text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 14

MediaWiki 1.5: time to drop straight quotation mark requirement?
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Quotation marks and apostrophes)

commas
Someone sent me a link to this manual of style. It had a whole section about commas, what other style manuals say, when you should use them, and a memorable example using Sinead O'Connor. Now I can't find it. What happened? CDThieme

 * It was never as comprehensive as that. Please see above for the recent related discussions. Kind regards, jguk 12:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What we have is one or two editors dedicated to making the style manual completely "nonproscriptive" - to the point of deleting references to other manuals, deleting longstanding language about avoiding ambiguity, deleting examples of clear and unclear uses. It is unfortunate. Jonathunder 20:41, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Here is a source I encourage you to consider: http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm "Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two." This is preferred in academic work such as an encyclopedia. CDThieme 00:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * There is not universal agreement that such commas are mandatory; therefore Wikipedia policy makes no assertions about requiring editors to include them. Nohat 01:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Nohat is quite right - there are plenty of style guides that mandate using Oxford commas at every opportunity, and plenty of style guides that say only to use it where necessary to avoid ambiguity (although, in practice, where the latter style is adopted, sometimes they are used stylistically too). On the whole (and please bear in mind that there are many exceptions to this), the main American style guides support mandatory use of the Oxford comma, the non-Americans mandate against it (with the most notable exceptions being OUP and Fowler's Modern English Usage, but they are very much in a minority). Kind regards, jguk 07:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I restored the original text. I understand the objections, but there clearly is not a consensus to for this modification. Proposed changes to the Manual of Style must have considerable agreement to be implemented; the scope of the discussion should be wider and more should support such a change before it is made. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I restored the original wording again. It is not my intention to "force" anyone to do anything. I understand arguments both for and against use of the serial comma, and indeed I might support modifying the Manual of Style to not favor one so strongly. However, this is longstanding text that was based on significant discussion in the past. Old polls are not binding, of course, and one may wish to be bold and try a new change. However, the amount of opposition to this change clearly shows that there is not consensus to modify the Manual in this manner. In fact, I believe that there should be considerable support for a modification to be incorporated into the Manual—certainly nothing as contentious as this. Perhaps the Manual is due for this change—but I cannot agree with a handful of editors making a change when another handful are actively opposing it. There needs to be more discussion, and more agreement before a change of this nature is warranted, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I would think that the amount of controversy over the issue is a good reason for being nonprescriptive over it. Mark1 08:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Surely it should be obvious that there isn't consensus support for the old version either. Sitting around on the talk page arguing about it isn't enough. If we waited until there was consensus here for every change nothing would get done. Why don't we try to come to a compromise on the wording? Nohat 08:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole style manual is already nonprescriptive in that contributors are not expected to follow any or all of the rules. What the manual does is provide guidance for those who like to copyedit. I think what we most need to keep in mind is "what will most aid the reader?" When a reader sees a list of countries and there is not a comma before the conjunction separating the last two, the reader may well wonder if this a country like Serbia and Montenegro. In a list of islands, are the last two intended to be grouped, like the Turks and Caicos? Or in a list of ancient weapons, are the unfamiliar last two used together, like bow and arrow earlier in the list? (All of these are taken from lists I've seen in articles lately, not contrived examples.) If the reader has to re-read the sentence, or has to puzzle over that for even a bit, we have not communicated as clearly as we might have. That is precisely why so many style manuals recommend the Oxford comma. If this style manual drops the recommendation, it still needs something addressing how to avoid ambiguity. What will be the clearest to the most readers? Jonathunder 16:58, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

 * What will be clearest to readers? is indeed the right question to ask. Unfortunately there is no one answer here. Many many people (a heavy majority of non-North Americans and a minority of North American) do not use a mandatory Oxford comma and get by in life quite easily. And suddenly using them where they are not necessary will only confuse or inhibit the flow of the text for readers so used.

 * The examples usually given for where Oxford commas help are usually pretty poor sentences anyway. Try reading them out, when you have the full flexibility of tone and gesticulation, and think whether you truly can distinguish what you want to distinguish. Essentially, often such sentences can be reordered to give a better formulation.

 * I'm not convinced by your examples. Compare the following:

 * Yugoslavia broke up into Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro
 * Yugoslavia broke up into Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro
 * Yugoslavia broke up into Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina

If you list the new countries from south to north without an Oxford comma:
 * The former Yugoslav republics of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia...

would that tell the reader there are in fact five countries, not four? Would it be clear? CDThieme

 * There are also two other points:

 * (1) There's no point making subtle distinctions - they will pass many readers by (in particular those not used to the mandatory Oxford comma)
 * (2) The alternative to having a mandatory Oxford comma is not to never have an Oxford comma, it is to have it only where it helps resolve ambiguity or improves the flow of the text.

 * WPians already use both styles - in practice this has been accepted for a long while. All we're suggesting here is stating what practice is. And can we please make the text shorter. It's gotten far too long! Kind regards, jguk 18:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please just set up a vote on this issue? —Sean κ. ⇔ 19:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Having read the archives now, I see there already was a vote on this. A majority decided to keep the Oxford comma recommendation. CDThieme

They could, yes, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. —Simetrical (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is not a consensus about what this style manual should say, indicating what most other style manuals say will be helpful. I know I found it helpful, so added that back. CDThieme

 * It's probably quite easy to find 100 style guides pointing in each direction though! jguk 21:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably, by why is that a consideration? This guideline is a "Manual of Style", not a guide to which styles there's a rough consensus (much less unanimity) for among other style manuals.  Doubtless reporting different views without recommending one has a place, but is it really here?  Alai 23:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed - we should make a recommendation if we can reach consensus Trodel 00:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems the only consensus that we'll ever reach on a recommendation would be something to effect of "Use serial commas when necessary to avoid ambiguity. You can use also final serial commas if they are not necessary to avoid ambiguity, but such commas are not obligatory." Final serial commas have such an incredibly tiny impact on the stylistic feel of articles, that recommending one style over another seems needlessly prescriptive, especially considering that we already have plenty of stylistic policies that are left to the editor's discretion. Nohat 00:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As others have said above, it is helpful to outline what other style manuals say. The ones listed demonstrate this is not a "side of the pond" issue. Jonathunder 16:46, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

 * I'd be keener on this were this not supposed to be a "Guidelines" page. Putting non-guidance commentary on such a page surely increases the perceived complexity of such, without actually adding anything material to it.  As previously suggested, I'd be more in favour of explicitly splitting up the MoS into different documents (or at least clearly demarcated sections) according to whether it's actual "guidelines", related commentary, or perhaps even actual policy, should consensus for that latter ever arise.  Alai 18:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Pink box
I'm removing the pink box from the top of this page. It's obvious that the alternative proposal isn't going to generate a consensus for adoption, and since this is a page frequented by WP newbies, it seems particuarly irritating to have the most glaring thing on the page be non-content. Besides, talk pages, not project pages, are the place to call attention to proposed changes. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, but why did you comment out the request that people take extra consideration before editing the MoS? TreyHarris 21:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason. It's a message to editors, not readers; this usage is recommended on How to edit a page. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Diaeresis in English
I've noticed that a handful of pages use the diaeresis in certain words (e.g. 'coöperation' and 'reëstablished'). I'm inclined to believe that unless this form of these words are used exclusively across Wikipedia, that particular usage should be eliminated. Wikipedia's own page on the subject states that particular usage has become rare. Surprisingly, I have seen no mention of it on the style guide. I'm inclined to be bold and remove them myself, but I don't want to get flamed for some obscure reason. Opinions? --Bletch 02:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never personally seen those two in common use, but I do like seeing 'naïve', for some reason. —Sean κ. ⇔ 03:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually you are right; naïve (and names like Chloë) seem to be in regular use. --Bletch 12:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd remove the diaereses where they are no longer commonly used in English (although if you are quoting someone who used the form "coöperation" you may choose to leave it as is. Only a few words, such as naïve, naïveté, and the names Zoë and Chloë still on occasion retain their diaereses. Kind regards, jguk 19:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation page style survey
A proposal for a supplementary Manual of Style for disambiguation pages. Please register your votes and comments on that article's talk page. Disambiguation/Style. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Survey closed. Motion passed. Added to list of Supplementary Manuals of Style. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do I set the background color of a page to something other than white?
I know it can be done because a long time ago I remember seeing it. Its actually for the Wikibooks site, I have a kid's book, http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Gramma's_Grammar, and I'd like to color the pages up a bit. Can anyone help me? Thanks!! --karlwick 01:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Response put onto user's talk page —Sean κ. ⇔ 03:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Titles of scientific theories?
Does the Manual of Style have any suggestion on capitalization of theories? I ask because the articles on relativity are inconsistently capitalized; for instance, using both "Special Relativity" and "special relativity". I think it would be better to have a consistent usage (at least within an article, although it's still silly if different articles use different capitalizations for the same theory). Chicago (8.157, 15th ed.) suggests: "Laws and theories. Names of laws, theories, and the like are lowercased, except for proper names attached to them." Examples given include "Avogadro's hypothesis", "the big bang theory", "Boyle's law", "(Einsten's) general theory of relativity", and "Newton's first law". Any suggestions? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * University of Minnesota agrees. "Do not capitalize the names of laws, theorems, or principles except for proper nouns that are part of the names" Examples given are "theory of relativity", "Kepler’s laws", "Newton’s laws of motion". -Satori 00:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bolding within articles
The Manual of Style states: "The first time the title is mentioned in the article, put it in bold using three apostrophes.". Should this be interpreted to mean that only the first time the title is mentioned is the appropriate place to use bold, or could there be other places to use bold within the article? EvilPhoenix 17:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * What's an example? —Sean κ. ⇔ 18:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I've found some editors using bold for all proper nouns (that might be a local cultural – non-English – thing), others use bold for emphasis (instead of italics). Neither is correct.  Bold is very little used in most publishing contexts, its main use being to mark cross-references, for which we use links.  It can be used to distinguish a certain sub-set in a list or table, and some people like to use it to mark a volume number in a bibliographic reference.  The answer to EvilPhoenix's question though, is generally "no", with one major exception: when the title of the article is supplemented by variants of the title.  For example:
 * Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Kris Kringle or simply Santa) is...
 * Does anyone disagree with any of that? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * An exception I employ is to make bold sometimes the term that the reader might have used searching the article, but which is a redirect. I'm a lumper not a splitter (context gives meaning), and I use bold sometimes for a subset of the main subject, which would be diminished, however, by being set off in its own isolated mini-article. --Wetman 00:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Wetman. For some stubby articles about places or roads that are unlikely to be expanded, I often attempt to merge the info under the next larger entity. IMO, any redirects that are not obviously variants of the article title should be also be bolded, preferably as near to the opening of the article as practical. older ≠ wiser 00:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Where an article includes a glossery of terms, I have used bold to indicate that a term is an entry in the glossery. for a recent example, see The Dark is Rising Sequence. DES 00:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that's probably a logical extension of the subsidiary definition principle articulated above, and seems fine to me. Perhaps some of this is worth distilling into a short elucidation in the MoS itself.  Alai 02:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i.e. and e.g.

 * Scholarly abbreviations of Latin terms like i.e., e.g., or n.b. should be avoided and English terms such as that is, for example, or note used instead.

I think we should begin enforcing this idea more often. Particularly "i.e." and "e.g." are often confused for one another, and there are all sorts of inconsistent ways to "spell" them ("ie." "ie", and "IE" are common variants, not to mention the issue of whether or not a comma should follow; it seems nine times out of ten the comma is forgotten). Who else wishes to wage war against these two traitors who go by the names of "i.e." and "e.g."? - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that would be a mistake. ie and eg are common enough - and whilst some people erroneously think ie is synonymous with eg that's really not a big problem as long as the articles actually use the terms correctly. I've always been surprised that ie and eg are described as "scholarly" - it seems a quite inappropriate adjective to me. We really ought to revise the advice so that we avoid less well understood Latin - viz, vide, qv (and I was going to add etc but that would be ambiguous!), jguk 05:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I really see no problem with i.e. and e.g. The fact that people confuse them shouldn't affect anything.  I think that the biggest issue with all of these latin-derived abbreviations is that they often make your writing look lazy (e.g., putting quippy examples in parentheses makes your sentence look sloppy).  —Sean κ. + 06:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If people don't know how to use them, that's because they're ignorant apes; it's not a reason for those of us who do know how to use them not to. N.b., however, is patronising: we shouldn't be telling readers what they should and shouldn't note. Mark1 06:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I on the other hand am sick of correcting typos, incorrect usage, etc. on Wikipedia and think we should do everything we can to prevent other people from shooting themselves in the foot with it. Besides, what exactly do these abbreviations give us? So we save a couple letters... so what? I think it's better to have a consistent rule that favors clarity and plain English. The point of a style guide, especially for a collaborative work such as this, is consistency and minimizing the possibility of needless errors. Besides, remember we write as a whole community. If you think not being able to use these abbreviations crimps your style, you may want to think about why your style is so important here in the first place. ;) - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mark, your attitude is snobbish. If i.e. and e.g. can be substituted with plain English, then why use the less-understood acronyms? One of Wikipedia's goals is accessibility, and the use of Latin terms to sound slightly more high-brow goes against that. --Poiuyt Man talk  07:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yours is patronising. I like to assume that the readers of an encyclopedia can read without moving their lips and don't drag their knuckles on the floor.  ;)  We have a separate simple version for the likes of them.  The abbreviations are more concise and can be useful to prevent repetition. Mark1 07:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like to avoid calling attitudes names, please. ;) Anyway, I consider being concise by eliminating letters, rather than needless words or phrases, not to be an issue worth worrying about. Neither is the prevention of repetition at the expense of clarity, in my opinion. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Poiuyt Man is right that we should not use terms to sound slightly more high-brow, and sometimes it would be better if "ie" is replaced by "that is" and "eg" by "for example", but sometimes the style flows better if we keep "ie" and "eg", so we shouldn't rule their usage out (and similarly with contractions). I think the Latin abbreviations "ie", "eg" and "etc" are well-known enough to treat them as assimilated with English, but we should shy away from others, jguk 07:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like to note that jguk's post above also "misspells" i.e., e.g., and even etc. by omitting their periods. Not ragging on you or anything, jguk, just noting further how often these abbreviations are spelled "incorrectly" even by people who otherwise speak perfectly fine English. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Misspell? I think you need a lesson in punctuation!!! :) Seriously though - N American punctuation, which I take it you are used to, is pretty much the same as what almost everyone worldwide was using in the English-speaking world in the 19th century. Since then, N America has remained static, whilst the rest of the world has veered towards less punctuation. I have seen it in my short (31-y-o) lifetime: outside N America, punctuation is on the wane. I'm sure it will reach an apogee before weloseallpunctuationaltogether! But certainly nowadays, outside N America, there is a trend towards writing them ie and eg, though admittedly many still do use i.e. and e.g.. Not sure really what all this means, but thought you might be interested to know:) jguk 19:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's why I put "misspells" and "incorrect" in quotes, you see. I was taught, and I understand that it isn't necessarily "correct" to the point that everybody else is wrong, especially as people often disagree on how to capitalize and punctuate certain abbreviations, that it's always "i.e." and "e.g.", with a comma after them when used in a sentence. But for consistency it would certainly be good to settle on a single style, in which case this style would probably prevail. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Most manuals of style suggest that the common abbreviations i.e., e.g. and etc. (id est, exampli gratia and et cetera) should be replaced by plain English. I have even heard the abbreviations used in speech. Even though most people do understand what these letters mean, their use is considered a point of bad style. The argument is not about anything else but style. Most editors I have worked with demand that I use that is, for example and and so on instead. --Gareth Hughes 20:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You are joking??? What sort of illiterate dunces don't know what eg, ie, etc mean? As to writing and so on, my publisher would shoot me if I tried to write such garbage. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and it isn't our job to dumb down to lowest common denominator illiteracy. If people don't know what they mean, they should sue their teachers for incompetence! Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think some foreigners would appreciate being lumped into the "illiterate dunce" category. (By the way, I'm not going to discuss "etc." here because it isn't confused with anything except, rarely, "et al.", and the phrase "et cetera" occurs far more often than "i.e." or "e.g." do in vernacular speech. I don't have any problem with this abbreviation, myself.) Yes, it's true that we don't need to dumb down our text to the lowest common denominator, but it's also true that we don't need to use abbreviations for seemingly no reason other than to save a couple of letters when this is of no concern to us in the first place. Given that "i.e." and "e.g." are often confused, one does lose clarity when using these abbreviations. I don't think it's a good trade. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I actually said that these abbreviations are commonly understood, and I do not believe that removing them is dumbing down: there is nothing clever about them, smug but not clever. Fowler and Chicago both consider them to be bad form in formal writing. It is a choice of style that we are talking about here, not one of correctness. --Gareth Hughes 22:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If Fowler and Chicago agree, I find that persuasive, since each is a leading authority on its side of the Atlantic. CDThieme 23:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Now that is funny. Fowler is known in academia and in English teaching as Howler for the amount of nonsense it contains. And many students in third level institutions in Europe, if they use Chicago, have their written work returned unmarked, with the comment - "under no circumstances are students to submit text based on the Chicago Manual of Style." My own academic colleagues will not touch it with a barge pole and on their first day starting undergraduate or postgraduate level they receive a handout instructing them that the C MoS is not acceptable. Theses have been returned, with students told to rewrite them completely if they use C MoS. One lecturer last year famously told a class of third years that the Chicago MoS was unfit even to be used as toilet paper. Much of what is controversial on wikipedia is stuff based on the C MoS, with some Europeans saying bluntly that they will not use it under any circumstances. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What MoS are undergraduate students told to use? —Sean κ. + 00:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you have perhaps anything to say on this matter that does not involve insulting people or manuals of style? You know, like actually defending your point of view instead of attacking everybody else's? - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't the first time Jtdirl has contributed to such discussions with "anecdote and attitude", rather than, say, a citing a style guide he himself would consider acceptable (much less, authoritative), or some other such verifiable piece of compelling evidence. Personally I'm entirely in favour of using i.e. and e.g. (with punctuation, and used the right way 'round...), but I can't see that the above is in any way a useful way of arguing for their inclusion.  Alai 19:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree entirely with Jtdirl. I also agree with Gareth that It is a choice of style that we are talking about here, not one of correctness; what I don't understand is why some people want to impose their own style on others. Mark1 01:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This idea seems to center around the idea of "style" as a personal thing, as in, "that's my style". Well, we're working on an encyclopedia. Having a "my style" doesn't really work when you're editing an encyclopedia. You must act in the interests not only in the interests of yourself, but also of your peers and your readers. And I think it is certainly in the best interests of Wikipedia as a whole to avoid these abbreviations. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The purpose of the manual is not to specify one acceptable style: it is to define the range of acceptable styles. A little tolerance would not go amiss. Mark1 03:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * And this includes all the millions of variations of ways to abbreviate (and confuse the abbreviations of) expressions that are easy enough to spell in full, does it? :P - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly it's possible to specify a range of acceptable styles, but that does not mean to say that it's within the purpose of the MoS, or necessarily a good idea, for it to allow a set of alternatives in every case. The purpose of a manual style is typically to establish a certain degree of internal consistency, over and above simple "generally agreed correctness".  If we simply include a range a popular styles, drawn from a variety of incompatible style manuals (or otherwise, based on existing practice, or practices there's a demand to allow), then this ceases to itself be a manual of style in any useful sense.  Alai 19:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree that abbreviations should be avoided. Wikipedia is not paper. Exploding Boy 02:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I will now, in an unabashedly biased way, summarize what I perceive to be the current arguments for and against.

Arguments against using i.e. and e.g.
 * 1) Capitalization and punctuation is almost always inconsistent even throughout a single dialect within Wikipedia, leading to mundane copyediting for consistency (it is incorrect in American English to use "ie", "IE", or "ie.", for instance)
 * 2) They are often confused for one another
 * 3) Almost all style guides advise against them
 * 4) We have perfectly good English expressions for what these mean in the first place and they're really not that hard to type
 * 5) I'm just going to go about replacing them most of the time I come across them anyway
 * 6) Allowing them lowers the quality of Wikipedia as a whole because of people misusing these abbreviations as addressed in points 1 and 2. It may be that you know how to use them correctly, but please keep in mind that you're not the only editor here.
 * 7) Using them sacrifices clarity (see #2) in favor of saving a few letters. Is that really a good trade?

Arguments for using i.e. and e.g.
 * 1) I like them, dammit!

I know I've conveniently ignored a few counterpoints to my arguments against, but that isn't the point. So far there aren't really any good arguments for it in the first place even if you attack my arguments with counterpoints. I think people on the opposing side had better get to working on that. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The case in favour of using them is that they are now fully assimilated into the English language. We might as well pick any other English word and take a dislike to that for all you're saying, jguk 19:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That doesn't necessarily mean that they're good expressions to use. I think we can agree that, for instance, the word fuck doesn't really belong anywhere in article space except as part of a quotation, title, or whatever -- albeit for entirely different reasons, but the point is just because a word is fully assimilated into the English language doesn't mean we should use it. I do concede that your point isn't entirely invalid, though... I did say I was unabashedly biased when I put that list together. ;) - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to agree completely with jguk on this one. You make a good argument for why one should avoid "i.e." and "e.g." in general, but they're still grammatically correct in formal writing, and we have no reason to suggest they shouldn't be used.  There are scores of other words and phrases that are often confused and have clearer substitutes.  For example, "it's" and "its" are confused a million times over, and it's almost always better to avoid the pronoun.  Should we tell people not to use them?  I think not: stylistic choices like these should be made on a case-by-case basis.  —Sean κ. + 21:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You say I make a good argument, yet see no reason they shouldn't be used? I'm confused here. ;) As for a "case by case basis", I don't see why they should be necessary at all, ever. As for your counterexample, certainly "its" and "it's" are both necessary words. They're also far more common than "i.e." and "e.g." and are actually commonly used in speech as well as in writing, whereas, although it has been noted above that these abbreviations have been used in speech, it's exceedingly rare. More to the point, the encyclopedia would suffer more much more from the prohibition of "its" and "it's" than if they weren't prohibited. I don't think that's true of "i.e." and "e.g." - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I know people who, when they were taught to write formally, were told not to use the pronoun "it", and graded down if they did. In my field of study, mathematics, we are taught to eliminate "it" from our vocabulary when writing proofs, since "it" is unnecessarily ambiguous.  Personally, I wouldn't mind at all to see "it" eliminated from the encyclopedia ;).  I guess what I'm saying is that, though your reasons are all good, in the end it's all a matter of taste.  I would rather tell people to write in a clear, succinct manner than to tell them which words they should avoid.  —Sean κ. + 00:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the part about "e.g." and "i.e." in the MoS should be removed. We don't need it. If an editor wants to use "e.g." and "i.e.", why not? The current MoS is too long, it should stick closer to the KISS priciple. Dumbledore 17:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, Oxford and Cambridge both give e.g. and i.e. with full stops . I like Mr and Dr without punctuation (because it's logical), but I don't really like eg and ie. The Times likes eg and ie though... Dumbledore 17:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Dumbledore - we should allow eg and ie (also WPians are already using them in practice anyway). I do think foreign words and abbreviations that are not assimilated into English shouldn't be used without explanation though, jguk 07:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with them if, but only if, they are used correctly. If my students use i.e. and e.g. interchangeably or write them without dots, it is a clear sign they don't know what they stand for, and I have them resubmit the work in English. No Account 01:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, it is becoming increasingly common to see them without dots in standard British English, with an increasing number of publications eschewing them, jguk 07:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * For example, the Guardian style guide is with jguk on this one. But this is a style guide, not an exercise in the documentation of what's becoming increasingly common.  Every MoS I've checked mandates a particular punctuation, and so should this one.  (Or ban 'em, as at present.)  Alai 02:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This style guide is different, however. Publications enforce one style for consistency. We don't do this - instead allowing editors to use whatever style they are used to (subject to internal consistency within any one article). This helps encourage more people to submit articles and has helped WP grow (after all - whilst most editors positively welcome constructive improvements to their text, and for typos to be corrected, my guess is they also get pissed off if arbitrary changes are made.

 * Of course, in this instance there is a difference. We can just permit them (as permitting them would hardly require them to be used). I do prefer a ban on abbreviations or foreign terms that have not been assimilated into general English usage though, jguk 07:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Your characterisation isn't really accurate. The MoS does that in some instances (pointlessly, in my view;  better just to shorten the page, than discuss something without saying anything one way or the other); and you may think it should do so in more (or in all), but in fact it does mandate some stylistic considerations, as a glance at the page will reveal. In so far as it mandates anything, at least.  Editting to the MoS is surely by definition not making "arbitrary changes" (even if the content of the MoS itself might arguably be somewhat arbitrary is some instances).  It's clear that some people can get very touchy about having their text tampered with, but to deploy this as an argument against guidelines as to which style is the more desirable seems to me to be mistaken on several grounds.  Firstly, it's pretty unwiki, philosophically speaking;  we're otherwise pretty explicit that one should expect to have one's text editted mercilessly.  Secondly, it's inconsistent:  why worry about people getting pissed off about only such changes?  My guess is that for most people, MoS type issues are the least of their worries.  But lastly, because it's entirely counterproductive:  "anything goes" doesn't prevent disgruntlements and edit wars, it facilitates them, as we can them simply endlessly flip-flop between two different "equally good" versions, that each set of editors prefers for one reason or another, without policy/guidelines assistance in terminating the process.  Alai 07:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scratch from MoS!
I'd like the

 * Scholarly abbreviations of Latin terms like i.e., e.g., or n.b. should be avoided and English terms such as that is, for example, or note used instead.

scratched from the MoS. I've traced the addition to that by User:Ortolan88 at Sep 21, 2004 @ 21:36 with an edit summary of "prevent measles" (made it *that* much harder to find). However, I find no discussion in the archives (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory) pertaining to this addition. So it would seem that this was unilaterally added 8 months ago (by an admin no less..if he was an admin 8 months ago...).

I see no benefit of having this in the MoS especially since it's not required to be followed. I call bollucks on the entire list presented by Furrykef: they are perfectly acceptable and used and I'm sure I could find a list of complaints about...anything...really. And considering it was unilaterally added it doesn't belong here. Cburnett 03:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose scratch. Even the Toronto Globe and Mail Style Book says to use i.e. only in direct quotes. I think the Latin tags are stuffy and opaque. Somewhere in the Wiki help guides I've read that the model reader is supposedly a bright 12-year-old - certainly these dusty crusty relics would only confuse that model reader, especially if the reader's first language isn't English. We'd be better off fixing spelling throughout Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski 13:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Did you say a bright twelve-year-old!  Why not add from an isolated bluecollar community in the Idaho panhandle! --Wetman 05:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Neither "i.e." nor "e,g," is a Latin tag.
 * 2) If we're going to assume that readers are too ignorant to understand commonly used abbreviations like these, why not just translate everying into Simple English and have done with it?
 * 3) I know of no bright twelve-year-olds who wouldn't recognise "i.e." and "e.g."; yes, they might confuse them, but then they might confuse "alternate" and "alternative", "uninterested" and "disinterested", "infer" and "imply", "ingenious" and "ingenuous", etc. — should we avoid all those too? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh scratch, bin, burn, do what ever you want with that ridiculous sentence but please keep it out of the MoS. We have got to presume that readers did more in their English class than sleep. What exactly is so difficult about ie and eg anyhow: how exactly is so difficult to understand the different meaning attached to two letters, depending on whether it is ie or eg? Most people on Wikipedia are well beyond an age where they should know exactly what they mean. If they don't by the time they leave high school, then they should sue their teachers for incompetence. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 13:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "What exactly is so difficult about ie and eg anyhow:" Well apparently the fact that they are initals and should be i.e. and e.g. if they are used. Personaly i like them, and might use them, and wikipedia writing is supposed to be a bit formal, hence the sugestion not to use contrations. On the other hand, these add little, I'm not sure they are aver bettter than that is and for example. Still I think that thre should be discussion before this sentance is allowed to stay in the MOS. DES 5 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

I oppose the scratch. Atlant 17:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) We're writing Wikipedia for a large reader community and many members of that community can probably understand "for example" far better than they can understand "e.g.".
 * 2) One need only look at the writing community on Wikipedia to quickly conclude that even among people who claim to understand what i.e. and e.g. mean, they don't.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of i.e. and e.g., n.b. (and note, for that matter) is particularly insidiuous and almost always used in a POV way to call attention to facts that the author thinks are important. I don't ever remember a time when n.b. or note was used in a way that wasn't both condescending and biased. Nohat 19:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's already been scratched by User:Markalexander100 (I would have but I've been involved in reverts over it) because it was unilaterally added (i.e., no consensus) and, now, there's no consensus to keep. So it's now the burden of the supporters to draw consensus to put it on the MoS — the way it should have been done when it was originally put on. So, if there's anyone that desires to have it put onto the MoS the correct way, then by all means start it. My vote is still against it and not just because I don't find the arguments for it compelling, but it's strictly a personal style issue. If editor A wants to use it, then fine use it. If editor B doesn't want to use it, then fine don't use it. If editor A and B get into a revert war over it, then it should be settled just like any other style conflict. Be it over "e.g." or contractions (some styles do say to not use contractions because it's less formal) they can be settled the same. If you're worried about it causing more conflicts because it's *not* in the MoS then I'll be quick to point out the conflict arisen here because it *was* in the MoS and articles (e.g., Electrical wiring (UK)).

I hope my usage of latin phrases (e.g., "i.e." and "e.g.") didn't confuse the 12-and-under crowd arguing this... :) Cburnett 19:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE
does wikipedia have a guideline for the BC versus BCE debate? -Lethe | Talk 00:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * It has a running battle. Will that do? —Wahoofive (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(An excellent argument for KISS). Mark1 02:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have created a compromise proposal. Please discuss the proposal on its talk page (not here). Kaldari 19:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italics -- Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general
There is currently a dispute on Talk:Wikipedia, concerning the italicization of "Wikipedia" in the article namespace. The Manual of Style currently has no specifics regarding the italicization of encyclopedias (although they most likely fall under "books"), and whether media being in paper or online form matters for italics. --Poiuyt Man talk  09:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Paintings?
I came here to look for the consensus on names of paintings because every article seems to use a different style. Since names of paintings are often quite long, using no marker at all (quotation marks or italics) makes their use in text often fairly confusing. I notice that this page mentions for italics books, court cases, movies, albums, TV series, magazines, ships, computer/video games, and major orchestral works and for quotation marks "short stories, articles, statues, short films, songs, individual episodes of TV shows", and "poems". I'd prefer italics for paintings, but I could live with quotation marks as well. If the consensus is mentioned elsewhere, I think we should mention it here, too. Rl 08:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Oxford GtS would suggest italics, don't have other references immediately to hand. Seems logical to me, as aside from collections and exhibitions which are somewhat transitory, there's not the same concept of longer composite works as in other media.  Strongly agree we should mention it either way, once we have a general inkling as to which is preferrable.  Alai 01:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree, italics makes sense for paintings. — Catherine\talk 04:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Same as ever. The iconic genre is not capialized. All titles are capitalized. Thus:
 * A Madonna and Child by Pontormo.
 * Madonna and Child, by Pontormo.
 * A portrait of Louis XIV by Rigaud.
 * Louis XIV, by Rigaud.

 * Makes perfect sense. Thanks everyone, you have been most helpful. If this is a consensus, we should work it into the main article and the manual on titles. Rl 07:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops—pardon me. It seems I've just duplicated this question over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles). It's worth noting that there is actually a partially conflicting policy on that page; most visual art isn't mentioned, but for some reasons statues are named...and quotation marks instead of italics are called for.

I concur with the above uniform style suggestion (italics), however. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text:
Live at Max's Kansas City

Live at Max's Kansas City is a live album by the Velvet Underground recorded at the famous nightclub and restaurant at 213 Park Avenue South in New York City. It was originally released on May 30, 1972, by Cotillion, a subsidiary label of Atlantic Records.

Background
The Velvet Underground signed a two-album deal with Atlantic in early 1970 and released their fourth studio album, Loaded, in November 1970. By the time of its release, singer/guitarist/main songwriter Lou Reed had left the band. The rest of the group continued on together, with Doug Yule switching from bass to guitar and taking over as full-time lead vocalist. Walter Powers was brought in to play bass. This line-up did a tour of the United States and Canada promoting Loaded, and also played additional, unreleased material that had been planned for inclusion on another new studio album. Atlantic, however, having lost faith in the band's commercial prospects decided to cut their losses after the disappointing chart showings of Loaded, and opted to release an archival live recording instead.

The tapes that would later become Live at Max's Kansas City were recorded on August 23, 1970, by Andy Warhol associate Brigid Polk on a portable cassette recorder. During the recording of Loaded, the Velvet Underground also held a nine-week engagement (June 24 – August 28, 1970) playing two sets per night at New York City nightclub Max's Kansas City. Polk had been in the habit of recording almost everything happening around her at the time, and this resulted in her capturing what turned out to be the band's last live performance with Reed. Later that year, Atlantic A&R employee Danny Fields heard the tapes and submitted them to his superiors, who accepted the recordings and in 1972 decided to make an album out of them, despite their relatively poor fidelity. Polk had made the recordings on a mono recorder using a simple ferro musicassette, resulting in tape hiss and audience noise often audible during the music's quieter parts. Author and musician Jim Carroll can be heard speaking on the album, ordering drinks and inquiring about drugs between songs, as he was the one holding the recording microphone.

The line-up for these recordings consisted of Reed, Yule, lead guitarist Sterling Morrison and drummer Billy Yule, the younger brother of Doug Yule; regular drummer Maureen Tucker temporarily left the group several months earlier when she became pregnant with her first child, Kerry "Trucker" Tucker.

Originally, Live at Max's Kansas City was a single album, with each side respectively devoted to the band's louder and quieter material. The songs were selected and edited from both sets by Lou Reed and Atlantic staff producer Geoff Haslam. On August 3, 2004, Warner Music re-issue label Rhino Records released a two-CD Deluxe Edition including both full sets in their original running order.

Track listing
All tracks written by Lou Reed except as indicated.

2004 reissue edition
All tracks written by Lou Reed except as indicated.

2016 reissue edition
All tracks written by Lou Reed except as indicated.

Personnel

 * The Velvet Underground
 * Sterling Morrison – lead guitar, backing vocals
 * Lou Reed – vocals, rhythm guitar
 * Doug Yule – bass guitar, backing vocals, lead vocal on "Lonesome Cowboy Bill", "Who Loves the Sun", "I'll Be Your Mirror", "I'm Set Free" and "New Age"
 * Billy Yule – drums, cowbell

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

title: Live at Max's Kansas City


text:
Dean Delany

Dean Delany (born 15 September 1980) is an Irish former footballer who played as a goalkeeper.

Beginning his career in England with Everton in 1997, three years later, he moved on to Port Vale, having never turned out for the first-team at Everton despite winning caps for the Republic of Ireland under-21s and lifting the FA Youth Cup. He spent four years with Vale and did make 39 first-team appearances, though he was never their first-choice keeper. He also spent time on loan at Macclesfield Town but never made it onto the field. He returned to Ireland in 2004 to sign a contract with Shelbourne, who he helped to the League of Ireland title in 2006. He spent 2007 with Waterford United, though he returned to Shelbourne the following year. The "Shels" had been demoted in his absence, and he was the goalkeeper in the 2011 season, as they won promotion back into the top flight. He joined Bohemians in time for the 2013 season before returning to Shelbourne again in 2017 and helping the club to win promotion as League of Ireland First Division champions in 2019. He was named on the PFAI First Division Team of the Year for the 2009 and 2018 seasons.

Everton
After securing a contract with English Premier League side Everton as a teenager in 1997, his first year saw him winning the FA Youth Cup. Delany only made one appearance for the "Toffees", and was unable to break into the first-team. In the summer of 2000 he moved to the Second Division side Port Vale.

Port Vale
During his four seasons with Port Vale, he made 39 appearances in all competitions. He was an unused substitute in the 2001 Football League Trophy final against Brentford at the Millennium Stadium. He also won the Staffordshire Senior Cup in 2001. He also had a two-month stint on loan to Macclesfield Town. Delany failed to gain an appearance with Macclesfield during his time at Moss Rose. He fell to third in the pecking order at Vale Park behind Mark Goodlad and Jonny Brain and was released by manager Martin Foyle in May 2004.

Shelbourne
Deciding to return home to Ireland's League of Ireland, Delany joined Shelbourne to play first-team football. He joined the club in May 2004 on a short-term contract until the close of the 2004 season, and secured a two-year deal after the club won the league title that year. He eventually made his "Shels" league debut during a 4–2 victory against Waterford United at the RSC on 24 June 2005 and earned himself a first-team place. Delany won his second league winners medal with Shelbourne at the end of the 2006 season. He also represented Shelbourne in their successful years in the Champions League and UEFA Cup. Despite this success, he became a free agent as his contract at Shelbourne was not renewed due to the club's troubled financial situation.

Waterford
Before the 2007 season, Derry City offered Delany a trial. However, he did not join his former Shelbourne boss Pat Fenlon due to failed negotiations, and joined Waterford United on 15 March 2007 on a free transfer and quickly became the "Blues" first-choice keeper. Despite Delany's heroics throughout the season, Waterford were relegated to the First Division at the end of the season, losing to Finn Harps in a two-legged promotion/relegation play-off. Delany won Waterford's overall Player of the Year award, and helped the "Blues" to win the Munster Senior Cup, but he departed Waterford at the end of the season to rejoin former club Shelbourne.

Return to Shelbourne
On 7 March 2008, Delany played his first match for Shelbourne since 2006 in a 0–0 draw against Dundalk. He played in all 36 of Shelbourne's league matches in his first season back with the club. He helped the "Reds" concede the fewest goals in the First Division, just 25, securing his position in Division 1 Team of the Year. Shelbourne were narrowly denied promotion after a goal in the last minute of added-time in the final league game against Limerick gave Dundalk the First Division Championship and the accompanying promotion to the Premier Division.

Delany was yet again Shelbourne's first-choice goalkeeper in 2009, playing in all but one league match and winning a place on the PFAI First Division Team of the Year. The "Shels" finished runners-up in the league and qualified for a promotion play-off with Sporting Fingal, which Fingal won 2–1, a slight consolation for him that year was that he was again voted in division 1 Team of the Year. The following season Delany fended off competition from Steve Williams and kept goal as the club won the 2010 Leinster Senior Cup; he kept a clean sheet in the final against Bray Wanderers. He retained his first-team place in 2011 ahead of new signing Paul Skinner, as the "Reds" won promotion as First Division runners-up; the league was extremely tight, as just three points separated the top four teams. He also played in the FAI Cup final at the Aviva Stadium, where his side lost out to Sligo Rovers in the penalty shoot-out following a 1–1 draw.

Bohemians
On 20 December 2012, Delany was one of 20 players to sign up with Aaron Callaghan's Bohemian for the 2013 campaign. Dean was ever-present during "Bohs" league campaign, featuring in all 33 games. He signed a new one-year contract at the close of that season to keep him at the club until the end of 2014. Bohemian finished fifth in 2015, improving two places from the 2014 campaign. They finished eighth in the 2016 campaign.

Third spell at Shelbourne
Delany joined Shelbourne for a third spell for the 2017 season. He made 27 appearances as Owen Heary's Shelbourne posted a fourth-place finish and won his third Leinster Senior Cup as Shelbourne beat Dundalk 4–2 after extra time at Oriel Park. He was named on the PFAI First Division Team of the Year for the 2018 season, having made 28 league appearances throughout the year. Shelbourne qualified for the play-offs, losing out Drogheda United on penalties at the semi-final stage. He left Shelbourne after their First Division title-winning 2019 season.

International career
Delany was capped at U15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and B international level, and represented the Irish under-21s as a 17-year-old in a triangular Celtic tournament involving Scotland and Northern Ireland. He looked to be Ireland's most promising young goalkeeper after the 1999 World Youth Championship, in which he was part of the "Golden generation" of Irish youth football (which included talent such as Damien Duff, Richard Dunne and Robbie Keane), a side that eventually made it to the quarter-finals of the competition. He was also part of the Irish UEFA Under-18 Championship winning squad of 1998, the following year he was eligible again and played a big part in securing a bronze medal in the third-place play-off in Sweden. He made 28 appearances for the Republic of Ireland youth teams, including an impressive 21 appearances for the Irish under 21s under bosses Ian Evans and Don Givens.

He later was noticed after making a start to the 2003–04 season with Port Vale by the then Republic of Ireland manager Brian Kerr who called him into the senior international squad for a training camp before the crucial European championship qualifier against Georgia.

Personal life
Delany is married with three children. He holds a keen interest in music and was the rhythm guitarist and vocalist of the Irish indie band The Novas. Delany has worked as a postal worker with An Post since returning to semi-professional football in Ireland.

Career statistics
Competitions include UEFA Champions League and UEFA Intertoto Cup Competitions include Football League Trophy, Setanta Sports Cup, Leinster Senior Cup and League of Ireland Promotion/relegation play-offs

Honours
Everton
 * FA Youth Cup: 1998

Port Vale
 * Football League Trophy: 2000–01

Shelbourne
 * League of Ireland: 2004, 2006
 * Leinster Senior Cup: 2010, 2017
 * League of Ireland First Division promotion: 2011
 * League of Ireland First Division: 2019

Waterford United
 * Munster Senior Cup: 2007

Bohemians
 * Leinster Senior Cup: 2016

Republic of Ireland
 * UEFA European Under-19 Championship: 1998

Individual
 * PFAI First Division Team of the Year: 2009, 2018

title: Dean Delany


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Australian English

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. humblefool®Deletion Reform 01:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

South Australian English
Encyclopedic content is already on Australian English. This stub is quite POV. It should redirect to Australian English. Silversmith Hewwo 13:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand It sounds like there are authoritative sources that say one thing and real-world exceptions to that rule. Sounds like a job for an encyclopedia ... no? Certainly not POV from my reading (remember that POV and disputed are different) -Harmil 13:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not POV at all. Kappa 13:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So you don't find "According to some people" to be POV then? Perhaps "Disputed" would be a better term for this article. Plus "much vocabulary attributed to South Australians is used elsewhere." There is more than enough room to discuss SA Enlish on the Australian English article - in fact it already is discussed there. -- Silversmith Hewwo 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Some of the qualifiers are poor in style, but where would an encyclopedia be without qualifiers? The references and the interest/controversy (same thing really), shown by the discussion page speak for themselves. Me POV? Never :-) Grant65 (Talk) 14:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect — Silversmith has used the wrong term. It is not POV; it simply makes unattributed claims.  The main point is that this article is pointless.  Everything that needs to be said about this mythical South Australian English is said at Australian English.  If and when there is an unwieldy amount of info in that article, the article South Australian English can perhaps be created.  Death to pointless stubs.  A VfD is not necessary to make redirects.  I shall continue making this pointless stub a redirect ad nauseam.  Grant65's pet article will be no more.  — Chameleon 14:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above speaks volumes about the psychology of those who want to get rid of the page. As I've said before, Australian words has already been hived off from Australian English due to the latter's size. I have many pet articles; this is merely the latest. I recommend having pets, without them you end up bitter and twisted and go around redirecting pages which other people have created :-)  Grant65 (Talk) 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge into Australian English. --malathion talk 15:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Australian English. Unnecessary fork. -- BD2412 talk 15:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Appears to have great encyclopedic growth potential, and Australian English is already quite large. -- Visviva 15:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was going to vote delete but reading the article and looking at the source documents has convinced me otherwise. This is a good little article although it should perhaps be renamed as South Australian dialects.Capitalistroadster 17:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Great article that has a potential as possibly a future featured article candidate if expanded and improved diligently. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep articles about sub-dialects of dialects are encyclopedic. For example, from the American English article you will find links to articles like African American Vernacular English, North Central American English, Southern American English, California English, New York-New Jersey English, Hawaiian English, and Pittsburgh English. Revolución 02:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Australian English is already a large article and this article has separable content--AYArktos 02:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Silversmith. No notably seperable content. royblumy 02:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we might as well delete all articles about sub-dialects of dialects because they're not "notably separable"! Is this not a sub-dialect of Australian English? Revolución 02:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Quick comment: how many of the crtiics above are from Australia ? How many of them speak Australian English ?  If ever there was a time/place for those who don't know about a subject, to GtFO of serious analytic discussion of it .... Simoncursitor sig added by Silversmith
 * Define "critic". It is you who want to get rid of the article. And who is to say that other Australians have the best perspective on this? There appears to be great ignorance, possibly even hostility (cultural cringe anyone?) to the very idea that there are regional dialects. Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm an Australian, from Victoria. I never noticed a difference between VIC English and SA English.  If there is a difference, then it is nowhere near as obvious as the Aus/NZ difference. The big difference in Aus. English is how "ocker" you are, which isn't state dependant. -- Silversmith  Hewwo 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Gawd...for the umpteenth time, there are significant (and generally underrated) differences in vocabulary around Australia and that is the point. Another is the debunking of myths about a "South Australian accent". (Although evidence has been presented for a Victorian accent.) Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge with Australian English until a linguistically informed article on South Australian English can be written. --Angr/undefined 07:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Errrm.....the article is being written. That is what "stub" means. Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge into Australian English.JamesBurns 07:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Radiant_ >|< 10:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Australian English. I'm fourth and fifth generation South Australian. While we have both a few unique words and a slightly distinctive accent, it's not different enough for a separate article in a world-focussed encyclopaedia. They'll make the Australian English article richer. --ScottDavis 12:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How "different" would it have to be? Are we going to be deleting articles en masse now because they are about things which, in our opinions, are "not different enough" ? Grant65 (Talk) 13:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Different enough to be a clearly distinct subject. As it is, merging this into Australian English would improve that article. This article can't stand on its own without the wider article. SA English is a minor variation on the rest of Aus English, but isn't distinctive to non-Australians. --ScottDavis 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep although a merge wouldn't be disastrous. I have previously stated that I thought the article should be merged and redirected to Australian English, but that was at a stage when it was a woeful stub with seemingly no potential. Since it has been expanded upon (though, admittedly, it still has a way to go) I can see it developing into a useful article. I do, however, take issue with the labelling of theories of a distinct South Australian accent as "myths" given some linguists would undoubtedly assert this. A more detailed and referenced discussion is required in that regard. There was previously exploration of "South Australian English" in the Australian English article, but this was progressively removed, most probably because the dominant opinion is dismissive of regional variations in AusE.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do not merge. Given that a reference book does exist, I think this article is sufficiently verifiable and notable. The fact that many Australians dispute the existence of this dialect is worthy of mention therein; the fact that South Australians might take pride in differences is also worth mentioning. This may say something about the sociology of language, as well as language itself. Xoloz 04:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ... Australian English is a large article, and sub-dialects are a good candidate for splitting out, as per comments above re: American dialects. --Skud 01:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be sufficient material for an article. Binadot 03:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge (either with Australian English or, if that page is too big, a new Regional Varieties in Australian English page). This is the vote I said I was going to make in the Article's talk page. Almost nothing encyclopedic that could be said in this article would not be better said elsewhere, leaving it as a semi-permanent stub. Felix the Cassowary 09:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you underestimate how much there is to be said about regional varieties of Australian English. I suggest you have a good read of Australian Word Map. I don't believe you will make such statements once you have. Do you really want to see Australian English dominated by discussion of regional varieties? Grant65 (Talk) 13:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that, read the second half of my parenthetical. I think the best option would be a single page discussing all regional varieties of English (you could then put a para there about how South Australianisms are more often derived from Cornish and German, if that's the case, then in other dialects). That webpage you link me to is full of colloquialisms, yeah, but has a lack of things like stras/devon. Should we have an article on 1932 English in Adelaide? The colloquialisms they used then were probably quite different from those in 1832 Adelaide. The page also doesn't have a whole lot to say on other things you could discuss like pronunciation differences. Felix the Cassowary 12:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (I'd imagine that colloquialisms used in 1932 Adelaide would be very different from 1832, given Adelaide do not even exist at that point : ). It was founded in 1836.)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The "stras/devon/polony/windsor/etc" thing is there. The site is expressly about words, which as we know are far more signficant in Australian regional language than purported "accents". Grant65 (Talk) 02:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I meant there aren't many noncolloquialisms on that site (that I could find, but it's not a great site in that way), not that there's none. Of course the stras/devon/polony/windsor thing's mentioned there, otherwise I'd hardly've known of it. Now if the significant thing in Aussie regional variation is words, can you show me why (given the three regions in SA), SA English forms a unit? Just for political reasons, or are there actual linguistic regions for that? (If you can show that, then I might not have such a strong objection to an article on the same.) Felix the Cassowary 13:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Australian Word Map site identifies 27 "dialects". However, none of these crosses a state/territory border. There are good reasons why this is the case, such as the history as six separate British colonies (by the time of Australian federation anyway). This set up economic/education/media/etc ties to the state/territory capital cities. In parallel with Jauncey's book there are also publications about West Australian English (also 3 dialects), Queensland English (5 dialects) and so on. It is conceivable that 27 articles could be written at some stage but for obvious reasons I'm not keen to do that at present. Grant65 (Talk) 04:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge, for reasons given by ScottDavis. Alphax τεχ 02:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Australian english is so diverse that the different forms should have their own pages. -- OldRight 19:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
North West Frontier (film)

North West Frontier (USA: Flame Over India; Australia: Empress of India) is a 1959 British Eastmancolor adventure film starring Kenneth More, Lauren Bacall, Herbert Lom, Wilfrid Hyde-White and I. S. Johar. The CinemaScope film was produced by Marcel Hellman and directed by J. Lee Thompson. It was a commercial success at the British box-office in 1959. The film's success led to J. Lee Thompson beginning his American career as a director.

The film is set in the North West Frontier Province of British India (now within modern Pakistan). It explores the ethnic tensions within British India after Muslim rebels attack a fortress and kill a Hindu maharajah.

Plot
In 1905 on the North West Frontier of British India, a maharajah asks British Army Captain Scott to take his young son, Prince Kishan, to Haserabad and then send him to Delhi to protect him from a Muslim uprising. Accompanying them is the prince's governess, an American widow named Mrs. Wyatt. They leave as the rebels storm the palace and kill the prince's father. This makes his six-year-old son the leader of the Hindu population in the region.

On arrival at Haserabad, Captain Scott sees that many local Hindus and Europeans are leaving on the last train to Kalapur. The Muslim rebels soon close in and take control of the outer wall and gate beside the railway yard. The British governor tells Scott that he must take the young prince to Kalapur for his safety. In the railyard, the British captain discovers the "Empress of India", an old railway engine cared for by its driver Gupta, affectionately known as Victoria. They calculate that it will manage the journey if limited to pulling a single carriage.

Early the next morning, Captain Scott quietly loads the passengers onto the old train. They include Mrs. Wyatt, Prince Kishan, arms dealer Mr. Peters, British expatriate Mr. Bridie, Lady Windham (the governor's wife), two British Indian Army NCOs, and Dutch journalist Mr. Peter van Leyden (Herbert Lom). Victoria quietly freewheels down a gradient and out of the yard, but when her whistle is accidentally sounded, Gupta fires the engine and crashes her through the outer gate. The enemy fire on them and chase them but cannot keep up with the train.

Later that morning, the train encounters an abandoned train at a remote station. This is the refugee train which preceded them out of Haserabad. Everyone on board has been massacred (presumably by the rebels). Despite being told not to by Captain Scott, Mrs. Wyatt leaves the carriage and finds one survivor, a baby concealed by his mother's body.

The next morning, the train must stop because a portion of the track has been blown up. Mrs. Wyatt spots the signaling flashes of a heliograph atop a mountain summit, and everyone quickly realises that the Muslim rebels are sitting in ambush in the surrounding hills. With track repairs barely finished by Captain Scott, the train gets away under a hail of gunfire. Gupta is wounded but survives.

Later that day, while stopping to refill the engine's water tank, Scott walks into the pump house to find Van Leyden allowing Prince Kishan to stand dangerously close to the pump's rapidly spinning flywheel. In the evening Van Leyden refuses alcohol and the group correctly deduce he is Muslim. He explains this by saying he is half Indian. During the night, Mr. Van Leyden again approaches the prince, only to notice Lady Windham watching him.

The train reaches a bomb-damaged bridge. There is nothing under one section of rail except the ground far below. Scott has the others carefully cross that section one by one to lighten the train that will follow them. Finally, only Van Leyden and the prince remain behind. Van Leyden seems to deliberately hold the boy back and endanger his life. He falls and Scott grabs his hand, pulling him back to safety. Afterward, Scott accuses Van Leyden of trying to kill the prince, and he places the reporter under arrest. After that, Captain Scott, under Gupta's guidance, carefully maneuvers the train across.

Later, while going through a tunnel, Van Leyden uses the opportunity to overpower his guard. He uses a Maxim machine gun to threaten the passengers and now declares his loyalty to the Muslim cause. He is unable to kill Prince Kishnan because the boy is with Captain Scott in the locomotive's cab. Scott returns to the carriage with the young prince after spotting more rebel heliograph signals, but they are saved when the machine gun is knocked off balance by a kick from Mr. Bridie. Scott crawls up the carriage and starts to fight him. The two men end on the roof. At the climax of the fight a shot rings out: Mrs. Wyatt has shot Van Leyden with one of the rifles. He falls off and dies as the Muslim rebels ride up on horses.

The Muslim rebels chase the train on horseback but are thwarted when Victoria enters a two-mile-long hillside tunnel. On the other side, the train reaches the safety of Kalapur to strains of The Eton Boating Song. At the station, young Prince Kishan is met by his Hindu entourage, while Gupta is taken to hospital, and Lady Windham is informed that her husband, the governor, is safe. On learning Prince Kishan may yet fight the British, as his father instructed him, Scott quotes Kipling ("Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck, And march to your front like a soldier") before he and Mrs. Wyatt leave together carrying the infant she had saved earlier.

Cast

 * Kenneth More as Capt. William Charles Willoughby Scott
 * Lauren Bacall as Catherine Wyatt
 * Herbert Lom as Peter van Leyden
 * Wilfrid Hyde-White as Mr. Bridie
 * I. S. Johar as Gupta, the driver
 * Ursula Jeans as Lady Windham
 * Eugene Deckers as Peters
 * Ian Hunter as Sir John Windham
 * Jack Gwillim as Brigadier Ames
 * Govind Raja Ross as Prince Kishan
 * Basil Hoskins as A.D.C.
 * S. M. Asgaralli as Havildar (1st Indian Soldier)
 * S. S. Chowdhary as 2nd Indian Soldier
 * Moultrie Kelsall as British Correspondent
 * Lionel Murton as American Correspondent
 * Jaron Yalton as Indian Correspondent
 * Homi Bode as Indian Correspondent
 * Frank Olegario as Rajah
 * Ronald Cardew as Staff Colonel at Kalapur Station

Casting
In 1957, More announced he would play "a romantic adventure" part set during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Nightrunners of Bengal. That film was never made and it is likely that More was transferred instead to North West Frontier, a similar project. Olivia de Havilland was originally announced as the female lead. Lauren Bacall's casting was announced in January 1959. She sold her Hollywood house and put her children in school in London for the duration of the shoot.

Filming
The production started in Rajasthan, India in April 1959. More recalled in his memoirs that it was a physically difficult shoot with many of the cast and crew falling ill with dysentery and other illnesses. The unit stayed at a former Maharajah's palace which had been turned into a hotel. Several Rajasthan landmarks were used as filming locations. Jal Mahal (meaning "Water Palace") in Jaipur city, the capital of the state of Rajasthan, represented the Maharaja's palace at the start of the film. Although it now stands within Man Sagar Lake, the water levels in the 1950s were so low, horseriders could be filmed riding up to its entrance. In Amber the Amber Fort was used as the British governor's residence; other scenes prominently feature the Jagat Shiromani Temple complex. Hundreds of extras were employed for the shots filmed in India. The metre-gauge railway running through Jaipur was used for the scenes where More escapes by train and later discovers the massacre of the refugee train.

Filming of the rail sequences started in the province of Granada, Spain on 10 May 1959 and took five weeks to complete. The area's dry arid steppe was used to portray British India. Parts of the railway, which is now abandoned, traversed the northern part of the Sierra Nevada between Guadix and Baza. The bomb-damaged rail bridge that the train must cross is the Anchurón bridge over the Solanas de la Carreta near the hamlet of Belerda in Granada (at 37.38967°N, -3.19568°W). The ending used Iznalloz railway station near Barrio Primero De Mayo (at 37.39591°N, -3.52771°W).

Reception
The film was a major hit in the UK, being among the six most popular films in Great Britain for the year ended 31 October 1959. Kenneth More wrote in his memoirs that it "was a great success". According to Kinematograph Weekly the film performed "better than average" at the British box office in 1959.

The film was one of seven made by Rank which were bought for distribution in the US by 20th Century Fox. Lauren Bacall called it a "good little movie ... with a stupid title" (referring to the US title, Flame Over India).

The Guardian called it "a big British western."

George MacDonald Fraser praised the performance of I.S. Johar: "It was a true rendering of a type imitated successfully by Peter Sellers and others, the quaintly-spoken 'Oh-jollee-good-Sahib' funny Indian – a genuine character familiar to everyone who knows the subcontinent. One critic took violent exception to Johar’s performance: it was a disgraceful caricature, and Johar should be ashamed of himself. I’d like to believe the critic thought that was true, but I doubt it. I suspect the critic knew Johar’s portrayal was absolutely faithful, but preferred to pretend it wasn’t because the critic found it embarrassing, and didn’t like to think that Indians ever really behaved like that – or if they did, it shouldn’t be shown on screen. In other words, damn the truth if it doesn’t fit with what one would like to believe is true – an attitude which, honesty aside, seems to me offensively patronising." Fraser admired the film and More's performance saying "he had a cheery truculence that was much closer to the real Imperial type than the conventional stiff upper lip." He added "The one flaw [of the film] was the title; I remarked to the technical adviser, a senior ex-Indian Army officer, that it seemed odd, having a Hindu prince up yonder, and he replied that he had no idea where the film was meant to be taking place, but wherever it was, it was not the Frontier."

Filmink called it "a rousing adventure set in India with excellent action/spectacle mixed in with sooky Imperial propaganda, and Lauren Bacall ranks with Sally Ann Howes and Kay Kendall as More’s most effective love interest."

The film led to J. Lee Thompson being hired to direct Guns of Navarone. After original director Alexander Mackendrick was fired, star Gregory Peck saw Northwest Frontier and agreed for Thompson to take over.

title: North West Frontier (film)


text:
Frederik Paludan-Müller

Frederik Paludan-Müller (7 February 1809 – 27 December 1876) was a Danish poet, the third son of Jens Paludan-Müller and born in Kerteminde, on the island of Funen.

In 1819 his father was transferred to Odense, and Frederik began to attend the Latin school there. In 1828 he passed to the University of Copenhagen. The poet lived a very retired life, first in Copenhagen, then for many years in a cottage on the outskirts of the royal park of Fredensborg, and finally in a house in Ny Adelgade, Copenhagen, where he died.

Work
In 1832 he opened his poetical career with Four Romances, and a romantic comedy entitled Love at Court. This enjoyed a considerable success, and was succeeded in 1833 by Dandserinden ("The Dancing Girl").

Paludan-Müller was accepted by criticism without a struggle, and few writers have excited less hostility. He was not, however, well inspired in his lyrical drama of Amor and Psyche in 1834 nor in his oriental tale of Zuleimas Flugt ("Zuleima's Flight"), in 1835, in each of which he was too vividly influenced by Lord Byron. But he regained all that he had lost by his two volumes of poems in 1836 and 1838.

From 1838 to 1840 Paludan-Müller was making the grand tour in Europe and his genius greatly expanded; in Italy he wrote Venus, a lyrical poem of extreme beauty. In the same year, 1841, he began to publish a great work on which he had long been engaged and which he did not conclude until 1848; this was Adam Homo, a narrative epic, satirical, modern and descriptive, into which Paludan-Müller wove all his variegated impressions of Denmark and of love. It deals with the duality of human personality, the emptiness of social ambition, and the redeeming force of selfless love. This remains a classic of Danish poetical literature.

In 1844 he composed three enchanting idylls, Dryadens bryllup ("The Dryad's Wedding") Tithon ("Tithonus") and Abels Død ("The Death of Abel"). From 1850 a certain decline in the poet's physical energy became manifest and he wrote less. His majestic drama of Kalanus belongs to 1854. Then for seven years he kept silent. Paradiset ("Paradise") 1861; and Benedikt fra Nurcia ("Benedict of Nurcia") 1861; bear evidence of malady, both physical and mental. Paludan-Müller wrote considerably after this, but never recovered his early raptures, except in the very latest of all his poems, the enchanting welcome to death, entitled Adonis.

The work of Paludan-Müller, especially Adam Homo in many ways represents the ultimate idealist demands of Danish romanticism. His strong ethic claims and personal isolation has often made him being compared to the philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in spite of their differences. Rather unknown outside Denmark, Paludan-Müller has perhaps however exerted an influence on world literature in that way that the early works of Henrik Ibsen, Brand, Peer Gynt, seem to be influenced by his thoughts.

He died on 27 December 1876 and is buried in Asminderød Cemetery in Fredensborg.

Translations into English

 * Adam Homo, The Twickenham Press, tr. Stephen I. Klass, 1980.

title: Frederik Paludan-Müller


text:
User:JIP/BoundCon 2005 report

Now, for all you encyclopedia enthusiasts, a nice little original research! Luckily it's in my user namespace.

I visited BoundCon II on June 10 - June 12 2005 in Munich, Germany. I had only previously been to one BDSM convention, and that was in my home city in Finland. This was the first time I've been in a convention in a foreign country all on my own.

Getting there
My father drove me to the airport on Friday morning. I arrived at Helsinki-Vantaa airport one hour before my plane left, but I hadn't taken into account that half of Helsinki was going on a holiday at the same time. The queues were so long that I didn't get even halfway through the baggage check-in when it was only 15 minutes to take-off. I had to take all my luggage as hand luggage.

I had only previously been in Munich as a small child, but it didn't take long to figure out how the public transport worked. Luckily I had previously looked up the locations of my hotel and the "Kleiner Olympiahalle", where BoundCon happened.

Munich
Munich is a beautiful city. Two-thirds the size of the greater Helsinki area, or about the same as the entire country of Estonia. All in one city. Perhaps I should go there again on a normal city holiday?

My hotel (Seibel's Park Hotel) was in Pasing, on the western edge of the city. I had a bit of trouble arriving there, as I had misread the house number (it is Maria-Eich-Strasse 32, I thought it was 22). My room, as usual, seemed to be one and a half the size of my apartment back home. If I had been travelling with someone, we would have shared the room.

I learned the routes between my hotel, the Kleiner Olympiahalle, the city centre (Marienplatz) and the Englischer Garten on the first day. I had no problems getting from one place to another.

BoundCon
I arrived at BoundCon half an hour after it started. I had planned to arrive right at the start but was late. No matter, this is a convention, not a scheduled meeting.

Organisation
I was surprised how small the hall is. The hall where the Finnish BDSM convention had been had seemed much larger. A bigger problem was the almost complete absence of refreshments. The Finnish convention had had a full restaurant area serving various snacks and alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. Here, all there was was a "Topless Fetish Bar" (their words), which consisted of a small area in the corner with two topless women serving drinks. That's all. No snacks.

Another problem was the lack of seats. There were three tables at the "Topless Fetish Bar", with three or four chairs each, but no seats anywhere else. The seats at the bar were almost always taken.

Content
The actual BDSM content, though, was overwhelming. There were stands everywhere with bondage models and their studios advertising their websites, magazines and DVDs. There were two official stages with live bondage modelling and a couple of models did improvised modelling at their stands.

The scheduled main shows were very fun to watch, but seemed not to have any special plot or innovations.

I ended up constantly walking all around the place in between the shows, looking at but not buying the various magazines and DVDs.

One of the funniest thing I saw was a model called "Renée the Bondage Cross Dresser". A 190 cm tall Swiss man dressed up in women's clothes made of latex, usually ending up tied up by two women. I guess there was a market niche for that too.

Bondage Trials
The Bondage Trials were held on Sunday. They started out well enough, with five teams of one bondage model and one bondage rigger each. In the first event, the models were hogtied and had to race across a carpet on their stomachs.

However, this is where a major blunder happened. Seeing as the models wore very little (four of them only had their underpants on, and the fifth had her underpants and shirt), they rubbed against the carpet pretty much continuously. Because the carpet was rougher than they had presumed, this tore the models' skin, causing huge, painful sores. The Trials had to be paused as the models were resting.

The second event was "gag-talk". One by one, the models were ballgagged and the riggers had to guess what they were saying. One of the funniest things was that one rigger couldn't guess "Doctor Frasier Crane", even though both he and his model were from Seattle, Washington!

For the third event, the original planning had called for the models to be tied to a soccer goal and the riggers kicking a ball at them (it was far lighter than a real soccer ball though). But out of compensation for the failed first event, the roles were reversed: the riggers were tied to the goal and the models kicked the ball at them. The last model picked the ball up in her hands and threw (not kicked) it at the rigger's genitals.

End
At the end of the last day (Sunday), the last scheduled show was a three-girl suspension by Lew Rubens. But they were behind schedule and had too little time, so he only ended up with a one-girl suspension, tying up Maria Shadoes. What made this show the most fun, though, was that they didn't even bother to set the show up artistically. Instead, the lights were left on, and both Lew and Maria chatted casually with the public. It was certainly more fun than the three-girl suspension would have been.

Aftershow party
There was an aftershow play party on Saturday night. I didn't attend, because it had a dress code and I don't have any fetish clothes.

Getting back
Although the convention ended on Sunday, I stayed for one more night and went back to Finland on Monday morning. The trip to Munich airport was the opposite of the trip to Helsinki-Vantaa airport. I had about one to one and a half hours too much time, even though I travelled pretty much through the entire city. I rested in the airport tourist class lounge to pass the time.

title: User:JIP/BoundCon 2005 report


text:
Cowan Station

Cowan Station may refer to:
 * Cowan Station, California, former name of Dunmovin, California
 * Cowan railway station, New South Wales, Australia

title: Cowan Station


text: File:TomWaits-TheBlackRider.jpg

title: File:TomWaits-TheBlackRider.jpg


text: File:Time out album cover.jpg

title: File:Time out album cover.jpg


text:
Morris Ximenes

Sir Morris Ximenes (1762–1837), also known as Moses Ximenes, was a captain in the British Army and Berkshire landowner who had converted to Anglicanism from Judaism.

Biography
Morris was born in London about 1762. He was a member of the London Exchange, where he made a large fortune. In 1802, he was elected a warden of the Bevis Marks Synagogue, but declined to accept; and on being fined he resigned from the community and became converted to Christianity. However, "he embraced his new faith while expressing the most friendly feelings towards the professors of the old faith."

In 1794, after the outbreak of the French Revolutionary War, Ximenes raised a Troop of the 'Windsor Foresters' or Berkshire Fencible Cavalry, a home defence regiment, and was given the rank of captain. His brother David Ximenes, a half-pay captain in the Regular Army, was commissioned into the Foresters as a lieutenant in January 1795. The regiment served in Lincolnshire and Scotland on anti-invasion and anti-smuggling duties. When it was disbanded in 1800 Morris Ximenes sought permission to raise a 'Troop of Gentlemen Cavalry' (Yeomanry) in Berkshire. He offered to pay for its clothing and kit if the arms and accoutrements of the disbanded Windsor Foresters were transferred to it. Royal permission was granted through the Lord Lieutenant and the Wargrave Rangers was formed, with Ximenes as captain. All the Yeomanry were stood down at the Treaty of Amiens, but when war was resumed in 1803 the Wargrave Rangers were reactivated and the officers received new commissions in April. David Ximenes returned to full-pay service in the 29th Foot, and Morris raised sufficient recruits for him to obtain promotion to major. In August 1803 Morris Ximenes offered to raise and pay for a corps of volunteer infantry to be attached to the Wargrave Rangers with wagons to travel in. It is not known if this proposal was taken up. Sir Morris Ximenes (as he had now become) retired from command of the Wargrave Rangers in March 1809 when he was appointed to a lieutenant-colonelcy in the 2nd Berkshire Local Militia.

He afterwards served in the Peninsular War as Captain Ximenes.

He was knighted in 1806 and appointed high sheriff of both the counties of Kent and of Berkshire (1806). His chief residence was Bear Place at Hare Hatch, near Wargrave, in the latter county. He died in London in 1837.

It was suggested that he was perhaps descended from Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, (1436–1517), twice regent of Spain and sometime Grand Inquisitor. (Ximenes and Jiménez: homonyms)

His younger brother, Sir David Ximenes, had no connection with the Jewish community.

title: Morris Ximenes


text:
Dalkey Island

Dalkey Island (Oileán Dheilginse ) is an island for which the nearby village of Dalkey is named (Oileán Dheilginse meaning "thorn island", with ey the Old Norse (Viking) version of "island"). It is an uninhabited island located in the county of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, about 16 km south of Dublin and 3 km south of Dún Laoghaire harbour. An important site of pilgrimage for centuries, it has been known as "St Begnet's Isle" since records began. The earliest reference to 'Dalkey Island' is from c. 1782. The island had a population of 8 in 1841.

Location, situation and access
The 25-acre island is currently uninhabited but there is evidence of human occupation dating back to the Neolithic period.

The remains of field systems, a church dedicated to Saint Benedict, a cairn burial, a gun battery which had three 24 pound guns and the Martello tower still exist.

There are two holy wells, one on the western shoreline is known locally as the "Scurvy Well" and is located within a surrounding stone structure. The well near the church was claimed in the 19th century to be efficacious in treating ophthalmic complaints.

There is also a bullaun stone formed from an earthbound boulder. This may have been used as a pagan altar as it was 'Christianised' in the 7th century by carving an early Christian cross on the face. This lies close to the remains of the church.

At the northern extremity of the Island there is evidence of a deep ditch or fosse that was the boundary of a medieval promontory fort. Located less than 300 metres off the mainland, the island comprises 9 hectares (22 acres). From Bulloch Harbour, it is possible to visit the island. Also a regular ferry operates from Coliemore Harbour Caladh Mor meaning 'Big Harbour', during the summer months.

History
Dalkey Island, only 5 minutes by boat from Coliemore Harbour, is an important site of ancient and historic remains. Artefacts from the island, now housed in the National Museum in Dublin, provide evidence that the island's original occupants were from the Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age. Humans continued to use the site through the Neolithic, Iron Age and Early Christian period.

There is evidence it was inhabited in the 4th millennium BC (6,000 years ago) and was also used as a Viking base. A number of early medieval pieces of pottery and glassware were found on the island. Some of these artefacts came from the Mediterranean area, possibly Turkey or Greece. It was an important site of pilgrimage in the medieval period as evidenced by the prominence of the island on early maps. One such, Danti's map of 'Isole Britaniche', painted on the wall of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence (c. 1560) survives as a remarkable record. It was believed that 'taking' water from the well attributed to the saint could cure scurvy. Recent tests of the water show that it has high levels of vitamin C (the cure for scurvy), probably due to its position below a salt marsh. There are ruins of a church, dating to the 7th century, which is named for St Begnet. An older wooden church was probably here before the present stone one was built. Another church in nearby Dalkey also named for St Begnet may have been a 'base' for pilgrims before they crossed the sound to the island. 'Pilgrim badges' would have been sold in the town which would be eventually sewn into their burial shroud to prove that they had undertaken the pilgrimage, helping their journey through the gates of heaven. On the orders of Henry VIII as part of his dissolution of the monasteries, St Begnet's was raided in 1539. The ornaments and plate raised 36 shillings for the crown.

In the early Christian period, the town of Dalkey was called Kilbegnet. The earliest reference to 'Dalkey Island' is to be found on a map printed for 'Barnard's New, Complete and Authentic History of England’ printed c1782'. This was about the time that the island was becoming a site of British military ordinance. There is also a reference to it on a copy of the Downs survey of about the same time. The church on the island was altered during this period on the east side, when builders used it as living quarters while building the nearby Martello tower and gun battery in 1804. .

Extensive archaeological excavations took place in the late 1960s (Liversage) which uncovered evidence of a churchyard and a number of burials. The skeletons were not exclusively male, as has been suggested but they were in the majority in keeping with the fact that it was an early Christian Monastic site.

A promontory fort designed to help protect what was the main deep water port for Dublin, now called Coliemore Harbour Caladh Mor meaning 'Big Harbour', in the medieval period. was located at the northern end of the island, its presence still visible today in the form of a ditch. The remains of a child (probably a plague victim) were discovered, discarded rather than buried in the ditch during the 1968 excavation. The remains may also have been that of a young Viking slave (comparisons to the remains found in Llanbedrgoch on Anglesey would suggest this) but accurate dating tests have not yet been carried out.

The ruined stone church may be as old as the 7th century and was probably abandoned for a period when the Vikings used the island as a base and there is evidence that the island was used as a slave market during this period. The Annals of the Four Masters says that in 938. Coibhdeanagh, the Abbot of Cill-achaidh, drowned in the sea off the island trying to escape with treasures from the church hidden in his vestments during one Viking raid. In the early 19th century the Admiralty erected the Martello Tower, one of eight dotted along the Dún Laoghaire coastline, as an early warning defensive device against the one-time threat of invasion during the Napoleonic Wars. A herd of goats, originally put on the island in the early 19th century, remains there today but they are replacements for the original goats who were removed.

According to Samuel Lewis's 1837 Topographical Dictionary of Ireland, "[t]radition states" that Dalkey was used as a place of refuge for some citizens of Dublin during the "great plague" of 1775.

"King" of Dalkey
Prior to 1798, it was the custom annually to elect, in the month of June, the King of Dalkey (and emperor of the Muglins) along with various officers of state whose proceedings were recorded in a newspaper called the Dalkey Gazette.

Waters and leisure
The island is also an ideal spot for fishing, with pollock, coalfish, wrasse and mackerel being caught.

The channel between the island and the mainland is approximately 1200 yards long and 330 yards wide and known as Dalkey Sound which has a rocky floor and a strong tide flows through it.

The waters around Dalkey Island are much used for sailing, angling and diving. Rocks known as Maiden or Carraig Rock, Clare Rock and Lamb Island, all to the northwest, form part of the ridge of the Island. Parts of these rocks are only visible at low tide. The southern end of the island is a favourite with kayakers, especially on the flooding tide. There can be a substantial overfall here and in a southeast wind can be extremely challenging for the kayaker. When kayaking around the Island on a flood tide it is easier to go in an anti-clockwise direction.

Wildlife
Dalkey Island is home to a colony of seals which has greatly expanded in recent years. Rabbits and a herd of wild goats live on the island also. Birdwatch Ireland have established a colony of Roseate Terns on Maiden Rock just north of the Island and Ireland holds most of the European population.

The Muglins
The rocks to the east of the island are known as "The Muglins" and are a different group or chain. These form a danger to shipping and have been fitted with a distinctive beacon. The beacon stands on the site of what was once a 'gibbet' where the bodies of two pirates, Peter McKinlie and George Gidley were displayed following their execution for the murders of Captain Cockeran, Captain George Glas and his family and others on board the ship Earl of Sandwich in 1765. Their remains lie buried under the concrete plinth base of the beacon.

title: Dalkey Island