreamworks.com, is called just "DreamWorks"). Hattiedog (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed. The current title seems to be the common name and the other topics seem less prominent (e.g., as defunct or subsidiary). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The current title ("DreamWorks") seems to apply to both DreamWorks Pictures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks - "commonly referred to as DreamWorks") and DreamWorks Animation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks_Animation - "also simply known as DreamWorks"). Granted they did split from the same entity, however now they are totally separate: DreamWorks Animation is a subsidiary of NBCUniversal, and DreamWorks Pictures is a subsidiary of Amblin Partners. The public may refer to both as "DreamWorks" but that label is not precise enough for either, based on my read of the Disambiguation guideline. The other companies on the DreamWorks disambiguation page are split: DreamWorks Classics is a subsidiary of DreamWorks Animation, DreamWorks Television is a subsidiary of Amblin Partners. Others are defunct or unrelated.)Hattiedog (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily object. I just thought it should be discussed (and potential WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status should be considered). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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) 20:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * DreamWorks (2021) -2.png

title: Talk:DreamWorks Pictures


text:
Template:Hawaii Monarchs

{{Documentation|content= {{collapsible option}}

title: Template:Hawaii Monarchs


text:
Talk:Severn Railway Bridge

Re-use?
The newsreel in the external links section mentions that it was hoped to sell some of the spans for re-use. Does anyone know if this actually happened and, if so, where? --Cavrdg 07:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ron Huxley's book says (chapter 7, p126/7):- 'British Rail had, in the meantime,discovered the possibility of disposal of the bridge spans as building units...'  (Never did quite understand how!) Linuxlad 09:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have found a page that says The bridge's iron girders were - believe it or not - sold to Chile where they are used today on a viaduct carrying a road! No more details, though, and probably not sufficiently authoritative to include in the main entry. --Cavrdg 20:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just checked with a friend of mine in Sharpness (Ron H having died 10 or more years back now) - he says, some weren't re-usable, some were sold for scrap and some went to South America, but he's not sure where. So it seems like the Chile story may have validity.Linuxlad 20:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The White Elephant
Is this the right name to appear in the infobox? It doesn't appear anywhere in the text and isn't cited. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, User:Mattbuck. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Few other points
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Purpose of the bridge. It was intended to carry coal from the FoD collieries. Was it ever intended to carry the (much larger) Welsh coal traffic? To replace the Bristol and South Wales Union Railway as the passenger route between Bristol and Cardiff?
 * The gas main
 * The boxing match on the night of the accident
 * More on building details and costs. Hamilton’s Windsor supplied the ironwork, which was about 2/3rd of the cost, but there was another third on masonry, earthworks etc. that was first supplied by Vickers & Cooke, later replaced Griffith Griffiths.
 * Are these rhetorical questions or questions for me? I don't know answers to most of them and the information I have comes almost entirely from the Huxley book. Feel free to further develop the article if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think it was a rather successful bridge. Built in a very difficult location, it fulfilled its function for eighty years, and its downfall came about as a result of impact by much larger vessels than were probably anticipated when it was designed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Severn Railway Bridge


text:
Eucarida

Eucarida is a superorder of the Malacostraca, a class of the crustacean subphylum, comprising the decapods, krill, and Angustidontida. They are characterised by having the carapace fused to all thoracic segments, and by the possession of stalked eyes.

Orders
Eucarida is a diverse and abundant group, comprising the following three orders:

Euphausiacea
The members of the Euphausiacea are commonly called krill and are all marine shrimp-like species whose pleopods (abdominal appendages) function as swimmerets. They swarm and mostly feed on plankton. This group is composed of only 90 species, some of which are the most abundant species on the planet; in fact, it is estimated that the biomass of the Antarctic krill Euphausia superba' is 500 million tons.

Decapoda
Decapoda is a group with 15,000 species which have 5 pairs of thoracopods and a well-developed carapace that covers the gills (which are exposed in krill). They include lobsters, crabs, shrimp and prawns. The decapods are further subdivided on the basis of the gill structure into two suborders Dendrobranchiata (prawns) and Pleocyemata, which is further subdivided into several infraorders, such as the Caridea (true shrimp), the Stenopodidea (boxer shrimp) and the Anomura and the Brachyura (crabs) and so forth.

Angustidontida
Lastly, there is an extinct order that contains only one family, Angustidontidae, which in turn contains two genera, Angustidontus and Schramidontus. They were originally considered eurypterids, but later their possible relationship with decapods was established.

Phylogeny
The phylogeny of the Malacostraca is debated. In particular, the monophyly of Eucarida is also under question:
 * Monophyletic: many argue that the Eucarida group is a clade, sister to the Peracarida clade or to the basal Malacostraca. or to Mysida (paraphyletic Schizopoda)
 * Paraphyletic: some have proposed a paraphyletic Eucarida forming a clade with a nested Peracarida.
 * Polyphyletic: some have grouped Euphausiacea with Mysida to form the Schizopoda, or the Euphausiacea with the Hoplocarida, with Decapoda basal to the Peracarida.

title: Eucarida


text:
Talk:One Campaign

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmolga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

1% increase
A 1% increase or an increase to 1%? The article seems to state both. 62.79.178.150 07:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remind me again why this article has an opinion section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.58.228 (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

Dead Aid Controversy
This section used to say:

ONE also claim that Dambisa Moyo calls for people to "cut-off all aid"[20] to Africa despite Moyo stating that it is only Government to Government aid and not "emergency and charity-based aid" that she is referring to.

There is development assistance and there is emergency assistance. When people talk about aid, they generally refer to non-emergency aid. If Moyo is only in favour of "emergency and charity-based aid", then she is against aid from govenments, whether it's direct budget support or not. Aid from governments and aid are often used interchangeably. It is a matter of opinion whether ONE's characterisation is reasonable or not.

National Review Online questions whether donors would be happy that their money is being used to pay for attack ads and a campaign against Dambisa Moyo.[19]

This is opinion stated as fact: that their money is being used to pay for attack ads and a campaign against Dambisa Moyo. Some money, probably not a lot, is being spent on what One would probably describe their actions as an important defense of aid spending by governments. Part of One's core missions is to increase aid spending by governments, something which Moyo seems to be completely unaware of. Dead Aid has the potential and intent to undermine both public and political support for aid.

surrounding their recent high-profile attack on the African economist Dambisa Moyo

This is also a characterisation that is a matter of opinion.

I suspect that whoever wrote the controversy section didn't think it was a controversy at all, but rather that one side was right and One side was wrong.

Their tactics have also been called in to question given that they monitor Dambisa's schedule of press appearances and write letters to the hosts in advance of these.

This appears to be a straightforward conspiracy theory. If you watch the source, the Fox reporter refers to the One Campaign. Clearly the reporter was familiar with One's views. That's all you can deduce from the video. Neither Moyo nor the reporter say a word that backs up the quote above. Neither discuss let alone question One's tactics.

I've edited the section in an attempt to represent the controversy more fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.151.135 (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable?
It seems that all of the information in this entry is just a copy of the ONE.Org web site and offers only one other Verifiable source and that to only a part of the article.

If Wikipedia is a place for free publicity (regardless of the "value" of the person or group seeking the publicity) then self-verification should be allowed for all and not just for the rich, the richer and the richest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billedward (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 March 2006

Disputed?
Is the campaign disputed by no one? Yes or no, I'd like to hear about it in the article. (Either response would be interesting.) And I agree: This really needs to be more than just propaganda from the website. -  El Americano ( dímelo ) 03:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bono??
Was this founded by Bono? --Gbleem 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  20:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No criticism?
I don't really see what this campaign is about. I know it's "ONE campaign to eliminate poverty", but all I see is wrist bands and celebrities. What is the plan? I hope someone will amend a criticism section to this article. --RITZ 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed much of the article
The article was basically a campaign webpage for ONE, which is not appropriate for wikipedia. I took out the huge lists of supporters, links to the website and other "how to get involved" pieces and tried to condense that into a small paragraph about the campaign's methods. We could really use some verified information on the campaign's impact on achieving its stated aim. Criticism of the campaign (good and bad) would also be a nice addition. May be we could build up some independent, reliable sources on the talk page that we can build the article from? -- Siobhan Hansa 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Undo of Previous Removal of much of the article
I agree that this page needs some major clean-up. However, I didn't think the fair way to handle was to just get rid of almost the entire page. I think the more proper thing was to ask for clean-up instead of just getting rid of it all. I suspected that foul play might have been involved since Bono was on American Idol tonight to plug the ONE Campaign. Why not just add one of those needs clean-up boxes? Ilxaau 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding the tag is just requesting another editor to do it. There are already concerns raised on this talk page that current editors have not responded to. Since I had the time why wouldn't I do it myself? I'd just like to say in my defense that my timing wasn't motivated by bad intent. I didn't realize Bono was on TV last night though that might explain the egregiously promotional edits that did bring me here.     In any case, this page is not a continuation of the campaign.  The current article needs the promotional material removing - which means the sections that plug engagement with the campaign, the long lists of supporters and the links to signup pages and other activities for stakeholders.  I appreciate that it is  good campaign, and there's a lot of value in it, but we're an encyclopedia.  We should be providing independent information about the campaign from a dispassionate angle.  What about my edits did you think were inappropriate?  -- Siobhan Hansa 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So I've started by removing the noncitation external links that were embedded within the text of the article and trimming the external links section so that it complies with our external links guidelines. I've also added a few fact tags in some places that would need independent sources to keep. But I don't actually think most of them should be kept anyway. I'd like to see us cut out the individual sections that read like a "here's how to get involved" script and have instead a section on campaign methods that briefly covers the networking aspect, use of individual and organizational "declarations" and use of celebrities; and a section that talks about actual impact (if we can find any sources, this kind of thing is notoriously difficult to demonstrate). If there are any major news articles that take a critical (in a good or bad way) look at the campaign, we should probably cover anything that they bring up too. The current lists of celebrities and cities makes for a spectacularly uninteresting article and really doesn't address the impact or history of the campaign at all. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This page needs some serious attention. It reads like a press page from the One Corporation. The fact is One is a lobby wing for big charity to pressure a 1% reallocation of federal budget into big charity. When I looked this article up on wikipedia I was hopeful it would explain what One is rather than just what their sales pitch is. Wikipedia is better than this. We should aim at an informative article about what One is, who they represent, and who the board and who does their lobby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs).

Since people seem to be failing to add information in an NPOV manner I'm going to stub this article until we can get some encyclopedic sources to build it back up. The current state of the article is totally unacceptable. This should not be a promotional piece - it needs to be neutral and encyclopedic. All additions will need to be supported by appropriate sources. -- SiobhanHansa 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a start. As I went through the article I realized that as much as plain verification, what we really need is good editorial judgment.  Much of the stuff I got rid of was basically press release stuff - It had references to reliable sources, but the info just wasn't encyclopedic.  A listing of well known supporters or of each time some celebrity has been televised talking about the campaign is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article. More clean up is still required, and additional encyclopedic information would be great.  I ha difficulty finding anythingon the organization's leadership and structure for a start. -- SiobhanHansa 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ONE Vote '08
The ONE Vote '08 page talk section redirects here. I've eliminated a paragraph from the ONE Vote '08 page that could be viewed as advertising, and now the page should be considered entirely factual and revolving around the goals/methods of the initiative.

Ben & Jerry's
A Ben and Jerry's near me is sponsoring One. Are all B+J stores doing this? If they are, that should be mentioned in this article. Tojo940 (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bono Controversy
I removed the comments about Bono and his band, because it had nothing to do with One. I'm not saying that it's not valid criticism of the band, just not relevant to One. It also doesn't seem to be common within Wikipedia to list all advocates and criticism for activities unrelated to there actions within the organization. It might be interesting to see a list of contributers and how their world views are served by the organizations actions, but even that might get out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.121.136 (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ONE Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713191857/http://www.abcnews.go.com:80/print?id=3266459 to http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=3266459

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on ONE Campaign. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130122174256/http://www.one.org/us/inside-one/leadership/ to http://www.one.org/us/inside-one/leadership/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091007202604/http://www.hoover.org:80/multimedia/uk/48899787.html to http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/48899787.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Review
Each fact referenced does have adequate citations. Better sources are needed with the ONE campaign, especially with regard to American legislation and the legislation in Africa. The article is heavy on Bono and his contributions towards the ONE campaign. This weight on celebrity appearances is attributed to the increase in media towards high profile figures. Since there is a large media backing, there are more sources geared towards his contributions. A good proportion of the sources are from news outlets, which can also be attributed to the celebrity backing which attracts popular news sources. Around half of the citations are dead links, which could be updated to newer links that are attached to archived articles.

Jacobmolga (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ALLCAPS
This might sound like a dumb question, but why should't ONE be reduced from ALLCAPS to sentence or title case? Other than their own style preference, I don't see a reason for ALLCAPS. It's not an acronym, and as far as I can tell, doesn't stand for anything except for the word "one." I'd like to hear others' opinions on this, I'm scratching my head about it and wondering if I'm missing something. Thanks for reading. Ira Leviton (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you're correct, this isn't an acronym and it is counter WP:CAPS. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ONE Campaign. 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/20070929024222/http://www.saworship.com/article-page.php?ID=1213&Page=ministry.php to http://www.saworship.com/article-page.php?ID=1213&Page=ministry.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename to "One (advocacy organization)"
I think the name of this article is a little out of date and is not reflective of the entire topic it is covering. The One Campaign was founded in 2004 and in 2007/2008, it merged with DATA in the US and took on the simplified name of One. If you look at their website, this is on their FAQ page: "ONE is made up of two legally distinct tax-exempt organizations that have been incorporated in the District of Columbia under US law: The ONE Campaign, which is recognised as a public charity under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code and which educates the public and raises awareness about extreme poverty around the globe and the progress being made against it through life-saving programs; and ONE Action, which is recognised under Section 501(c)4 of Internal Revenue Code and which presses lawmakers to support smart, effective policies and programs which are saving lives and helping those living in the world’s poorest countries lift themselves out of poverty."

If this article is meant to cover just the 501(c)3 charity, then the current article name is accurate. But it doesn't seem reasonable that only a segment of an NGO would be the topical focus of a Wikipedia article, but another segment of it would not. I wanted to see what others thought about renaming it to "One (advocacy organization)". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Gayle Smith
According to the article about Gayle Smith, she is no longer CEO of One. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:One Campaign


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoebox drive

 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shoebox drive
Wikipedia is not a dictioary of all sorts of slang words. Searching for ["Shoebox drive" Shugart] scores a zero on google. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, even if it's true, WP is not a slang dictionary. --bainer (talk) 08:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Trivia. Geogre 19:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary 132.205.44.134 19:19, 10 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 .