text:
Ancient Macedonian army

The Kingdom of Macedon possessed one of the greatest armies in the ancient world. It is reputed for the speed and efficiency with which it emerged from Greece to conquer large swathes of territory stretching from Egypt in the west to India in the east. Initially of little account in the Greek world, it was widely regarded as a second-rate power before being made formidable by Philip II, whose son and successor Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid Empire in just over a decade's time.

The latest innovations in weapons and tactics were adopted and refined by Philip, and he created a uniquely flexible and effective army. By introducing military service as a full-time occupation, Philip was able to drill his men regularly, ensuring unity and cohesion in his ranks. In a remarkably short time, this led to the development of one of what was among the world's finest military machines for the era. Tactical improvements included the latest developments in the deployment of the traditional Greek phalanx made by men like Epaminondas of Thebes and Iphicrates of Athens. Philip improved on these military innovators by using both Epaminondas' deeper phalanx and Iphicrates' combination of a longer spear and a smaller and lighter shield. However, the Macedonian king also innovated; he introduced the use of a much longer spear, the two-handed pike. The Macedonian pike, known as the sarissa, gave its wielder many advantages both offensively and defensively. For the first time in Greek warfare, cavalry became a decisive arm in battle. The Macedonian army perfected the co-ordination of different troop types in an early example of combined arms tactics—the heavy infantry phalanx, skirmish infantry, archers, light cavalry and heavy cavalry, and siege engines were all deployed in battle; each troop type being used to its own particular advantage and creating a synergy of mutual support.

Ancient Macedonians and other Greeks (especially Thessalian cavalry) and a wide range of mercenaries from across the Aegean and the Balkans were employed by Phillip. By 338 BC, more than a half of the army for his planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire came from outside of Macedon's borders—from all over the Greek world and the nearby barbarian tribes, such as the Illyrians, the Paeonians, and the Thracians.

As a result of uneven manuscript survival, most of the primary historical sources for this period have been lost, and scholarship is thus largely reliant on the works of the Greek historians Diodorus Siculus and Arrian, in addition to the incomplete writings of the Roman historian Curtius, all of whom lived centuries later than the events they describe in their works.

Origins
If Philip II of Macedon had not been the father of Alexander the Great, he would be more widely known as a first-rate military innovator, tactician and strategist, and as a consummate politician. The conquests of Alexander would have been impossible without the army his father created. Considered semi-barbarous by some metropolitan Greeks, the Macedonians were a martial people; they drank deeply of unwatered wine (the very mark of a barbarian) and no youth was considered to be fit to sit with the men at table until he had killed, on foot with a spear, a wild boar.

When Philip took over control of Macedon, it was a backward state on the fringes of the Greek world and was beset by its traditional enemies: Illyrians, Paeonians and Thracians. The basic structure of the army inherited by Philip II was the division of the companion cavalry (hetairoi) from the foot companions (pezhetairoi), augmented by various allied troops, foreign levied soldiers, and mercenaries. The foot companions existed perhaps since the reign of Alexander I of Macedon, while Macedonian troops are accounted for in the history of Herodotus as subjects of the Persian Empire fighting the Greeks at the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC. Macedonian cavalry, wearing muscled cuirasses, became renowned in Greece during and after their involvement in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), at times siding with either Athens or Sparta and supplemented by local Greek infantry instead of relying on Macedonian infantry. Macedonian infantry in this period consisted of poorly trained shepherds and farmers, while the cavalry was composed of noblemen eager to win glory. An early 4th-century BC stone-carved relief from Pella shows a Macedonian hoplite infantryman wearing a pilos helmet and wielding a short sword showing a pronounced Spartan influence on the Macedonian army before Philip II.

Nicholas Sekunda states that at the beginning of Philip II's reign in 359 BC, the Macedonian army consisted of 10,000 infantry and 600 cavalry, the latter figure similar to that recorded for the 5th century BC. However, Malcolm Errington cautions that any figures for Macedonian troop sizes provided by ancient authors should be treated with a degree of skepticism, since there are very few means by which modern historians are capable of confirming their veracity (and could have been possibly lower or even higher than the numbers stated).

Philip's first achievement was to unify Macedon through his army. He raised troops and made his army the single fount of wealth, honour and power in the land; the unruly chieftains of Macedonia became the officers and elite cavalrymen of the army, the highland peasants became the footsoldiers. Philip took pains to keep them always under arms and either fighting or drilling. Manoeuvres and drills were made into competitive events, and the truculent Macedonians vied with each other to excel.

As a political counterbalance to the native-born Macedonian nobility, Philip invited military families from throughout Greece to settle on lands he had conquered or confiscated from his enemies, these 'personal clients' then also served as army officers or in the Companion cavalry. After taking control of the gold-rich mines of Mount Pangaeus, and the city of Amphipolis that dominated the region, he obtained the wealth to support a large army. It was a professional army imbued with a national spirit, an unusual combination for the Greek world of the time. The armies of contemporary Greek states were largely reliant on a combination of citizens and mercenaries. The former were not full-time soldiers, and the latter, though professional, had little or no inherent loyalty to their employers. By the time of his death, Philip's army had pushed the Macedonian frontier into southern Illyria, conquered the Paeonians and Thracians, asserted a hegemony over Thessaly, destroyed the power of Phocis and defeated and humbled Athens and Thebes. All the states of Greece, with the exception of Sparta, Epirus and Crete, had become subservient allies of Macedon (League of Corinth) and Philip was laying the foundations of an invasion of the Persian Empire, an invasion that his son would successfully undertake.

One important military innovation of Philip II is often overlooked, he banned the use of wheeled transport and limited the number of camp servants to one to every ten infantrymen and one each for the cavalry. This reform made the baggage train of the army very small for its size and improved its speed of march.

Companion cavalry
The Companion cavalry, or Hetairoi (Ἑταῖροι), were the elite arm of the Macedonian army, and were the offensive force that made the decisive attack in most of the battles of Alexander the Great. They were unmatched in the pre-stirrup Ancient world in their ability to retain their seat and the control of their weapons through the impact of a charge. Along with Thessalian cavalry contingents, the Companions – raised from landed nobility – made up the bulk of the Macedonian heavy cavalry. Central Macedonia was good horse-rearing country and cavalry was prominent in Macedonian armies from early times. However, it was the reforms in organisation, drill and tactics introduced by Philip II that transformed the Companion cavalry into a battle-winning force, especially the introduction of, or increased emphasis on, the use of a lance and shock tactics. Coinage indicates that from an early period the primary weapons used by Macedonian cavalry were a pair of javelins. This remained true through to the reign of Archelaus I (413–399). Subsequently, despite the adoption of the lance, it is highly probable that the Companion cavalry continued to employ javelins when on scouting or skirmishing missions.

The hetairoi were divided into squadrons called ilai (singular: ilē), each 200 men strong, except for the Royal Squadron, which numbered 300. The Royal Squadron was also known as the Agema – "that which leads". Each squadron was commanded by an ilarchēs (ilarch) and appears to have been raised from a particular area of Macedon. Arrian, for instance, described squadrons from Bottiaea, Amphipolis, Apollonia and Anthemus. It is probable that Alexander took eight squadrons with him on his invasion of Asia totalling 1,800 men, leaving seven ilai behind in Macedon (the 1,500 cavalrymen mentioned by Diodorus). Between 330 BC and 328 BC, the Companions were reformed into regiments (hipparchies) of 2–3 squadrons. In conjunction with this, each squadron was divided into two lochoi. This was probably undertaken to allow for the increase in size of each squadron, as reinforcements and amalgamations meant that the Companion cavalry grew in size. At this time, Alexander abandoned the regional organisation of the ilai, choosing their officers regardless of their origins.

The individual Companion cavalry squadrons were usually deployed in a wedge formation, which facilitated both manoeuvrability and the shock of the charge. The advantage of the wedge was that it offered a narrow point for piercing enemy formations and concentrated the leaders at the front. It was easier to turn than a square formation because everyone followed the leader at the apex, "like a flight of cranes". Philip II introduced the formation, probably in emulation of Thracian and Scythian cavalry, though the example of the rhomboid formation adopted by Macedon's southern neighbours, the Thessalians, must also have had some effect.

The primary weapon of the Macedonian cavalry was the xyston, a double ended cornel-wood lance, with a sword as a secondary weapon. From descriptions of combat, it would appear that once in melee the Companion cavalryman used his lance to thrust at the chests and faces of the enemy. It is possible that the lance was aimed at the upper body of an opposing cavalryman in the expectation that a blow which did not wound or kill might have sufficient leverage to unseat. If the lance broke, the Companion could reverse it and use the other end, or draw his sword. Cleitus, an officer of the Companions, saved Alexander the Great's life at the Granicus by cutting off an enemy horseman's arm with his sword. Companion cavalrymen would normally have worn armour and a helmet in battle.

Although the Companion cavalry is largely regarded as the first real shock cavalry of Antiquity, it seems that Alexander was very wary of using it against well-formed infantry, as attested by Arrian in his account of the battle against the Malli, an Indian tribe he faced after Hydaspes. There, Alexander did not dare assault the dense infantry formation with his cavalry, but rather waited for his infantry to arrive, while he and his cavalry harassed their flanks. It is a common mistake to portray the Companion cavalry as a force able to burst through compact infantry lines. Alexander usually launched the Companions at the enemy after a gap had opened up between their units or disorder had already disrupted their ranks. However, the ancient historian Arrian implies that the Companion cavalry were successful in an assault, along with heavy infantry, on the Greek mercenary hoplites serving Persia in the closing stages of the Battle of Granicus. Their success may have been largely due to the poor morale of the hoplites, who had just witnessed the rest of their army broken and put to flight.

The original 1,800 Companions who accompanied Alexander to Asia were augmented by 300 reinforcements arriving from Macedon after the first year of campaigning. They were usually arrayed on the right flank (this being the position of honour in Hellenic armies, where the best troops would be positioned), and typically carried out the decisive manoeuvre/assault of the battle under Alexander's direct leadership.

Thessalian cavalry
Following the defeat of Lycophron of Pherae and Onomarchos of Phocis, Philip II of Macedon was appointed Archon of the Thessalian League; his death induced the Thessalians to attempt to throw off Macedonian hegemony, but a short bloodless campaign by Alexander restored them to allegiance. The Thessalians were considered the finest cavalry of Greece.

The Thessalian heavy cavalry accompanied Alexander during the first half of his Asian campaign and continued to be employed by the Macedonians as allies until Macedon's final demise at the hands of the Romans. Its organization and weaponry were similar to the Companion Cavalry, though the earlier Thessalian way of fighting emphasised the use of javelins. The Thessalian cavalry was famed for its use of rhomboid formations, said to have been developed by the Thessalian Tagos (head of the Thessalian League) Jason of Pherae. This formation was very efficient for manoeuvring, as it allowed the squadron to change direction at speed while still retaining cohesion. The numbers given for Alexander's invasion of the Persian Empire included 1,800 such men. This number would have risen no higher than 2,000. They were typically entrusted with the defensive role of guarding the left flank from enemy cavalry, allowing the decisive attack to be launched on the right. They often faced tremendous opposition when in this role. At Issus and Gaugamela, the Thessalians withstood the attack of Persian cavalry forces, though greatly outnumbered.

At Ecbatana, the Thessalians with Alexander's army were disbanded and sent home. Some remained with the army as mercenaries, yet these too were sent home a year later when the army reached the Oxus River.

Other Greek cavalry
The Hellenic states allied to, or more accurately under the hegemony of, Macedon provided contingents of heavy cavalry and the Macedonian kings hired mercenaries of the same origins. Alexander had 600 Greek cavalrymen at the start of his campaign against Persia, probably organised into 5 ilai. These cavalrymen would have been equipped very similarly to the Thessalians and Companions, but they deployed in a square formation eight deep and sixteen abreast. The Greek cavalry was not considered as effective or versatile as the Thessalian and Macedonian cavalry.

Light cavalry
Light cavalry, such as the prodromoi (literal trans. "those who run ahead"), secured the wings of the army during battle and went on reconnaissance missions. There is some ambiguity concerning the use of the term prodromoi by the sources; it may have been used to describe any cavalry undertaking a scouting, skirmishing or screening mission, or it may have denoted a single unit, or indeed both. Apart from the prodromoi (in the sense of a single unit), other horsemen from subject or allied nations, filling various tactical roles and wielding a variety weapons, rounded out the cavalry. By the time Alexander campaigned in India, and subsequently, the cavalry had been drastically reformed and included thousands of horse-archers from Iranian peoples such as the Dahae (prominent at the Battle of Hydaspes).

Prodromoi/Sarissophoroi (cavalry unit)
Scholarship is divided as to the ethnic composition of the prodromoi of the Macedonian army. Most authorities regard the prodromoi as being raised from Macedonians, which would parallel the Athenian prodromoi, who were raised from the Thetes, the lowest census class of Athenian citizens. Sekunda, however, gives them an origin from Thrace. Arrian usually differentiates the prodromoi from the Paeonian light cavalry, which suggests a fixed ethnic composition. This uncertainty is probably due to the lack of a definite understanding of the use of the term prodromoi by the primary sources, referred to above. The prodromoi, are sometimes referred to as sarissophoroi, "pikemen" or "lancers", which leads to the conclusion that they sometimes were armed with an uncommonly long xyston (believed to be 14 ft long), though certainly not an infantry pike. In the primary sources, Arrian mentions that Aretes commanded the prodromoi; in the same context Curtius says that Aretes commanded the sarissophoroi. It would appear that the same unit of cavalry was known by both names.

The prodromoi/sarissophoroi acted as scouts, reconnoitering in front of the army when it was on the march. In battle, they were used in a shock role to protect the right flank of the Companion cavalry. Persian light cavalry took over scouting duties when they became available to the Macedonian army following Gaugamela. The prodromoi then assumed a purely battlefield role as shock cavalry. It is possible that the prodromoi, due to their skill in wielding long lances and their extensive battle experience, were considered more valuable in the role of shock cavalry, especially after the departure of the Thessalian cavalry. Four ilai, each 150 strong, of prodromoi operated with Alexander's army in Asia.

At Gaugamela, the prodromoi under Aretes were responsible for finally routing the Persian left wing cavalry, winning the battle in this sector.

Paeonian cavalry
These light cavalry were recruited from Paeonia, a tribal region to the north of Macedonia. The Paeones had been conquered and reduced to tributary status by Philip II. Led by their own chieftains, the Paeonian cavalry was usually brigaded with the Prodromoi and often operated alongside them in battle. They appear to have been armed with javelins and swords and are, unusually, described as carrying shields. Initially only one squadron strong, they received 500 reinforcements in Egypt and a further 600 at Susa.

Thracian cavalry
Largely recruited from the Odrysian tribe, the Thracian cavalry also acted as scouts on the march. In battle, they performed much the same function as the Prodromoi and Paeonians, except they guarded the flank of the Thessalian cavalry on the left wing of the army. The Thracians deployed in their ancestral wedge formations and were armed with javelins and swords. At Gaugamela, the Thracians fielded four ilai and were about 500 strong.

Horse archers
In 329 BC, Alexander, while in Sogdiana, created a 1,000 strong unit of horse archers that was recruited from various Iranian peoples. They were very effective at scouting and in screening the rest of the army from the enemy. Firing their bows whilst mounted, they offered highly mobile missile fire on the battlefield. At the Battle of Hydaspes, the massed fire of the horse archers was effective at disordering the Indian cavalry and helped to neutralise the Indian chariots.

The Foot Companions
Suitable men from the Macedonian peasantry were recruited into an infantry formation, called the phalanx. It was developed by Philip II, and later used by his son Alexander the Great in his conquest of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. These infantrymen were called Pezhetairoi, which translates as 'Foot Companions'.

Philip II spent much of his youth as a hostage at Thebes, where he studied under the renowned general Epaminondas, whose reforms formed the basis of Philip's later tactics. The equipment of the Macedonian phalangite is believed to have been influenced by the 'peltast' developed by the Athenian general Iphicrates. The Iphicratean peltast was not a skirmisher but a form of light hoplite, characterised by using a longer spear and smaller shield. However, the introduction of the sarissa pike in conjunction with a smaller shield seem to have been innovations devised by Philip himself, or at the very least he produced the definitive synthesis of earlier developments. Diodorus claimed that Philip was inspired to make changes in the organisation of his Macedonian infantry from reading a passage in the writings of Homer describing a close-packed formation.

Imitating the Greek example of martial exercises and issuing of standard equipment for citizen soldiery, Philip II transformed the Macedonian army from a levied force of farmers into a well-trained fighting force. Foot Companions were levied from the peasantry of Macedon. Once levied they became professional soldiers. Discharge could only be granted by the King. Under Philip, the Foot Companions received no regular pay. This seems to have changed by Alexander's time as during the mutiny at Opis in 324 BC, the men were chastised by Alexander for having run up debts despite earning "good pay". Through extensive drilling and training, the Foot Companions were able to execute complex manoeuvres in absolute silence, an ability that was fascinating and unnerving to enemies.

These foot-soldiers fought in close-ranked rectangular or square formations, of which the smallest tactical unit was the 256 men strong syntagma or speira. This formation typically fought eight or sixteen men deep and in a frontage of thirty-two or sixteen men accordingly. Each file of 16 men, a lochos, was commanded by a lochagos who was in the front rank. Junior officers, one at the rear and one in the centre, were in place to steady the ranks and maintain the cohesion of the formation, similar to modern-day NCOs. The commander of the syntagma theoretically fought at the head of the extreme far-right file. According to Aelian, a syntagma was accompanied by five additional individuals to the rear: a herald (to act as a messenger), a trumpeter (to sound out commands), an ensign (to hold the unit's standard), an additional officer (called ouragos), and a servant. This array of both audial and visual communication methods helped to make sure that even in the dust and din of battle orders could still be received and given. Six syntagmata formed a taxis of 1,500 men commanded by a strategos, a variable number of taxeis formed a phalanx under a phalangiarch. On his Asian campaign, Alexander, had a phalanx of 6 veteran taxeis, numbering 9,000 men. Between Susa and India a seventh taxis was created. Antipater, as regent in Macedonia, was left with 8 taxeis of younger, less-experienced recruits.

Each phalangite carried as his primary weapon a sarissa, which was a type of pike. The length of these pikes was such that they had to be wielded with two hands in battle. The traditional Greek hoplite used his spear single-handed, as the large Argive or Argolic shield needed to be gripped by the left hand, therefore the Macedonian phalangite gained in both weapon reach and in the added force of a two handed thrust. At close range, such large weapons were of little use, but an intact phalanx could easily keep its enemies at a distance; the weapons of the first five rows of men all projected beyond the front of the formation, so that there were more spearpoints than available targets at any given time. The men of the rear ranks raised their sarissas so as to provide protection from aerial missiles. A phalangite also carried a sword as a secondary weapon for close quarter fighting should the phalanx disintegrate. The phalanx, however, was extremely vulnerable in the flanks and rear.

The phalangite was equipped with a shield, often called the 'Telamon shield', which was smaller and less deeply convex than the Agive shield employed by Greek hoplites (and probably the hypaspists). The extent to which phalangites were armoured is unclear, and may have changed over time. They were equipped with helmets and greaves, but do not appear to have worn the thorax at the time of Philip II, as this armour is not mentioned as forming part of the necessary equipment for sarissa-armed infantry. The thorax is, however, shown being worn by an infantryman on the Alexander Sarcophagus, however, this figure is equipped with an 'Argive' shield and may depict a hypaspist, rather than a phalangite. It is indicated in the Military Decree of Amphipolis that the phalangites wore the kotthybos, a form of defence of uncertain nature.

Alexander did not use the phalanx as the decisive arm in his battles, but instead used it to pin and demoralize the enemy while his heavy cavalry would charge selected opponents or exposed enemy unit flanks, usually after driving the enemy horse from the field. Polybius (18.31.5), emphasises that the phalanx required flat open places for its effective deployment, as broken country would hinder and break up its formation.

The phalanx carried with it a fairly minimal baggage train, with only one servant for every ten men. This gave it a marching speed that contemporary armies could not hope to match — on occasion forces surrendered to Alexander simply because they were not expecting him to show up for several more days. This was made possible thanks to the training Philip instilled in his army, which included regular forced marches.

Hypaspists
The Hypaspists (Hypaspistai) were the elite arm of the Macedonian infantry. The word 'hypaspists' translates into English as 'shield-bearers'. During a pitched battle, such as Gaugamela, they acted as guard for the right flank of the phalanx and as a flexible link between the phalanx and the Companion cavalry. They were used for a variety of irregular missions by Alexander, often in conjunction with the Agrianians (elite skirmishers), the Companions and select units of phalangites. They were prominent in accounts of Alexander's siege assaults in close proximity to Alexander himself. The Hypaspists were of privileged Macedonian blood and their senior chiliarchy (χιλιαρχία) formed the Agema foot bodyguard of Alexander III.

The organisation of the hypaspist regiment seems to have been into units of 500 (pentakosiarchies) before 331 and later, by 327, it was divided into three battalions (chiliarchies) of 1,000 men, which were then further sub-divided in a manner similar to the Foot Companions. Each battalion would be commanded by a chiliarch, with the regiment as a whole under the command of an archihypaspist.

In terms of weaponry, they were probably equipped in the style of a traditional Greek hoplite with a thrusting spear or doru (shorter and less unwieldy than the sarissa) and a large round shield. As well as this, they would have carried a sword, either a xiphos or a kopis. This would have made them far better suited to engagements where formations and cohesion had broken down, making them well suited to siege assaults and special missions. Their armour appears to have varied depending on the type of mission they were conducting. When taking part in rapid forced marches or combat in broken terrain, so common in the eastern Persian Empire, it appears that they wore little more than a helmet and a cloak (exomis) so as to enhance their stamina and mobility. However, when engaging in heavy hand-to-hand fighting, for instance during a siege or pitched battle, they would have worn body armour of either linen or bronze. This variety of armaments made them an extremely versatile force. Their numbers were kept at full strength, despite casualties, by continual replenishment through the transfer of veteran soldiers chosen from the phalanx.

A new term for hypaspistai emerged after the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC: the argyraspides ('silver shields'). The latter continued to serve after the reign of Alexander the Great and may have been of Asian origin. However, in regards to both the argyraspides and chalkaspides ('bronze shields'), Malcolm Errington asserts that "these titles were probably not functional, perhaps not even official." Sekunda states that Alexander's pike-wielding infantry numbered some 12,000 men, 3,000 of which were elite hypaspistai and 9,000 of which were pezhetairoi. However, in discussing the discrepancies among ancient historians about the size of Alexander the Great's army, N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank choose Diodorus Siculus' figure of 32,000 infantry as the most reliable, while disagreeing with his figure for cavalry at 4,500, asserting it was closer to 5,100 horsemen.

Greek hoplites
The army led by Alexander the Great into the Persian Empire included Greek heavy infantry in the form of allied contingents provided by the League of Corinth and hired mercenaries. These infantrymen would have been equipped as hoplites with the traditional hoplite panoply consisting of a thrusting spear (doru), bronze-faced Argive shield and body armour. In appearance, they would have been almost identical to the hypaspists. In battle, the Greek hoplites had a less active role than the Macedonian phalangites and hypaspists. At Gaugamela, the Greek infantry formed the defensive rear of the box formation Alexander arranged his army into, while the Macedonians formed its front face. Nevertheless, they performed a valuable function in facing down attempts by the Persian cavalry to surround the Macedonian army and helped deal with the breakthrough of some Persian horsemen who went on to attack the baggage.

Peltasts
The peltasts raised from the Agrianes, a Paeonian tribe, were the elite light infantry of the Macedonian army. They were often used to cover the right flank of the army in battle, being posted to the right of the Companion cavalry, a position of considerable honour. They were almost invariably part of any force on detached duty, especially missions requiring speed of movement. Other nationalities also provided peltasts for the Macedonian army. Especially numerous were the Thracians; the Thracian peltasts performed the same function in battle as the Agrianians, but for the left wing of the army. It is unclear if the Thracians, Paeonians, and Illyrians fighting as javelin throwers, slingers, and archers serving in Macedonian armies from the reign of Philip II onward were conscripted as allies via a treaty or were simply hired mercenaries.

Peltasts were armed with a number of javelins and a sword, carried a light shield but wore no armour, though they sometimes had helmets; they were adept at skirmishing and were often used to guard the flanks of more heavily equipped infantry. They usually adopted an open order when facing enemy heavy infantry. They could throw their javelins at will at the enemy and, unencumbered by armour or heavy shields, easily evade any counter-charges made by heavily equipped hoplites. They were, however, quite vulnerable to shock-capable cavalry and often operated to particular advantage on broken ground where cavalry was useless and heavy infantry found it difficult to maintain formation.

Archers
Philip II was also able to field archers, including mercenary Cretan archers and perhaps some native Macedonians. In most Greek states, archery was not greatly esteemed, nor practised by native soldiery, and foreign archers were often employed, such as the Scythians prominent in Athenian employ. However, Crete was notable for its very effective archers, whose services as mercenaries were in great demand throughout the Greek world. Cretan archers were famed for their powerful bows, firing arrows with large, heavy heads of cast bronze. They carried their arrows in a quiver with a protective flap over its opening. Cretan archers were unusual in carrying a shield, which was relatively small and faced in bronze. The carrying of shields indicates that the Cretans also had some ability in hand-to-hand fighting, an additional factor in their popularity as mercenaries. Archers were also raised from Macedonia and various Balkan peoples. Alexander inherited the use of Cretan archers from his father's reign, yet around this time a clear reference to the use of native Macedonian archers was made. After the Battle of Gaugamela, archers of West Asian backgrounds became commonplace and were organized into chiliarchies.

The use of Asiatic soldiers under Alexander the Great
According to Arrian, Alexander used Arachosian, Bactrian, Parapamisadaean, Sogdian, Indian, and Scythian troops. They were present at the grand army review Alexander assembled in 324 BC. Alexander was said to have been impressed by the drill of the 30,000 Persians who had been trained in the methods of the Macedonian phalanx. The army supposedly reached 120,000 front-line troops at one point. This did not include camp followers. There has been considerable debate as to when Alexander first used Orientals on active service with the army. During his campaign in Asia against the Persian Empire he formed a hipparchia (i.e. unit of a few hundred horsemen) of companion cavalry composed entirely of ethnic Persians. The introduction of Asiatic troops into the army was actively resented by many of the native Macedonians, especially when the cadre of young Persians from aristocratic families was trained in Macedonian fighting techniques and enrolled in the companion cavalry. Alexander's reaction was to make plans to rule Asia with a locally recruited army, but his death intervened before he could carry out this plan. His successors reversed his aim of diversifying the army and recruited Greeks and Macedonians almost exclusively.

Arms and armour
Philip II's phalangite infantry were equipped with a 'proto-Telamon shield' that already diverged from the Argive style shield featured in sculpted artwork of a Katerini tomb, dated perhaps to the reign of Amyntas III of Macedon. His early infantry were also equipped with protective helmets and greaves, as well as sarissa (pikes), yet according to Sekunda they were eventually equipped with heavier armour such as cuirasses, since the Third Philippic of Demosthenes in 341 BC described them as hoplites instead of lighter peltasts. As evidenced by the Alexander Sarcophagus, troops serving Alexander the Great were also armoured in the hoplite fashion. However, Errington argues that breastplates were not worn by the phalanx pikemen of either Philip II or Philip V's reign periods (during which sufficient evidence exists). Instead, he claims that breastplates were only worn by military officers, while pikemen wore the kotthybos along with their helmets and greaves, wielding a dagger as a secondary weapon along with their shields.

There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the different classes of Macedonian soldier trained to use a variety of arms and equipment. Certainly, cavalry, including Alexander himself, fought on foot during sieges and assaults on fortified settlements, phalangites are described using javelins and some infantrymen were trained to ride horses. The deployment of differing types of armour and weapons was dependent solely on the requirements of a particular tactical situation.

Weapons
Most troops would have carried a type of sword as a secondary weapon. The straight-bladed shortsword known as the xiphos (ξίφος) is depicted in works of art, and two types of single-edged cutting swords, the kopis and machaira, are shown in images and are mentioned in texts. An archaeological find of a well-preserved Macedonian xiphos revealed a sword with a blade length of 55 cm and a weight of 300 g. The cutting swords are particularly associated with cavalry use, especially by Xenophon, but pictorial representations would suggest that all three sword types were used by cavalry and infantry without obvious distinction.

Each Companion cavalryman was equipped with a 3 m double-ended spear with a cornel wood shaft called the xyston. The double spear points meant that, should the xyston break during a battle, the rider need only turn his weapon around to re-arm himself. The Thessalian and Greek cavalry would have been armed similarly to the Companions. The xyston was used to thrust either overarm or underarm with the elbow flexed. This is usefully illustrated in the Alexander Mosaic, King Alexander is shown thrusting with his xyston underarm, whilst immediately behind him a cavalryman is employing the overarm thrust. There is no evidence that the Macedonian cavalry ever used a two-handed grip on their lances, as did later Sarmatian and Roman lancers. The shaft of the xyston was tapered allowing the point of balance, and therefore the hand grip, to be approximately two thirds of the length of the spear away from the point.

The armament of the phalangites is described in the Military Decree of Amphipolis. It lists the fines imposed upon the soldiers who fail to maintain their armament or produce it upon demand. Offensive weapons were a pike (sarissa), and a short sword (machaira). The sarissa was over 6 m in length, with a counterweight and spiked end at the rear called a sauroter; it seems to have had an iron sleeve in the middle which may mean that it was in two pieces for the march with the sleeve joining the two sections before use. Like the xyston, the sarissa was greatly tapered towards the point. This, along with the sauroter, helped to make the point of balance as far towards the butt of the weapon as possible. It should be stressed that the archaeological discoveries show that the phalangites also used the two-edged sword (xiphos) as well as the traditional Greek hoplite spear (doru/δόρυ), which was much shorter than the sarissa. The sources also indicate that the phalangites were on occasion armed with javelins. The sarissa would have been useless in siege warfare and other combat situations requiring a less cumbersome weapon.

Hypaspists and allied and mercenary Greek heavy infantry were equipped as classic hoplites and would have employed the hoplite spear and a sword.

Light troops were provided by a number of subject and allied peoples. Various Balkan peoples, such as Agrianes, Paeonians and Thracians, provided either light infantry or cavalry or indeed both. Typical light infantry peltasts would be armed with a number of javelins. The individual javelin would have a throwing thong attached to the shaft behind its point of balance. The thong was wound around the shaft and hooked over one or two fingers. The thong made the javelin spin in flight, which improved accuracy, and the extra leverage increased the power of the throw and the range achievable.

Foot archers, notably mercenary Cretans, were also employed; Cretans were noted for the heavy, large-headed arrows they used. Light cavalry could use lighter types of lance, javelins and, in the case of Iranian horse archers, compact composite bows.

Helmets
Virtually all helmets in use in the Greek world of the period were constructed of bronze. One helmet prominent in contemporary images was in the form of a Phrygian cap, that is it had a high and forward-projecting apex, this type of helmet, also known as a "Thracian helmet", had a projecting peak above the eyes and usually had large cheek pieces which were often decorated with stylised beards in embossing. Late versions of the Chalcidian helmet were still in use; this helmet was a lightened form developed from the Corinthian helmet, it had a nasal protection and modest-sized cheek pieces. Other, more simple, helmets of the conical 'konos' or 'Pilos type', without cheek pieces, were also employed. These helmets were worn by the heavy infantry.

The Thracian helmet was worn by Macedonian cavalry in King Philip's day, but his son Alexander is said to have preferred the open-faced Boeotian helmet for his cavalry, as recommended by Xenophon. The royal burial in the Vergina Tomb contained a helmet which was a variation on the Thracian/Phrygian type, exceptionally made of iron, this would support its use by cavalry. Additionally, a fresco depicting a Macedonian mounted lancer spearing an infantryman, from the Kinch Tomb, near Naousa, shows the cavalryman wearing a Thracian type helmet. The Boeotian helmet, though it did not have cheek pieces, had a flaring rim which was folded into a complex shape offering considerable protection to the face. The Alexander Mosaic suggests that officers of the heavy cavalry had rank badges in the form of laurel wreaths (perhaps painted or constructed from metal foil) on their helmets.

The Alexander Sarcophagus shows Alexander the Great wearing an elaborate helmet in the form of the lion scalp of Herakles. Alexander's cousin Pyrrhus of Epirus is described as wearing a helmet with cheek pieces in the shape of ram's heads. Many examples of helmets from the period have crest or plume-holders attached, so that a high degree of martial finery could be achieved by the wearing of imposing headpieces.

Body armour

Body armour in the Macedonian army was derived from a repertoire found throughout the Greek-speaking world. The most common form of armour was the spolas or linothorax, which was a cuirass of stiff linen built up of glued or stitched layers of textile; though it is possible that linen was used as a facing material over leather. It was composed of the 'girdle' a tubular section, often of four vertical panels, that enclosed the torso. A shoulder-piece was attached to the upper rear section of the girdle, this element was split into two wings which were pulled forward over the top of each shoulder and laced to the chest-section of the girdle. Ancient representations show the shoulder pieces standing vertical when not laced down to the chest of the corselet. This suggests that the linothorax as a whole was very stiff and inflexible. Pteruges, strips of linen or leather, protected the upper arms and hips of the wearer. The linothorax could be reinforced with plate bronze or bronze scale elements. Defences of a similar appearance composed of quilted textile are also described.

Less common, due to its expense, was the muscle cuirass. This was a defence made entirely of plate bronze consisting of a breast and backplate, usually with shoulder pieces, modelled in relief on the form a muscular male torso. This was often given pteruges to extend the area of the body covered.

A complete cuirass of plate iron, decorated with gold and modelled on the form of the linothorax, was discovered in the Macedonian royal burial at Vergina, together with a plate iron gorget. This, alongside the evidence of the depiction of Alexander the Great in the Alexander Mosaic, shows that the technology to make plate armour in iron existed at this time. It is to be doubted that this type of armour was worn by persons other than of royal or very exalted rank. At the Battle of Granicus, Alexander the Great's cuirass was pierced at a joint, by a javelin. Such joints are found connecting the plates of the iron Vergina cuirass, suggesting that Alexander was wearing an armour of similar construction.

All of the above forms of armour could be described as thorakes (plural of thorax). Other forms of armour are mentioned in original sources, such as the kotthybos and a type of "half-armour" the hemithorakion (ἡμιθωράκιον); the precise nature of these defences is not known but it would be reasonable to conclude that they were lighter and perhaps afforded less protection than the thorax. However, it has been suggested that when the terms kotthybos, hemithorakion and thorax occur together, as in the Amphipolis regulation, then thorax may refer specifically to the bronze muscle cuirass. Within the phalanx the thorax and hemithorakion were reserved for hegemones, the officers. It has also been proposed that the kotthybos might refer to a form of linothorax. It is recorded that Alexander ordered the burning of old armours, which suggests that the armour in question was non-metallic.

Archaeological remains exist for only one type of limb armour: bronze greaves, which protected the lower leg. Greaves could be worn by both heavy infantry and heavy cavalry, but they are not in great evidence in contemporary depictions. However, greaves are mentioned in the Military Decree of Amphipolis and a pair of greaves, one shorter than the other, were found in the Vergina Tomb.

Xenophon mentions a type of armour called "the hand" to protect the left, bridle, arm of heavy cavalrymen, though there is no supporting evidence for its widespread use. It may have resembled the later manica armour used by Roman gladiators and cataphract cavalry.

Shields
The Macedonian phalangite shield, also termed the 'Telamon shield', was circular and displayed a slight convexity; its outer surface was faced by a thin bronze sheet. The inner face of the shield was of wood or a multilayered leather construction, with a band for the forearm fixed to the centre of the shield. Plutarch noted that the phalangites (phalanx soldiers) carried a small shield on their shoulder. This probably meant that, as both hands were needed to hold the sarissa, the shield was worn suspended by a shoulder strap and steadied by the left forearm passing through the armband. The left hand would project beyond the rim of the shield to grip the sarissa. Recent reconstructions of the sarissa and phalangite shield showed that the shoulder strap supporting the shield effectively helps to transfer some of the weight of the sarissa from the left arm to the shoulders when the sarissa is held horizontally in its fighting position. The Macedonian phalangite shield is described by Asclepiodotus (Tactica, 5) as being eight palms wide (equivalent to 62 cm) and "not too hollow". From pictorial sources, it is probable that the Hypaspists, elite members of the infantry, including the Agema of the King's personal foot guard, employed a shield of larger dimensions, the traditional Greek hoplite shield often called the aspis (ἀσπίς), though this was a general term for any shield, it is more properly referred to as the 'Argive shield'. This shield, also circular, was larger than the phalangite shield, it had sheet-bronze facing over a wooden base; it was held with the left forearm passing through a central armband with a hand-grip set just inside the rim. This shield was much more convex than the phalangite shield and had a projecting rim, both features precluding its use with a double handed pike. The style of shield used by cavalry, if any, is less clear; the heavy cavalry of Alexander's time did not employ shields.

Light infantry javelineers would have used a version of the pelte (Ancient Greek: πέλτη) shield, from whence their name, peltast, derived. This was a light shield made of leather-faced wicker. The shield was of Thracian origin and was originally crescent-shaped, however, by the time of Macedonian greatness many depictions of peltai show them as being oval or round.

Siege warfare
The Macedonians had developed their siege tactics under Philip. They had for the first time conducted successful sieges against strongly held and fortified positions. This was a dramatic shift from earlier warfare, where Greek armies had lacked the ability to conduct an effective assault. For instance, during the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans were never able to take Athens despite easily conquering her surrounding territory. For the task of breaching the walled fortifications of cities, Philip II hired engineers such as Polyidus of Thessaly and Diades of Pella, who were capable of building state of the art siege engines and artillery firing large bolts.

Artillery

The dramatic change in the abilities of Greeks to operate against fortifications owed much to the development of effective artillery. This had begun around 400 BC in Syracuse under Dionysius I. By Alexander’s time, torsion-powered artillery was in use. Torsion machines used skeins of sinew or hair rope, which were wound around a frame and twisted so as to power two bow arms; these could develop much greater force than earlier forms (such as the gastraphetes) reliant on the elastic properties of a bow-stave. Two forms of such ballista were used by the Macedonians: a smaller bolt-shooting type called the oxybeles and a larger stone-throwing machine called the lithobolos. The largest lithoboloi could fire stones up to 80 kg in weight. Such machines could shower the defenders of a city with missiles and create a breach in the walls themselves.

Alexander the Great appears to have been one of the first generals to employ artillery on the open field of battle, rather than in a siege. He used massed artillery to fire across a river at a Scythian army, causing it to vacate the opposite river bank, thus allowing the Macedonian troops to cross and form a bridgehead.

Other siege engines
In conjunction with various forms of artillery, the Macedonians possessed the ability to build an effective array of siege engines. Prominent in a number of sieges, including the epic Siege of Tyre (332 BC), were siege towers; these allowed men to approach and assault the enemy walls without being exposed to potentially withering missile fire. Equally, they meant that more men could be put on the walls in a shorter period of time, as simple ladders constrained the men attacking to moving up in single file, thus making the task of defending the walls far easier. These structures, which were wheeled and several stories high, were covered with wet hide or metal sheathing to protect from missile fire, especially incendiaries, and the largest might be equipped with artillery. The Macedonian army could also deploy various forms of suspended, metal-tipped, rams. Such rams were usually provided with a wheeled, roofed covering to protect their users from missile fire; they were employed to batter down gates or to dislodge masonry from walls and so cause a breach (this latter form was sometimes called a 'drill' rather than a ram).

Battle tactics
The Macedonian army was one of the first military forces to use 'combined arms tactics', using a variety of specialised troops to fulfill specific battlefield roles in order to form a greater whole. Although it did not succeed in every battle, the army of Philip II was able to successfully adopt the military tactics of its enemies, such as the embolon (i.e. 'flying wedge') formation of the Scythians. This offered cavalry far greater manoeuvrability and an edge in battle that previously did not exist in the Classical Greek world.

The tactics used by the Macedonian army throughout the various campaigns it fought were, of course, varied; usually in response to the nature of the enemy forces and their dispositions, and to the physical nature of the battlefield. However, there were a number of features of the tactics employed by the Macedonians in pitched battles which can be identified as being typical. These features were evident in the first major battle the army, newly trained up by Philip, fought in 358 BC and could still be discerned at Gaugamela in 331 BC.

The battle fought in 358 BC near Lake Ohrid was intended to free Macedon of the threat from Illyria and recover some western areas of Macedon from Illyrian control. The Illyrians, led by King Bardylis, were at a similar strength to the Macedonians at about 10,000–11,000 troops. Philip had 600 cavalry, the Illyrians were concerned about being outflanked by the Macedonian cavalry and formed up in a hollow square. Philip massed his cavalry on his right flank and arranged his army in echelon, with the left refused. As had been anticipated, the Illyrians stretched their formation in order to bring the Macedonian left wing into action. Philip waited until the inevitable gap appeared in the left of the Illyrian square, then threw his cavalry at the gap. The cavalry forced their way into the Illyrian ranks and were followed by elements of the phalanx. The Illyrians broke after a fierce struggle, and three-quarters of Bardylis' army were slaughtered. The oblique advance with the left refused, the careful manoeuvring to create disruption in the enemy formation and the knock out charge of the strong right wing, spearheaded by the Companion cavalry, became standard Macedonian practice.

Decline
Following the fragmentation of the empire of Alexander, Macedon became an independent kingdom once again. The military forces of this successor state, the Antigonid Macedonian army, retained many features of the armies of Philip and Alexander. The Hellenistic armies of the other Macedonian successor-states of the Diadochi period, which followed the death of Alexander, also displayed a continuation of earlier Macedonian equipment, organisation and tactics. Towards the end of the period, however, there was a general decline in the use of the combined arms approach, and the phalanx once more became the arm of decision. The phalangites were armed with longer pikes and as a result the phalanx itself became less mobile and adaptable than it had been in Alexander's era. Because all the competing Hellenistic armies were employing the same tactics, these weaknesses were not immediately apparent. However, the Hellenistic armies were eventually faced by forces from outside the successor kingdoms, such as the Roman and Parthian armies, composed of differing troop types using novel tactics. Against such foes the Hellenistic-era phalanx proved vulnerable. The phalanx finally met its end in the Ancient world when the more flexible Roman manipular tactics contributed to the defeat and partition of Macedon in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC.

Primary

 * Arrian,, translated by E.J. Chinnock (1893)
 * Arrian, trans Hammond, M. (2013) Alexander the Great: The Anabasis and the Indica, Oxford University Press.
 * Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica (Historical Library) Vol. XV–XVIII.
 * Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica (Historical Library) Vol. XV–XVIII.

Secondary

 * Anderson, J.K, (1961) Ancient Greek Horsemanship, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
 * Ashley, J.R. (2004) The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359–323 B.C. McFarland.
 * Bury, J.B., (1913) A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander. London.
 * Campbell, B. and Lawrence, A. (ed.s) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World, Oxford University Press.
 * Connolly, P. (1981) Greece and Rome at War. Macdonald Phoebus, London. ISBN 1-85367-303-X
 * Cummings, L.V., (2004) Alexander the Great. Grove Press.
 * Dabrowa, E (ed.) (2014) The Greek World in the 4th and 3rd Centuries BC: Electrum Vol. 19, Wydawnictwo. Published by Jagiellonian University, Cracow.
 * Ellis, J. R. (1986), Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism. Princeton University Press.
 * English, S. (2011) The Army of Alexander the Great, Pen & Sword Military, London.
 * Gaebel, R.E, (2004) Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, University of Oklahoma Press
 * Hammond, N.G.L (1998) "Arms and the King: The Insignia of Alexander the Great", Phoenix, Autumn, 1989, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 217–224, Classical Association of Canada
 * Green, P. (1992), Alexander of Macedon: 356–323 B.C. A Historical Biography, University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07166-2.
 * Hatzopoulos, M.B. and Juhel, P. (2009) Four Hellenistic Funerary Stelae from Gephyra, Macedonia, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 423–437, Archaeological Institute of America.
 * Heckel, W. and Jones, R. (2006) Macedonian Warrior Alexander's elite infantryman, Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84176-950-9
 * Lendon, J.E. (2006) Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity, Yale University Press.
 * Markle, M.M. (1982) Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great, Studies in the History of Art, Vol 10, Symposium Series I: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, pp. 86–111. National Gallery of Art.
 * Matthew, C. (2015) An Invincible Beast: Understanding the Hellenistic Pike Phalanx in Action, Pen and Sword.
 * Sandler, S. (2002) Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, Santa-Barbara ISBN 1-576-07344-0
 * Sekunda N. and McBride, A. (illustrator) (1986) The Ancient Greeks. Osprey Publishing.
 * Sidnell, P. (2006) Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare, Continuum, London.
 * Sekunda N. and McBride, A. (illustrator) (1986) The Ancient Greeks. Osprey Publishing.
 * Sidnell, P. (2006) Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare, Continuum, London.
 * Sidnell, P. (2006) Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare, Continuum, London.

title: Ancient Macedonian army


text: Talk:WAWV-TV

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

title: Talk:WAWV-TV


text:
Talk:WTHI-TV

Untitled
What about Harry Frey? He was Terre Haute's Walker Cronkite for decades.McTavidge (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WTHI-DT2
When did WTHI begin carrying the second digital channel, the subchannel that is going to be the Fox/MyNetworkTV affiliate? I'm creating an article, which won't be seen on the site until the switch occurs, and I have not found anything online about when WTHI 10.2 began. TVtonightOKC (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:WTHI-TV


text:
Talk:WTWO

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on WTWO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060427083156/http://www.wtwo.com:80/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=6099 to http://www.wtwo.com/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=6099

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:WTWO


text: Category:Adventure game stubs

title: Category:Adventure game stubs


text:
User talk:Tibetan Nikon Master

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

title: User talk:Tibetan Nikon Master


text:
User talk:Pacha Mortadimodu

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

title: User talk:Pacha Mortadimodu


text:
Talk:Positional plagiocephaly

I
I changed "aggressively rotating the baby's position" to "frequently changing the baby's position. I'm sure it was completely unintended, but I had images in my head of people violently twisting their baby's head back and forth. Unless the original term has some special medical meaning that I don't know about?
 * Thanks for the improved wording; I'm not aware of any special meaning. BTW, if you're knowledgeable in this area, we could use someone to scrub through the external links and trim it.  It's a long list for a short article.  Samw 00:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Positional plagiocephaly


text:
Talk:List of television stations in Indiana

Untitled
When buying a DTV antenna it is apparently valuable to know what stations broadcast UHF and VHF. Some antennae don't even receive VHF, according to online discussions. It would be nice if this list included the broadcast frequencies, at least of those that are not UHF, which is supposedly dominant. Nicmart (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


text: Template:NorthernIreland-stub

title: Template:NorthernIreland-stub


text:
Talk:List of television stations in Indiana (by channel number)

Verified against FCC list
I have finished verifying the information on this list against the FCC's list of television stations in Indiana. I have not include stations which do not appear to be on the air yet, at all. This includes two potential A1 stations in the Terre Haute market, two other stations in the Fort Wayne market, and several other frequency allocations with no television stations at all. To get a copy of this list, visit the TV Query page, select "IN - Indiana", "All Services", and "Submit Data" to see the list. AlexDW 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Updates needed
Perhaps because of its orphaned status this has occurred, but beside minor maintenance this list has fallen out-of-date. I think it's still stuck in the analog era; it also does not reflect Fox taking WTVW and WFFT-TV's affiliations away in a brief dispute with Nexstar Broadcasting, prompting Mission Broadcasting, effectively a puppet of Nexstar, to drop Fox on WFXW, making it ABC affiliate WAWV-TV (though at least the call sign was updated on the list). (Meanwhile, WTVW and WFFT are now left adrift as independent stations…) Needless to say it needs work… -- WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Oh yeah, there's also this that caught my eye: W04CQ can no longer carry All News Channel as that service is long, long, defunct… and it's now WAAA-LP channel 49 and moved from Chesterton to Westville. I know, our coverage of low-power stations can be lousy at times… but that is another example of how outdated this list has become… -- WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  02:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/AIDS myths and urban legends/archive1

I have just recently updated this article, and would like feedback/suitable modifications as to how it could be improved. --Grcampbell 18:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Hocevar

Sam Hocevar
Closed (57/6/11) 03:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC) - Sam has been contributing to the English Wikipedia since May 2004. In addition to his content contributions, he has fixed a very large number of spelling and grammatical errors in articles, amassing a total of 23,874 edits in article space. He seems a pleasant person with a good sense of humour to me, and obviously dedicated to this project. Furthermore, he already is an administrator in the French Wikipedia. I think we should make him administrator in the English Wikipedia too. --Sietse 18:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, I accept your nomination. Sam Hocevar 23:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support, reasons: see above. Sietse 18:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--Duk 18:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A fine wikipedian. It should also be noted that he has made scripts which are used by many people.  -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. An old hand. Should have been etc etc. JFW |  T@lk  23:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Andre ( talk ) 23:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Sam clearly knows the rules and should be a good admin, as he is on fr. Rje 00:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Yusss. Grutness...  wha?  02:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, does good work. K1Bond007 02:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The cliche holds. -- BD2412 talk 04:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. And so on and so forth -- Ryan Norton T 05:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I'm embarrassed at how many of my spelling mistakes that Sam has corrected. It must be in the hundreds. Sam is one of our most productive editors, and I'm sure that every tool we can give him will be well-used. -Willmcw 07:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I've only seen good edits from him. --Dave2 08:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. We need people such as Sam. - Darwinek 09:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - obvious choice. Proto t c 10:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Antoinou2958 11:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Agree with Carbonite on that one ;-) . This said, I am not sure I am even allowed to vote for him. Well, if not, I'll just vouch for his magnificent work on the French Wikipedia. notafish }<';> 11:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support =Nichalp «Talk»=  11:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. utcursch | talk 12:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, no doubts here. Intelligent, diligent, reasonable, and strange; good combination. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Cool. JuntungWu 15:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. --NormanEinstein
 * 24) Support. Also has a funny userpage! (You're the second Wikipedian to make me laugh because of it. ;)) --Andylkl (talk) 15:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support obviously. - ulayiti (talk)  17:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Jisha C J 19:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support can't support anymore, that's just too close a connection. I've never seen anything but good editing from you, but your response re GNAA is troubling. For someone with the best interests of the project in mind, what could you possibly find enjoyable about their actions? Feel free to answer in comments instead of here. - Taxman Talk 22:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I answered in the comments section. Sam Hocevar 17:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A man's word is his bond. 'nuff said. Hamster Sandwich 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Initially I hesitated to vote in this RFA, but have to admire the way in which Sam has responded to Brian0918's objections and wish him the best in his endeavor to persuade members of the GNAA to contribute, not vandalise.  Hall Monitor 23:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--MONGO 01:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support – Sarge Baldy 02:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Stewart Adcock 10:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support totally.  Grue  11:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support nobs 17:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - so long as xe's aware of community concern with the GNAA, and mindful of dealing with it, there should be no problem at all. An exemplary record, IMHO.  Slac  speak up!  21:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I see Sam on my watchlist now and again, and he's always fixing something. His ties to the GNAA don't bother me in the least, nor should they bother anyone else, really. Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Fred-Chess 11:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Don't let him get away!! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Are you serious?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) SUPPPORT and yes, I spelled it with three p's again. D. J. Bracey (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 15:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) El_C 17:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. His tons of edits show that he's very dedicated to this project.  Regarding the RfC - it was last year.  He's made over 24,000 edits; don't judge him based on one thing that he did almost a year ago. --Idont Havaname 20:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support this character. Denelson83 20:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. --Mattb90 00:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong Support I've seen him around, fixing the spelling in my articles. Tony the Marine 02:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Support— I think that he would make a very good administrator.  Journalist C./ Holla @ me!
 * 21) Given my micro-hagiography of him on my user page, I can but strongly support. Alai 16:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong Support — he'd make a great admin. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. I've only seen him make good edits, and I'll support in light of his reasonable responses to the objections listed below.  --Alan Au 08:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Already an admin on fr:, which sort of invalidates most of the gloomy arguments against him; recipient of the Nemo of honour, which hopefully indicates that he is helpful. Rama 09:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. I definitely trust the guy for this kind of job and not cause he's also on fr:. (:Julien:) 09:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. --FoeNyx 10:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - based on his track record on enwiki I sincerely believe he would not abuse a position of privilege. silsor 00:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * For those taking cracks at me below, this is known as a "conciliatory gesture". silsor 02:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will politely mantain my position on the matter. --Sn0wflake 11:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Excellent work, and a cool temper. +sj +  18:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Hipocrite 19:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. *drew 23:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - Accuse me of stereotyping if you must, but I feel that his links with the GNAA are of some concern. While I almost hate to suggest it; he could be open to peer pressure from the group once he's "in", so to speak. This is not a personal attack; this is me stating that I'm concerned. Even the nicest people can sometimes succumb to peer pressure. Rob Church Talk 03:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Friend of trolls, admits to trolling (I find goatse a lot less shocking than many other subjects; from a purely sociological point of view it's interesting to see reactions) per User:Silsor/Sam Hocevar. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Silsor's IRC logs, coupled with Sam's longtime insistence on having an unlabeled goatse link on his userpage, do not inspire confidence. — Dan | Talk 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel rather uneasy that your trust (or lack thereof) is based on 9-month old, carefully chosen IRC logs by an individual with whom I have been in conflict, who deliberately omitted to quote my attempts at calming down everything, and who has been making personal attacks towards me even since I chose to ignore him. Sam Hocevar 21:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I don't like judging people based on their friends, but for the best of the community, I might have to. How easy it would be for GNAA to peer pressure their admin friend into trolling.  Acetic Acid  ( talk ) 13:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, not big on the GNAA stuff. --fvw *  14:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I believe this user is too quick to side with blocked users, and after a lengthy and unpleasant experience with another user who became an admin and then unblocked essentially all users blocked based on admin judgement, I feel I must oppose. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) His relationship with vandals from the GNAA worries me. Even so, I've vowed never to vote oppose, so I'm stuck with neutral. I won't be reading this page, so feel free to spin away. — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-24 21:31
 * Comment: I think I should make my position very clear on this. It is true that have friendly relationships with a few GNAA members, and I do enjoy some of the actions of that group, but I also condemn (and have done so publicly) other actions by them, and that includes Wikipedia vandalism. Trying to convince GNAA members of doing legit contributions to Wikipedia is not an easy task, but I think I am doing a pretty good job (as anyone can witness on their IRC channel). Of course, a few cases are probably hopeless, and I absolutely do not object to their being banned. As for me personally, I hope my involvement so far with Wikipedia and with the Fundation leaves little doubt as to my commitment to the goals of this project. Sam Hocevar 06:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'd love to support, but I'm stuck 'cause of GNAA. There's a warning bell going off in a small part of my head, and even though I'm sure there will be no problems, I can't vote support at this time. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 03:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Does good work generally, but set up a fake RFC on me with a troll (fake as in appearing real, but really made just to troll me).  I don't know whether he'd abuse it or not, so neutral . silsor 16:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * See also User talk:Silsor/Sam Hocevar for Sam's response to this page. Sietse 08:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: the RfC was not a fake. A user was blocked because of the comment shown here and I thought it was unfair. Please see Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute on User:Silsor/Sam_Hocevar/RFC for what happened afterwards. Having been ignored so rudely for such a long time, I did not know what to do, and I was told on the Village Pump that an RfC was the way to resolve the issue. Also note that at that time (it was ten months ago) I was mostly familiar with the procedure on fr</tt> and I did not know much about RfCs on <tt>en</tt>.
 * Also, my calling of the whole situation (and not just the RfC) a troll was taken out of context (just like most of the IRC quotes that silsor chose) and was a comment of silsor’s attempts to avoid answering by every possible means. Also, see User talk:Silsor/Sam Hocevar for my answer, and the main page’s history where silsor endlessly removes my comments.
 * I then just chose to avoid situations where I would have to interact with silsor. On Christmas 2004 he unblocked GNAA Popeye with a quite friendly message and I thought everything was forgotten, but he recently publicly accused me of cheating on the Wikipedia chess championship and I have since then lost all hopes of reconciliation without further efforts on his side. Sam Hocevar 09:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Taken out of context" - I would very much like you to say, for everybody to see, what the correct context for calling the RFC a troll was. I also would like to call you on an untruth in saying that I "chose" the quotes from my logs (I omitted nothing that I observed), a half-truth on saying that I endlessly removed your commentary from my user page (in fact I endlessly moved it to a talk page), and another half-truth in saying I "accused you of cheating" (full truth available at the bottom of this page).  With regards to the original dispute and subsequent RFC/IRC logs, I think the facts speak for themselves. silsor 17:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, you are just playing on words. My use of the word "troll" in that context was not very clever, but I really didn’t know how to call the situation. If it was really a "troll", you would have found dozens of occurrences of me using that word. You used it as the sole reason for further ignoring my questions and Paul’s, and made it look like an attack directed towards Wikipedia while it was just a feud between you and me. Also, you did not only "endlessly move it to a talk page", you also reverted all my attempts at adding a notice that the talk page contained my answers. And you have so far not explained which context justifies <tt><silsor> hah, Hocevar is probably playing you against gnuchess or something</tt>, or insulting me on various talk pages I am not watching. If you really thought I was a threat to Wikipedia you would have taken proper action (you certainly know about blocks, RfCs, an RfArs) to prevent me from doing anything bad; instead of that, you just try to ruin the positive collaborations I am having with people. So please, go away from my personal space. Bug off. I have taken great care not to step on your toes for months, yet you haven’t stopped with the personal attacks. Go spoil someone else’s motivation. Sam Hocevar 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Meets my guidelines. Thought he was one until I saw his username atop the list of non-admins with many edits.  Vote changed to Neutral pending an explanation of the events brought up by Silsor. Not that there's a whole lot of difference between Neutral and Abstain, but I'll change my vote anyway. Based on some odd behavior displayed here, I will just sit this one out.  android  79  01:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I have to confess that I am concerned here. Obviously, a lot of great spelling/syntax work, (which, based on edit times, I suspect may be at least partially script-assisted), but Sam's connections to (and perhaps even admiration of) the GNAA seem quite real, and a number of his non-spelling related edits are worrisome, such as where he reverted Natalinasmpf here, and where he had this link to a "furry" image on his user page, (indeed, he has place a number of not-clearly-marked links within pages in his own namespace that don't seem entirely appropriate to me, even if he was demonstrating what he called a "proof of concept"). I also don't see many edits in the Wikipedia namespace, outside of things like Chess championship. In short, I'm not sure that he has what I think of as the appropriate qualifications for adminship on .en. Func( t, c, @,) 17:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Duh, I don’t know why you find my reversion of Natalinasmpf "worrysome": click on my immediate next edit, I removed the foul language as an attempt to clean up the page (the font was rather big but there wasn’t anything really serious with the CSS on my browser). Theresa then told me she’d rather do it the other way, and I didn’t object; finding anything worrysome in my behaviour here would require some explanation, please. As for the "proof of concept", it now links to oralse.cx and though it is indeed quite "furry", there is nothing terribily inappropriate there. Finally, at the time it was linked from my userpage, the hello.jpg image was safe for work (except for silsor, but then I have already stated I wasn’t proud of how I dealt with that specific issue; not that he didn’t have his part of responsibility in the fight).
 * About the repartition of my edits, you are absolutely right. Well, I cannot (and do not wish to) be everywhere, but I do have edits in the Talk and Wikipedia namespaces, they just look scarce because of what I mostly do. Note however that, as stated below, they are totally compatible with the sysop chores I expect to help with. Sam Hocevar 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I am extremely uncomfortable about supporting the adminship of someone with such a close connection to the GNAA. Additionally, if the examples Silsor cites had been more recent, this would be a strong oppose vote, because trolling is completely unacceptable for someone who represents Wikipedia as a sysop.  However, ten months is a relatively long time (on the internet at least), so I'm neutral. --Scimitar parley 15:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) per abbove. Derktar 15:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC).
 * 3) Neutral, any link to GNAA at all worries me.  ral  315  05:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I'd prefer candidates to have 24,000 article space edits, but I guess I can make an exception here. ;) Carbonite | Talk 11:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Neutral. I can't support due to the GNAA links. Carbonite | Talk 13:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Swithced to Neutral. It looks like you'll be fine without my support anyway. - Taxman Talk 20:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, I have been seeing positive contributions from this editor for a long time, and it is of my belief that he will make good use of sysop rights. However, his links to the GNAA do not please me much. I am assuming, though, that this will never come into the way of his judgment, thus I vote Support. --Sn0wflake 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Abstain, but I will be clear in stating that it has been made clear to all that User:Silsor is the troll himself here. The information he brought to this request for adminship should be ultimately regarded as flamebait. Thus, for all purposes, I abstain not out of trust for Hocevar, whom has been upfront about the issue and has proven to have essentialy positive intentions, but as a partial crictic to his connections to the GNAA. Said group, despite whatever relative merits might have in Hocevar's view, have been known Wikipedia trolls. I hope this nomination passes - as it surely will - and that Hocevar joins the Wikipedia team of admins, as it is only fair. --Sn0wflake 00:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Edit count: see here. Sietse 18:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: Could you describe what you would take into account when closing a VfD? Hipocrite 13:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a complex question, I am afraid I am having trouble answering it. See below for what I think represents consensus. Amongst the other things, I try to give "Merge" votes the attention that I feel they often lack. They mean "get rid of the article, but not of the content" and if consensus is reached when adding them to the "Delete" total, I usually merge. But then, not always. Honestly, my answer can only be vague, because so many VfDs look like special cases. I just try to be reasonable. Sam Hocevar 23:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Question I would like to know, what percentage specifically (within 5%) would you consider to be consensus when closing a VfD or related function? Hamster Sandwich 20:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to be rather conservative and usually expect a two-thirds majority for a change to happen. Well, at least I consider that to be conservative. Sam Hocevar 22:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats the right answer! Give him a cigar! And a mop! Hamster Sandwich 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Answer to Taxman’s concerns: I find most of their press releases very enjoyable, and a few of them absolutely hilarious (the Debian, Matroska and GNAA/Hard ones, for instance). Parts of the humour reminds me of Adequacy.org, and I cannot help laughing when I read things like Our private beta now loads the system BIOS, then displays "Hello World" in rainbow colors. Our codebase at this point is now roughly 500% more mature than GNU/Hurd." or The Debian project was started in 1993 by Ian Murdock, who was unsatisfied with the level of political bickering and useless hand-wringing found in other projects at the time. Their crusade against Slashdot also amuses me, I have not much compassion for a website that encourages groupthink by automatically blocking users who get modded down. I also liked their P2P hoaxes (getting thousands of people to download gigabytes of Goatse or GNFOS) and a few of their prank calls. As for the things I do not like, that would be most of the threatening phone calls, and the destructive vandalism in general. Sam Hocevar 14:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I would probably be doing what I have also been doing on fr for eight months: RC patrolling and dealing with vandalism, but my everyday contributions would probably be mostly janitorial duties (moving images to commons, fixing double redirects). Also, it might be a minor thing, but my searches for spelling mistakes occasionally lead me to protected pages and asking a sysop to do such minor edits is quite a waste of time.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am very satisfied with the minor spelling and grammar fixes I am doing here and there, because I feel they improve the overall quality of the articles.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I had a very long argument with silsor about a user block that I thought was unfair. I am definitely not happy with how I dealt with it (it became more of a personal fight), but everyone eventually calmed down and the user was unblocked. That was 9 months ago. A similar scenario recently happened with Brian0918, but I just gave up, not wanting to get into another fight, and the user is probably still blocked. From an editor point of view I think I usually try to reach consensus, and I never took part in intense edit wars.


text:
Shipley Do-Nuts

Shipley Do-Nuts (colloquially known as Shipley's) is an American doughnut company and coffeehouse chain with more than 300 franchised stores in the Southern United States, including Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Colorado. Its headquarters are located in Northside, Houston, Texas.

History
Shipley Do-Nuts began in 1936 by Lawrence Shipley. When Shipley first created his recipe, his doughnuts were cut by hand, served warm during the day, and sold for US$0.05 1936 per dozen. Shipley and his family worked at their original bakery on 1417 Crockett Street in Houston, Texas. Shipley's goal was to continue selling hot doughnuts to customers. He said, "When they bite into that hot doughnut, it will bring them back every time".

Lawrence Shipley Jr. took over the business, and later still, Lawrence W. Shipley III became the president of the company. Today, the chain's headquarters remain in Houston, Texas, on 5200 North Main.

Growth
Shipley Do-Nuts began a phase of rapid expansion. Shipley Do-Nuts' locations are based primarily in the Southern United States, but their imprint has been shifting further out. In 2017 the company debuted stores in Florida, Colorado and Oklahoma. In Florida, the first location opened in Bradenton. That year, they also opened the first Colorado location in Aurora in the Denver area. The second Colorado location opened in 2019 in Fountain in the Colorado Springs area.

Logo
The current company logo is derived from the original store's sign that consisted of a large, circular doughnut figure to inform customers they sold doughnuts. Since the original store began, the doughnut-shaped logo has been updated various time, but constantly kept the same theme. In its different updates, elements such as font, brightness, shading and sizing have been slightly changed overtime. In the mid-2010s, the company attempted to implement an alternate logo, but it was short-lived.

Affiliations

Shipley Do-Nuts has sponsored and maintained affiliations with the Houston Astros and University of Houston.

Notable endorsements

 * Earl Campbell
 * Kylie Jenner
 * Lizzo
 * Travis Scott

Community involvement
The company has partnered with the Salvation Army to use a portion of sales on National Doughnut Day for charity. Shipley Do-Nuts hosted an annual Shipley Do-Nut Dash fun run to benefit the Kids’ Meals Houston charity. The event raised funds to end hunger among pre-schoolers living in poverty in Houston and the surrounding area.

2015 pregnancy discrimination lawsuit
In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charged a Shipley Do-Nuts franchisee for violating federal anti-discrimination laws when it forced an employee to take unpaid leave. The franchise owner/general manager prohibited the employee from working at the doughnut shop unless she provided documentation from a doctor that her pregnancy was not "high-risk". When the employee was unable to provide formal evidence of the doctor's release, she was fired, in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On 16 November 2015, a federal judge signed the consent decree that settled the suit which provided non-monetary relief.

2017 overtime lawsuit
In April 2017, a lawsuit was filed against Shipley Do-Nuts contending that their employees were not getting overtime pay that they earned. The suit alleged that "All plaintiffs regularly worked over forty hours per week...Shipley's knew or reasonably should have known that plaintiffs worked in excess of forty hours per workweek." One employee, Juan Sanchez, claimed that he "put in 40–60 hours in a week with minimal breaks". However, he believed that Shipley Do-Nuts disregarded the overage and paid him for only 40 hours of work. The suit included claims that Shipley Do-Nuts did not maintain accurate records, failed to pay workers minimum wage, and did not pay overtime. Shipley Do-Nuts stated, "The claims by the former employees named in the lawsuit are unfounded, completely without merit and no more than a retaliation lawsuit against Shipley Do-Nuts and Lawrence Shipley III for their recent termination."

Legacy
In 2018 Houston artist Donkee Boy created a Shipley Do-Nuts mural in a location along the Katy Freeway.

title: Shipley Do-Nuts


text:
Do It All Night (Prince song)

"Do It All Night" was the lead single in the UK to support Prince's third album, Dirty Mind. The song is an ode to sex, and Prince exclaims that he wants to do it all night. The song opens with a simple keyboard hook before a prominent bass guitar kicks in, along with rhythm guitar and live drums. The song consists of two verses and several repeats of the chorus. Also featured is a keyboard solo in the bridge. The song opened Prince's Dirty Mind tour. The B-side of the track was the controversial Dirty Mind ode to oral sex, "Head".

Personnel
Credits from Benoît Clerc and Guitarcloud.

 * Prince – lead and backing vocals, Yamaha CP-70 electric grand piano, ARP Omni, Oberheim OB-X, electric guitar, bass guitar, drums

title: Do It All Night (Prince song)


text:
Talk:Bob & Tom Show

Untitled
Friends of the Show could use some organization by type--comedians, sports figures, rock musicians, actors

title: Talk:Bob & Tom Show


text:
Talk:Nightmare (disambiguation)

1. I don't see the need to emphasis Frankenstein over any other entry. 2. I also don't see the point of adding books with "nightmare" in the name - this is a list of things people are likely to be searching for when typing "nightmare" into a search box, or linking to "nightmare" from an article. Are people searching for those books on wikipedia, and if so, do they really not know the titles? BTW - do they have articles on wikipedia? If they aren't worthy of an article, it shouldn't be listed here. 3. Hugely popular? The poularity of the song should be discussed in the article. The description is really just to get people to the right article. Denaar 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion). See Wikipedia:List guideline for more on lists. - From the guidelines on Disambiguation pages, I'm paring this one down. Denaar 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nightmare (disambiguation)


text:
The Best of Siouxsie and the Banshees

Universal Music Group released The Best of Siouxsie and the Banshees in 2002 as the first reissue of the Siouxsie and the Banshees remastered back-catalogue. The most successful singles of the band were presented in a non-chronological order.

Content
This best-of includes an unreleased track "Dizzy" (re-edited), only available on this CD; it was recorded in late 1994. The original version of "Dizzy" was included on a one track CD sold at the Seven Year Itch concerts of 2002. "Dizzy" would later feature in the 2006 film Notes on a Scandal.

The Best of also includes for the first time the complete version of "This Wheel's on Fire" with no fade out in the end. Also, the Mark Saunders mix of "Stargazer" was used instead of the original album version. All except for two of the tracks had previously been included on Once Upon a Time/The Singles and Twice Upon a Time – The Singles, although there were some minor differences in song versions on this collection.

The double CD edition also contains many remixes and an unreleased extended version of a non-album single from 1987, "Song from the Edge of the World". The bonus DVD includes music videos for all the featured songs on the main disc excluding "Dizzy".

Release and reception
The Best of Siouxsie and the Banshees was released on 12 November 2002. It was issued in three editions; single disc, double CD and Sound & Vision double CD + DVD (the latter version was released in 2004 and re-issued on 1 October 2007).

Singer Spoek Mathambo selected the compilation in his 12 "favourite albums", explaining he discovered it during his formative years. "My friend gave me the Best Of album, and through college I just listened to it a lot: 'Israel', 'Dear Prudence', 'Hong Kong Garden', 'Peek-a-Boo'. [...] Siouxsie, for me, was very easy to listen to. Plus, the songs are super hooky".

When reviewing the compilation, Billboard talked about an "adventurous, sumptuous, and contagious pop".

Track listing

 * Disc one
 * 1) "Dear Prudence" (1983)
 * 2) "Hong Kong Garden" (1978)
 * 3) "Cities in Dust" (1985)
 * 4) "Peek-a-Boo" (1988)
 * 5) "Happy House" (1980)
 * 6) "Kiss Them for Me" (1991)
 * 7) "Face to Face" (1992)
 * 8) "Dizzy" (1995, previously unreleased)
 * 9) "Israel" (1980)
 * 10) "Christine" (1980)
 * 11) "Spellbound" (1981)
 * 12) "Stargazer" (1995)
 * 13) "Arabian Knights" (1981)
 * 14) "The Killing Jar" (1988)
 * 15) "This Wheel's on Fire" (1987)

 * Disc two
 * 1) "Spellbound" (extended 12" #2 version)
 * 2) "Song from the Edge of the World" (Columbus mix)
 * 3) "Kiss Them for Me" (Kathak #2 mix)
 * 4) "Peek-a-Boo" (Silver Dollar mix)
 * 5) "The Killing Jar" (Lepidopteristic mix)
 * 6) "Cities in Dust" (Eruption mix)
 * 7) "Dazzle" (Glamour mix)
 * 8) "Stargazer" (Mambo Sun remix)
 * 9) "Face to Face" (Catatonic mix)

A 2 cd + 1 dvd Deluxe : sound & vision edition was released in June 2004 in a long box. It was re-issued in a digipack format in October 2007.
 * DVD
 * 1) "Dear Prudence"
 * 2) "Hong Kong Garden"
 * 3) "Cities in Dust"
 * 4) "Peek-a-Boo"
 * 5) "Happy House"
 * 6) "Kiss Them for Me"
 * 7) "Face to Face"
 * 8) "Israel"
 * 9) "Christine"
 * 10) "Spellbound"
 * 11) "Stargazer"
 * 12) "Arabian Knights"
 * 13) "The Killing Jar"
 * 14) "This Wheel's on Fire"

title: The Best of Siouxsie and the Banshees