text:
Talk:CCH Pounder

Untitled
Mel -- I know using the periods/full stops in her name may be more traditional (and tidier in lists and such), but the actress uses "CCH" without stops as her professional name, as described in the first sentence. I think the article should be moved back, leaving the redirect at "C.C.H." -- what's your opinion? — Catherine\talk 17:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would love it if wp would use the proper capitalization, punctuation, etc. (which I will here call 'orthography') in all situations. However, years ago, the result of this discussion was that wp would use a canonical (standard) orthography. This has some advantages (standardization of indexing and searching, ease of use by bots and user macros) and some disadvantages (like this case, where it is just plain wrong). Catherine is obviously correct: the redirection should be interchanged. But in the interests of peace and the success of wp, I would suggest that we leave it the way it is. I'm glad I don't have to vote on this! David Spector (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo
Can anyone suupply a photograph that actually shows what she looks like? I mean, the current photo's very atmospheric and all that, but it could be of anyone. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * In the current photo, whos the guy on the right? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nickname
Should this article mention her fan nickname, "Quarter Pounder with CCH?" NEMT 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Her name
How is she addressed in casual conversation? CCH? Carol? NorthernThunder 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pounder Rito Revolto 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

She is addressed casually by colleagues as CC, and by Family as carol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.158.20 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Has she explained why she styles herself like that ? -- Beardo (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dysantic, 6 April 2010
Please revert this article to perhaps the "15:06, 2 April 2010" backup. It has been semi-protected, yet it is still fairly vandalized. A diff between the two will highlight the vandalism.

Thank you.

Dysantic (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 * ✅ thank you for pointing that out.  Kindly  Calmer   Waters  03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorate
On October 15th, 2011, C.C.H. Pounder received an Honorary Doctorate from Ithaca College. Not sure where to include this in her page, but it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.106.85 (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

C. C. H. Pounder → CCH Pounder – I am gobsmacked that this request is even necessary, but talk page discussions (here) are at a standstill. I made a move, pursuant to an OTRS request, and after confirming that the proposed name was in compliance with our guideline WP:SPACEINITS. I am aware that we generally prefer full stops in name, but there is an exception in case An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person. I checked the first 30 entries in a Google search and only one (other than the Wikipedia entry) used C.C.H. Pounder. The rest used CCH Pounder. I also note that her name appears in 123 articles as CCH Pounder: I won't list all 123
 * NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series
 * Black Reel Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress, TV Movie or Limited Series
 * Redemption: The Stan Tookie Williams Story
 * The Shield
 * Bagdad Café

Only one of those articles: uses C.C.H. Pounder.
 * Birdland (TV series)

I made the move, reverted without initiating a discussion, and has declined to revert the error, despite extensive explanation.

I also request a trout for Robsinden for wasting your time S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment You say that only one article uses "C.C.H. Pounder", but that is the unspaced version. The article's current title and the MOS-recommended style uses spaces between initials, i.e. "C. C. H. Pounder". Additionally, more than just Birdland (TV series) uses the unspaced "C.C.H. Pounder" (such as L.A. Law, The Practice, Benny & Joon. etc.). How did you conclude that it was only the Birdland article that did? —  Crumpled Fire   • contribs • 06:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A simple check of "What links here" shows that the nom is incorrect in this claim. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a search of articles for "CCH Pounder" which will return that phrase, as well as "C.C.H. Pounder". That search returned 124 items of which only Birdland produced the second option. Including the spaces does provide hits for "C. C. H. Pounder".-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Best to stick with our house style for this unless there is a source where she discusses that this is her preferred style.  Usage of of the non-spaced, non-punctuated version, although extremely common, is not ubiquitous, see these from reputable sources such as  Chicago Tribune, NPR and the BFI, who are also all clearly using their house style.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, in addition to the sources I mention, I'm 100% convinced that if you look at the end credits of films she has appeared in, you will see a mixture of styles used to render the name. I believe Sight & Sound duplicate credits directly, see this one as an example.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rob Sinden that we should follow house style, which is why I proposed the move. The "house style" is a full name, but provides exceptions in the case that initials are common. It then discusses whether,in those cases, to use full stops or not. It specifically identifies examples such as "CC Sabathia". That style is appropriate if used by "overwhelming majority of reliable sources". Rob Sinden concedes it is "extremely common", but then claims it is "not ubiquitous". However, "ubiquitous" is nowhere mentioned in the guideline. Which means, of course, that Rob Sinden's argument is essentially a "support" even those the initial word was "oppose".-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're WP:WIKILAWYERING now. It's clear that our "house style" is to include a full stop and a space after each initial, unless we make the exceptions as stated the guideline WP:SPACEINITS.  I !vote not to make the exception.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate the name-calling. Please stick to policy based arguments, rather than mudslinging. House style is decribed by the guideline, which prefers full names, while allowing for initials when those are common. In the case of initials, it prefers full stops, except when the lack of full stops is the "overwhelming majority". In other words, our guideline supports my move. Your opposition is based upon your misreading of the guideline, inventing standards such as "ubiquitous". I vote to follow the guideline, not your misreading of it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't think that trying to turn my "Oppose" to a "Support" on what I may or may not mean by "house style" is Wikilawyering? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be good for other readers to read the guideline and see how it applies. I think of Wikilawyering as trying to reach a conclusion opposite to the sensible one by torturing what sometimes is inartful language of the guideline or policy. That isn't happening in this case. Most places call her CCH Pounder. Our guideline states this is acceptable. Let's do the right thing.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A reminder that WP:CONSISTENCY for article titles is policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose per . People's intials are almost always put with periods per our house style. It also aids WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, since without the periods it does not look like a person's name. — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I get that this is going against the wishes of the subject, and that may be the consensus, but I cannot let arguments like this go unchallenged. Of course "People's intials are almost always put with periods" for the simple fact that most people who use initials in their name use periods. Very few do not, and per policy, if An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person  then we follow that usage.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * but what are you calling a reliable source for this purpose? As Rob Sinden already mentioned above, the Chicago Tribune has used periods before. A search across the NY Times shows that they most often use either "C. C. H." or "C C H" in their articles. It's true that a raw Google search shows "CCH" more than other forms, but that's mainly bringing back IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes type results, which aren't as high quality as the NY Times. I will concede that this is a borderline case. I think there is a predominance for the proposed form, but I personally don't think it reaches the level of "overwhelming majority", particularly given that not everyone will recognise the name anyway. When I first saw this I though maybe it was some kind of hamburger, like a Quarter Pounder or whatever. It's not obvious it's a person unless you initialise it. — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY and MOS:BIO, unless and until such time as we have a reliable source (e.g. a mainstream-published interview) with her stating explicitly a preference for the exact formulation "CCH Pounder". We have the equivalent for k.d. lang (not "K. D. Lang"), but the opposite of the commonly expected case was true for E. E. Cummings (not "e.e. cummings" despite his publisher loving his broken-typewriter thing as marketing gimmick). We can make exceptions but only when there's a really good reason to do so. The fact that the general RS are not consistent in treatment of Pounder's name rules out any application of "the Deadmau5 rule" (i.e., use a divergent stylization if nearly all RS use it). The very first page of Google Books results turns up plenty of cases of "C. C. H. Pounder" (or "C.C.H. Pounder", depending on house style of the publication in question) .  Similarly, if you do a search, you can find cases of "JRR Tolkien".  It doesn't mean a thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You indicated that you would be persuaded by a reliable source expressing a preference. This is an article written by her using that style thoughts unstrung.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Using that style" isn't the same thing and stating a clear preference for it. We have no idea if Huffington Post 's editorial staff formatted it that way themselves; such publications impose their own house style on submissions.  And a habit and a strong preference are not the same thing, anyway. I habitually write my initials as "S.McC.", but if a publisher changed it to "S. M." I would not object because I really don't care.  We have no evidence that Pounder cares, and clear evidence that RS usage referring to her is mixed, so we have no rationale for a page move against MoS style.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Requested move 20 February 2018

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

The result of the move request was: moved to CCH Pounder per the twitter post (literally) spelling it out. The strongest opposition said this would be the only condition they would accept for moving, which swings the favour strongly to the support side. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

C. C. H. Pounder → CCH Pounder – It's been over a year and a half since the last request. Per WP:SPACEINITS, if "an overwhelming majority of reliable sources" use the "CCH Pounder" version instead of the "C. C. H. Pounder" (or "C.C.H. Pounder") version, that's the version that should be used. As indicated in the previous discussion (a few sections up) and per a recent Google search of news sources, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources (well over 95% of those I checked) use the "CCH Pounder" version.

The previous arguments that we should use our "house style" and waiting for her to express a personal preference for "CCH" over "C.C.H." or "C. C. H." fail to take into account that verifiability is a policy and our manual of style pages are only guidelines. When the overwhelming majority of reliable sources clearly show "CCH" over any other variant, we must follow policy over our house style guideline. Policy always trumps guidelines.

Please express your opinion below, followed by any support for your position. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A few sections up I see a 1.5 year old discussion which was closed in favor of not moving. While consensus can change, changes to consensus generally require new evidence.  What new evidence do you have from the past 1.5 years that would cause the above people to change their minds and now decide this is worth moving?  -- Jayron 32 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion from 1.5 years ago (it's just a few sections up from this one) failed to take into account that policy trumps guidelines. Almost all of the discussion focused on sticking to our "house style" in spite of anything that could be verified. The discussion was closed with wording that said a guideline trumped what well over 120 reliable sources showed because the subject of the article hadn't been shown to have explicitly stated a preference. The way I see it, WP:V (a policy) trumps our house style (a guideline) every single time. Period. I hope to have a more extensive discussion this time, too, as the last discussion only had a very small number of actual participants (five, if I counted correctly). ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is policy; and unless you have a reason beyond "you're just wrong!", you'll find the same results. Neither policy nor guidelines trump each other; discussion and evidence and consensus is all that matters; there is no reason to assume that some set of rules is more important than another, the only thing that really matters is that people have discussed it in a reasonable manner, weighed the evidence, and based on their own good-faith analysis of that evidence, have made a determination as to the proper course of action.  "But you did it wrong!" is not a valid rebuttal to decisions reached by that process.  If the discussion did not have enough participation, perhaps, but on the talk page of a actor of some small amount of fame, I wouldn't expect more than about 5 people to show up.  These discussions just don't get hundreds of people who are interested in them.  I mean, feel free to ask, 1.5 years is a reasonable amount of time to test the pulse again, but as I said, unless you have new reasons and new evidence that was not floated last time, I wouldn't expect a different result.  -- Jayron 32 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, I agree with Joe. I did my own search, and the top result was this article, followed by several pages of results without the periods (except for a Wikia page but that’s hardly compelling). The MOS is just advice. “House style” should never trump WP:RS. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - In addition to WP:SPACEINITS, WP:V, and WP:RS, we have the subject of the article using the "CCH Pounder" version as her byline for an article she wrote (and her author page there), on her official site, on her official Twitter account, and on her official Instagram account. While none of them have her making an explicit statement about it, these are likely as close to an official statement about the punctuation of her name as you're likely to get. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Support Absolutely clear evidence that this is her official WP:STAGENAME and styling in accordance with the allowed exceptions shown at MOS:INITIALS, per the social media accounts and official website (in the same way we would change it per after a name change). House style be dammed - if it conflicts and is preventing us from improving this entry, then ignore it. -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC) (edited)
 * Oppose. No evidence presented that anything has changed since the last RM. In particular, no evidence presented that there is any deliberate or conscious decision on the part of the BLP to omit the periods, which if you look above, was the sticking point last time. Until new evidence is presented, we should not deviate from our house style. — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my comment, there is absolutely a "deliberate [and] conscious decision on the part of the BLP to omit the periods". I presented four different instances where the person deliberately and consciously omitted them, and all four are officially the subject doing so. You can't get much more deliberate and conscious than that. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know they deliberately and consciously did that, though? It's not enough just to show that she wrote it that way herself, or that the website says it. You have to show that she actively prefers that style and consciously wants us to write it without periods. I might write my own initials one way or another way, but without really saying people must call me that and write it that way. Personally I wouldn't care one way or the other how Wikipedia wrote my name. Anyway, please Just show us some source or evidence and then we can move on. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, the fact that an overwhelming majority of reliable sources verify that her name is written that way, and the subjects verified official accounts all show her name is written that way, yet you want proof it should be written that way? That's not how things work on Wikipedia. If almost all the reliable sources (including her official accounts) are indicating it should be written a specific way, then it falls on you to prove why it should be written differently than how all the reliable sources are writing it. As you wrote, "just show us some source or evidence" that it should be written how you think it should be written. Keep in mind that there will still be a redirect from the "C. C. H. Pounder" version to catch those occasional people who search for it under different formatting than is used almost everywhere. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, to answer your first question, creating a website and official social media accounts is a deliberate and conscious act. I suppose one might do them in their sleep, but you'd have to show me reliable sources showing that anyone has ever done that. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do want proof it should be written that way. You're quoting reliable sources and verifiability to me, yet you haven't provided even one single verifiable reliable source which tells us the subject deliberately avoids periods and spaces in her name. The fact that lots of sources style it that way is in no way the same thing as a source which explicitly states that it is to be styled that way. That's the difference. — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is a ridiculous position. All four of her official pages/accounts I linked to have it styled that way. She had to consciously and deliberately do it that way, yet you want her to come out and make a specific statement to satisfy your ego? Do you want her to mention you by name, too? ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * People like this almost always have their websites, etc., created and managed by someone else. Said hirelings are going go with the boss's preference, which might be stated or just what they see on the letterhead.  A preference is not an assertion of  in a meaningful sense; a statement in the press or somewhere else about identity and that person's name rendering, stated by that person, would be one.  I dated someone who went by [this is pseudonymized, of course] Guinevere J Parkes, who never batted an eye when it was written "Guinevere J. Parkes"; she just didn't write/type it that why herself (and left dots off lots of stuff). Do not confuse a personal habit or style choice with an insistence on an inviolable identity declaration the refusal of which to follow is some kind of grave offense.  That's just "I can psychically read the minds of celebrities" original research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet you are telling everyone to ignore the overwhelming number of reliable sources (outside of the four personal accounts we've been discussing) that use "CCH Pounder". We aren't supposed to be inserting things into her name that aren't supported by reliable sources, and therefore verifiable. The MOS is just a guideline, but WP:RS and WP:V are policies (technically, WP:RS is part of WP:V). Any guidelines that you try to interpret to mean something that violates policy need to be rewritten to conform with policy, or the policy needs to be changed. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Aren't supported by reliable sources" is a patently false claim. The "CCH" style is not overwhelming (see proof below), just common – and most common within entertainment publications, which have a marked habit of copy-pasting in over-stylized names (the very reason we had to implement the MOS:TM guideline, because they usually do things like Se7en, Alien3, etc., in imitation of marketing materials). In the Pounder case, however, the dotless stylization is consistent neither within major publications in the genre nor even within the .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: style on her own webpage and elsewhere matches up with "The person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name" criterion in MOS:INITIALS. Pam  D  22:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per T.J. Miller. (Precedence; see Talk:T.J. Miller.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I support because per my research, it seems to be the subject's WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943  (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither rationale is applicable: for Miller, we have an explicit WP:ABOUTSELF statement of preference; and COMMONAME does not apply to style questions (this comes up typically a dozen times per week in RMs, so I'm guessing you don't spend much time in them). Frankly, if you tried to elevate any style matter to the level of policy (COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT policy) people would lose so much of their shit that WP would look like a brown mountain range.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While it might be permissible in theory, the case is poorer than it looks at first (both procedurally and on the merits), though the proposal isn't crazy:
 * We have circumstantial evidence that the subject prefers "CCH" (but no clear self-statement to this effect), and that "CCH" is common (which is not the MoS standard; near-uniformity in RS is). It doesn't seem to be sufficient against the other factors.
 * This is perennial rehash, with no new argument, policy change, or evidence. Tendentiousness does not magically invalidate the existing, reaffirmed consensus. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS permits a consensus at an article to overrule a line-item in a style guideline (e.g., for WP:CONSISTENCY policy reasons). Opponents of the move argue the MOS:INITIALS criteria for a variance aren't really met, so it's not an overruling anyway.
 * The sources are not as consistent as proponents claim (see proof below). Her name is rendered various different ways. In seconds, on the very first page of search results, I see Jet magazine using "C.C.H." (in multiple issues), a book about movies doing it, and multiple major blogs doing it. RS clearly are following their own house style, and often just writer preference (varying in the same publication). Sources on actors are heavily concentrated in entertainment-industry news, which has WP:INDY problems on style (most of their funding is from industry advertising, so they do what the industry players want them to, stylistically, which amounts to a lot of copy-paste); this comes up a lot in MOS:TM discussions, too. For actors and such, they have an aggregate house style of mimicking whatever someone's agent, SAG card, movie credits, or other industry materials do, at the expense of consistency within their own publication (WP does the opposite.) It's a circular-reasoning feedback loop of "We at Movie Poop Chute print it as CCH because that's how it's done in us movie rags, and that's how it's done in them because we keep doing it" (same as the "capitalize this because its a proper name, and it's a proper name because we capitalized it" fallacy seen at so many other RMs).
 * It really is just initials for her full name. It's not a nickname like "CeeCee", or a weird stage name like "Talla 2XLC".
 * Whoever cited WP:OFFICIALNAME as a "support" rationale seems not to have actually read it: The officialness of a name has little bearing on what title we select here. We also have no idea who produces her website and other materials or what decision process is used by them (some celebs micromanage such materials, others just hand it off to someone and don't care much; the latter was the case with Utada Hikaru, whose name rendering varied by who was working on the content). Do Pounder's website and twitter agree because she insisted on it, or because a hireling imitated the style at one in the other? Any evidence?
 * The nominator's suggestion that WP:V policy is in some way implicated, and someone's later comment that WP's spelling is "not supported by reliable sources", are proven false, since the WP rendering is in fact attested in RS.
 * Some of the "precedents" cited are very different cases with better sourcing or, like kd lang, are WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments to avoid because they're actually unlikely to survive a re-discussion, due to MoS's deference to WP:CONSISTENCY policy having increased in the interim, along with stronger consensus both to avoid unusual stylization and to write more consistently in article prose. The next point has also become more widely understood among editors.
 * WP:COMMONAME is not applicable to this; it is not a style policy. It's the policy that tells us that her name is "C. C. H./C.C.H/CCH Pounder" (from which we should choose one based on WP's own house-style rules) and that it's not "H. H. C. Pounder" or "C. C. H. McDougal", or "Jenny Chang".
 * The best pro argument be MOS:INITIALS + WP:ABOUTSELF, except we have no evidence Pounder manages her own online content, nor a statement from her that she insists on this spelling, or even cares. By contrast, we do have that for T.J. Miller (not T.-space-J.).  Find such proof for Pounder, and a future RM would be an open-and-shut case.
 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC); revised: 00:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose as rehash with no new argument, name is still Carol Christine Hilaria Pounder this is style a straight case of initials, and on en.wp our MOS is dots after initials for every bio article. No stylism. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re that T.J. Miller remove of the space, rather than "precedent" seems to me to be a very bad example. We started with one stylism, Kathryn Dawn Lang, which was very visibly used on CD artwork as a stylism, but now we're having to increasingly scuttle around checking the MOS of each human being? This is silly. We're an encyclopedia, a bio is a bio. kd lang should be an outlier not the standard. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, but in some exceptions, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY plays a factor to supersede all other guidelines. This move request and the "T.J. Miller" move seem like such cases. Steel1943  (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Absurd. The only person on planet Earth familiar with "T.J. Miller" or "kd lang" (which needs to be re-RMed) who would not understand that "T. J. Miller" and "K. D. Lang" refer, respectively, to the same people is someone with severe brain damage. We have absolute proof of multiple spellings in numerous reliable sources.  Unusual style demands based on assumed, unproven (OR) subject preference do not supersede writing consistently for our audience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Question - I'm observing this discussion mostly because of an OTRS ticket - if Pounder were to post on her official Twitter (or other location) "yes, it really is CCH" would that suffice to show that the subject actually prefers it that way? From reading through the discussion it sounds like the only way the opposition will be satiated is if she states it herself in clear and plain language. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. TJ Miller was moved because someone actually asked him on a video whether he cared about the styling, and he said that he did. I know not everyone cares about style, but as a publication that seeks to be reputable we should, like any other publication, stick to our own internal styles unless there's an explicit reason not to. — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. This has come up various times with bands who have names or song/album names with unusual stylization and for which formal statements were made about it in RS. Same with Star Trek Into Darkness, and various other cases. It's quite possible Pounder would say "I tend to use CCH and I get credited that way because it's what my SAG card says" or "I insist on CCH, and really hate it when people add periods." We have no idea until she speaks, but until she does we have no reason to pursue an odd stylization just because entertainment publications often do it while others often do not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Our house style is to use full stops and spaces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except, it doesn't, per MOS:INITIALS which provides for this exact situation. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Quote Pounder saying she cares how her name is presented typographically.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:INITIALS standard (and common sense) says {The person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name.} This is satisfied clearly: (copied from above) "CCH Pounder" version as her byline for an article she wrote (and her author page there), on her official site, on her official Twitter account, and on her official Instagram account.  These all denote a "different, consistently preferred style". The 2nd criteria of MOS:INITIALS An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person (example: CC Sabathia) is also clearly satisfied if you do even a cursory examination of the sources. Together, these are absolutely overwhelming evidence of the need for this move. I'll also add that the fact that Wikipedia stands out as the only major information resource which is displaying this person's name wrong is embarrassing. Do people really think that in all these TV credits, movie credits, interviews, etc. that she would just "not care" how her name appears on-screen... that the fact that every one of them use "CCH" isn't due to a direct statement of her desire? Something is wrong with our processes if the uncontroversial and obvious structure of a person's name has to be debated this much. -- Netoholic @  11:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC) (edited)
 * I've tried to address this in more detail, in a revision of my original comment. It's not that what you quote from INITIALS doesn't exist or could not apply, it's that a) the evidence isn't ironclad, and b) no new argument or type or level of evidence has been provided to overturn the last consensus discussion which also already went over all of this.  "Wikipedia stands out as the only major information resource which is displaying this person's name [not as 'CCH']" is patently false. WP is a tertiary source that reflects doesn't determine usage, and various secondary ones (the kinds WP considers reliable) that interview and report directly on people like Pounder don't run the initials together like that. RS are not as anti-dot as you think they are, and those that are, are heavily concentrated in an industry addicted to mimicking marketing style quirks and they have a direct fiduciary incentive to do it. Avoiding WP mimicking  in turn was why MOS:TM was ever created in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Support - This is how the subject refers to herself; per User:Netoholic. — Coffee //  have a ☕ //  beans  // 22:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Borderline in many ways, but no compelling reason to move. Excellent analysis by has answered all arguments in favour of the move. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose google books actually gives about 20% using C.C.H pounder, doesn't seem that uncommmon really to justify a move Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Inconsistent usage in independent reliable sources, thorough analysis by SMcCandlish, nothing fundamentally new about the situation since previous discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I've looked at the OTRS ticket, and it's clear from the length of the correspondence if nothing else that this actually does matter to Ms Pounder; it's immaterial here whether it is important to her professionally or personally. It is no more unreasonable for her to want it changed than it is for us to resist that change. This is yet another situation where we have allowed a few people to create rules which they then attempt to impose on the project. The solution is simple: if the rule is against common sense, common practice and ordinary good manners ... ignore the rule. The amount of time, effort and ink that's been spent on three full-stops really makes me wonder about our collective sanity. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. CCH herself tweeted today, “The correct spelling is CCH. There are no periods in my name. End of story” Doconeill (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

 * Sources contradict claims of consistent use: As a demonstration that sources (even entertainment ones) don't consistently use "CCH" (even in the same publication), here are various non-self-published magazines, sites, newspapers, etc., all found in under 5 minutes (took way longer to format this):
 * General news:
 * Chicago Tribune
 * UPI newswire (has also used "CCH" )
 * The New York Times  (has also used "CCH"  and also made obvious editorial errors like "Cch" )
 * I didn't look much for these, and focused more topically.
 * Entertainment-industry publications:
 * People (but has also used "CCH" )
 * Hollywood Reporter
 * Vanity Fair
 * Broadway World
 * Cinefantastique
 * Looper
 * Digital Spy
 * TV Overmind
 * Internet Broadway Database
 * Film Reference
 * Live RampUp
 * Black/urban-focused:
 * Black Enterprise
 * Jet (and has done so for a long time )
 * Vibe (though it also used "CCH" in another article )
 * Essence (but has also used CCH )
 * AllBlackMedia
 * Electronic Urban Report (EURweb) (uses both "C. C. H." and "CCH" in same article)
 * Blavity
 * BlackAmericaWeb
 * Books:
 * The Best Plays of 1983–1984 (and others in the series; ed. Otis L. Guernsey; Dodd, Mead & Co., 1989+)
 * Navigating the Shadow World (Liv Spencer, ECW Press, 2013)
 * Emotions (Timmothy B. McCann, Kensington Books, 2003)
 * Misc.:
 * GoodReads
 * Amazon (as an author and audio-book narrator/voice actor; as a credited film/TV actor, usually "CCH", because Amazon's copy-pasting pre-packaged credits info; for books, they're writing their own key product metadata).
 * BrainyQuote
 * PS: You also have to account for the fact that some North American and British/Commonwealth journalism drops all dots from all initials, which skews raw search results tremendously.  If someone wanted to do a statistical analysis, they'd have to first determine what percentage of sources (that commonly have stories about actors) in general do it, then subtract that percentage from the results for Pounder. But we can already see that the usage of "CCH" isn't consistent even without bothering with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * TLDR; inconsistent sources are inconsistent. Why are you so vehement about digging through all these while not addressing the clear preference for stylization that this person expresses via their own writing, social media, and TV/film credits? Are you aware that film credits require an explicit sign-off from the listed parties (or their representatives), for the express purpose of correcting any typographical errors, before it can be made final and released to the public? If these sources are inconsistent (some use "CCH", others "C.C.H. " and rarely "C. C. H. "), it points us even more toward the preference expressed by the person themselves.  Just because  other sources have poor or inconsistent handling of her name, doesn't mean Wikipedia has license to continue getting it wrong either.  -- Netoholic @  04:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

How is your name pronounced please
How is your name pronounced please 174.215.177.199 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:CCH Pounder


text:
Athabasca Pass

Athabasca Pass (el. 1753 m) is a high mountain pass in the Canadian Rockies on the border between Alberta and British Columbia. In fur trade days it connected Jasper House on the Athabasca River with Boat Encampment on the Columbia River.

The pass lies between Mount Brown and McGillivray Ridge. It is south of Yellowhead Pass and north of Howse Pass. The Committee's Punch Bowl, a glacial lake on the continental divide at the summit of the pass, is the headwaters of the Whirlpool River, a tributary of the Athabasca River. It also has an outlet to Pacific Creek, a tributary of the Columbia River to the south.

Athabasca Pass is first mentioned in the historical record in the papers of British explorer David Thompson, who was shown the route in 1811 by an Iroquois man named Thomas. It became a major point on the fur trade route between Rupert's Land and the Columbia District, used by the York Factory Express. and in recognition of that usage was designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 1971.

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

title: Athabasca Pass


text:
User talk:49TL/Archive-5

Information This is the FireFox talk page archive 5.

If you want to leave me a message, please see my current talk page.

Advisory Committee election deadline set
Our new admin general, Essjay, has set the date for the advisory committee elections, that date being October 7th. By UTC it is October 5th right now. So see WP:ESP/E for voting in two days, and add yourself to the list if you're interested in running. On a personal note, I'm considering running, as I only resigned as admin general because of time. I'm sure I could help out on the advisory committee... Anywho, watchlist that page, and be sure to read the voting method too. Regards, R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
A barnstar! And on my birthday, no less! It is one of the best gifts I've recieved today! Thanks! Ganymead 16:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Merci
Thanks for the Barnstar. It was an unexpected nicety. --Howcheng 18:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!
Thanks for the barnstar... although I'm not sure what exactly I've done to deserve this one! I'm just a dilettante, plugging away at things that interest me... but then, I suppose that's what makes up this place! —Josiah Rowe 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "What did I do?" he says - well, you're a Wikipedian, and everyone deserves rewarding when they have done good work! Fir  e  Fo  x  18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just sweet. :D —Josiah Rowe 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Dunno why this has all gone bold: if you can figure it out, fix it!

Thanks!
My first barnstar! Thank you! Econrad 20:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto
Thanks for the ego-boost barnstar! —wwoods 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My Userpage
Would you be horribly offended if I chganged my userpage so that it is halfway inbetween your version and mine? I like your revision a lot and a lot of it I will keep. However, I think there's currently a lot of whitespace that needs elimination. Please don't take this as an insult of your design as there is lots In really like. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 17:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My Old Account
Well I'd love to tell you but to be totally truthful with you, I've forgotten that. It is coming up for 2 years now since I gave up with the account. I remember coming back from a business trip, and finding that I had forgotten my password. I didn't know what to do about it so left it and gave up on Wikipedia. In August I got chatting with a friend and Wikipedia popped up in the conversation. I resolved with myself I would give it another go and here I am. All I remember of my old user name was it began with Grant (my name) and had about four randomly chosen numbers after it. The latter though is very unclear. Sorry about that. I've found Wikiwoohoo much easier to remember (I have another friend absolutely obsessed with shouting "WOOHOO!" and I've written my username and password on a scrap of paper by the PC screen. Wikiwoohoo 19:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks !
I hardly feel I deserve a barnstar, but it is very nice to be awared one anyhow :-)) --Isolani 17:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:49TL/Archive-5


text:
Category:British National Vegetation Classification calcicolous grassland communities

This category groups together articles on the calcicolous grassland communities in the British National Vegetation Classification system.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market development

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 15:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Market development
dictdef  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or develop. CanadianCaesar 20:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Develop it - it's one (weak) article on the 4 parts of Igor Ansoff's strategic management/ growth strategys. The other 3 are Diversification, Market penetration, Product Development. 220.101.76.254 02:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless anyone cares enough to develop it. --Rogerd 08:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef or unsourced trivia. (No reference to any "Igor Ansoff"; term is generic, in any case, as are "market penetration", "diversification", and "product development".) MCB 18:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/sandbox/Doctorwhoprojectold


text: User talk:72.224.91.190

title: User talk:72.224.91.190


text:
Category:British National Vegetation Classification swamp and tall-herb fen communities

This category groups together articles on the swamp and tall-herb fen communities of the British National Vegetation Classification system.


text:
User talk:DenGer

Welcome from Privat e   Butcher
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Privat e   Butcher  17:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:DenGer


text:
TKL

TKL may refer to:

 * Teck Lee LRT station (LRT station abbreviation), Punggol, Singapore
 * Tokelau, an island country in the South Pacific Ocean
 * The Kid Laroi (born 2003), Australian singer, songwriter and rapper
 * TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library, an open source project that provides pre-packaged server software appliances
 * Tiu Keng Leng, south west part of the Tseung Kwan O New Town in Hong Kong
 * Tenkeyless, a term for keyboards that lack a numpad

title: TKL


text:
SJM

SJM is an abbreviation of:
 * Swadeshi Jagaran Manch
 * Svalbard and Jan Mayen, archipelago of Norway, ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code
 * Servi Jesu et Mariae
 * Samyukta Janamorcha Nepal
 * Super Junior-M

in business:
 * The NYSE symbol for The J.M. Smucker Co.
 * Sociedade de Jogos de Macau, casino subsidiary of Sociedade de Turismo e Diversões de Macau

title: SJM


text: Category:Science and technology in Argentina


text:
Trembling hand perfect equilibrium

In game theory, trembling hand perfect equilibrium is a type of refinement of a Nash equilibrium that was first proposed by Reinhard Selten. A trembling hand perfect equilibrium is an equilibrium that takes the possibility of off-the-equilibrium play into account by assuming that the players, through a "slip of the hand" or tremble, may choose unintended strategies, albeit with negligible probability.

Definition
First define a perturbed game. A perturbed game is a copy of a base game, with the restriction that only totally mixed strategies are allowed to be played. A totally mixed strategy is a mixed strategy where every strategy (both pure and mixed) is played with non-zero probability. This is the "trembling hands" of the players; they sometimes play a different strategy, other than the one they intended to play. Then define a strategy set S (in a base game) as being trembling hand perfect if there is a sequence of perturbed games that converge to the base game in which there is a series of Nash equilibria that converge to S.

Note: All completely mixed Nash equilibria are perfect.

Note 2: The mixed strategy extension of any finite normal-form game has at least one perfect equilibrium.

Example
The game represented in the following normal form matrix has two pure strategy Nash equilibria, namely $$\langle \text{Up}, \text{Left}\rangle$$ and $$\langle \text{Down}, \text{Right}\rangle$$. However, only $$\langle \text{U},\text{L}\rangle$$ is trembling-hand perfect.

Assume player 1 (the row player) is playing a mixed strategy $$(1-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$$, for $$ 0<\varepsilon <1$$.

Player 2's expected payoff from playing L is:
 * $$1(1-\varepsilon) + 2\varepsilon = 1+\varepsilon$$

Player 2's expected payoff from playing the strategy R is:

 * $$0(1-\varepsilon) + 2\varepsilon = 2\varepsilon$$

For small values of $$\varepsilon$$, player 2 maximizes his expected payoff by placing a minimal weight on R and maximal weight on L. By symmetry, player 1 should place a minimal weight on D and maximal weight on U if player 2 is playing the mixed strategy $$(1-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$$. Hence $$\langle \text{U},\text{L}\rangle$$ is trembling-hand perfect.

However, similar analysis fails for the strategy profile $$\langle \text{D}, \text{R}\rangle$$.

Assume player 2 is playing a mixed strategy $$(\varepsilon, 1-\varepsilon)$$. Player 1's expected payoff from playing U is:

 * $$1\varepsilon + 2(1-\varepsilon) = 2-\varepsilon$$

Player 1's expected payoff from playing D is:

 * $$0(\varepsilon) + 2(1-\varepsilon) = 2-2\varepsilon$$

For all positive values of $$\varepsilon$$, player 1 maximizes his expected payoff by placing a minimal weight on D and maximal weight on U. Hence $$\langle \text{D}, \text{R}\rangle$$ is not trembling-hand perfect because player 2 (and, by symmetry, player 1) maximizes his expected payoff by deviating most often to L if there is a small chance of error in the behavior of player 1.

Equilibria of two-player games
For 2x2 games, the set of trembling-hand perfect equilibria coincides with the set of equilibria consisting of two undominated strategies. In the example above, we see that the equilibrium < Down,Right > is imperfect, as Left (weakly) dominates Right for Player 2 and Up (weakly) dominates Down for Player 1.

Equilibria of extensive form games
There are two possible ways of extending the definition of trembling hand perfection to extensive form games.

 * One may interpret the extensive form as being merely a concise description of a normal form game and apply the concepts described above to this normal form game. In the resulting perturbed games, every strategy of the extensive-form game must be played with non-zero probability. This leads to the notion of a normal-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium.
 * Alternatively, one may recall that trembles are to be interpreted as modelling mistakes made by the players with some negligible probability when the game is played. Such a mistake would most likely consist of a player making another move than the one intended at some point during play. It would hardly consist of the player choosing another strategy than intended, i.e. a wrong plan for playing the entire game. To capture this, one may define the perturbed game by requiring that every move at every information set is taken with non-zero probability. Limits of equilibria of such perturbed games as the tremble probabilities goes to zero are called extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibria.

The notions of normal-form and extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibria are incomparable, i.e., an equilibrium of an extensive-form game may be normal-form trembling hand perfect but not extensive-form trembling hand perfect and vice versa. As an extreme example of this, Jean-François Mertens has given an example of a two-player extensive form game where no extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium is admissible, i.e., the sets of extensive-form and normal-form trembling hand perfect equilibria for this game are disjoint.

An extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium is also a sequential equilibrium. A normal-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium of an extensive form game may be sequential but is not necessarily so. In fact, a normal-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium does not even have to be subgame perfect.

Problems with perfection
Myerson (1978) pointed out that perfection is sensitive to the addition of a strictly dominated strategy, and instead proposed another refinement, known as proper equilibrium.

title: Trembling hand perfect equilibrium


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Pomegranates

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect -- (drini's page| ☎ ) 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

House of Pomegranates
This is a really long and really weird work of fiction. I thought of speedying it, but I wasn't sure which CSD it might fit, and I also thought it might amuse you all. Chick Bowen 17:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's by Oscar Wilde, and as such public domain - and if anyone wants to read it, it's available free online in lots of places. We don't need it here; speedy delete. DS 17:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete this is an encyclopedia, not a library --Rogerd 08:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Create an article about the work instead. --Jacquelyn Marie 23:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is one, Jacquelyn, albeit a stub, at The House of Pomegranates. Chick Bowen 01:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good call. Well then, why not just redirect there? --Jacquelyn Marie 13:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mostly because I didn't notice the stub until DS pointed out this was a Wilde story. I'd have no problem with that, of course. Chick Bowen 00:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Zapp

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 17:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image copyright problem with :Image:Frederickpic01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Frederickpic01.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.Rossrs 12:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hurrcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hurrcover.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Charley-photo-tile.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Charley-photo-tile.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Longhair 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Aa3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aa3.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 12:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Emily stormfloater ir 0718 0645UTC.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Emily stormfloater ir 0718 0645UTC.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 13:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Print_20040923_web.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Print_20040923_web.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 15:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zapp


text:
User talk:Niftyspace

Welcome, from Journalist Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello. My name is Orane (but I go by the name 'Journalist' on Wikipedia) and I am one of Wikipedia's Administrators. I just stopped by to say Hi and to formally welcome you to Wikipedia. Thank you for your awesome contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I know that being here for the first few days may be a bit confusing, but you'll get used to it pretty soon.

Here are a few good links for newcomers. I know that they can be boring, but I recommend that you take a look at them:
 * Policies and guidelines
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can come to my talk page if you have any questions. If Im online, I will definitely respond. If I'm offline, you can go to Where to ask a question. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~) ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome! Come say Hi! →Jo urna list >>talk<<  17:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Niftyspace


text:
The Practice of Programming

The Practice of Programming (ISBN 0-201-61586-X) by Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike is a 1999 book about computer programming and software engineering, published by Addison-Wesley.

According to the preface, the book is about "topics like testing, debugging, portability, performance, design alternatives, and style", which, according to the authors, "are not usually the focus of computer science or programming courses". It treats these topics in case studies, featuring implementations in several programming languages (mostly C, but also C++, AWK, Perl, Tcl and Java).

The Practice of Programming has been translated into twelve languages. Eric S. Raymond, in The Art of Unix Programming, calls it "recommended reading for all C programmers (indeed for all programmers in any language)". A 2008 review on LWN.net found that TPOP "has aged well due to its focus on general principles" and that "beginners will benefit most but experienced developers will appreciate [...] the later chapters".

title: The Practice of Programming


text:
User talk:Victoria Madison

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Samw 17:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thomas Tomczyk
A tag has been placed on Thomas Tomczyk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Thomas Tomczyk is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon, and also put a note on Talk:Thomas Tomczyk saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.RedRollerskate 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Victoria Madison


text:
Ragheb Aga

Ragheb Gul Aga (born 10 July 1984) is a Kenyan cricketer, who played as an all-rounder for Kenya in ODIs and T20Is and for Sussex in English domestic cricket. He became Kenya's third captain in two months in November 2004 when he captained the team at the Intercontinental Cup Finals in place of Hitesh Modi.

County career
In 2008, Aga signed a one-year deal to play County cricket for Sussex, having played List A cricket for the county during the 2007 season. He was, however, surprisingly recalled to the Kenya side in 2008. Aga spent a further two seasons at Sussex, finally being released by the county at the end of the 2010 season.

Records
Aga was the first batsman to score a T20I half-century when batting at number 8 (or lower), when he scored 52 not out against Scotland on 13 November 2013. This was the highest score at this position until it was exceeded by Simi Singh in 2018.

title: Ragheb Aga


text:
Bang! Racing

'''Bang! Racing''' is a former NASCAR team. It was majority owned by entrepreneur Alex Meshkin, and minority owned by both crew chief and analyst Larry McReynolds and its 'hands off' seed investor George Blacker, LTD- each with a 5%  minority equity share. Bang! Racing fielded entries in the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series. It only ran one full season, in 2004.

Truck No. 24/42 history
The team was founded in 2003 by Alex Meshkin, an internet entrepreneur who had achieved notoriety by losing more than $3 million of investors' money in his failed Surfbuzz.com venture. Initially planning to race in the then-Winston Cup Series by purchasing Andy Petree Racing, the team instead signed a three-year contract with manufacturer Toyota to run in the Craftsman Truck Series as one of four new and independent of Toyota race teams to utilize Toyota Tundra's for Toyota's debut into NASCAR. Meshkin also recruited Larry McReynolds as a part-owner and vice president  and he received $400,000 of seed money from investor George Blacker's investor group which was used to procure a racing shop which was a contingent requirement  dictated by Toyota in order to be granted a Toyota race team contract. Accordingly, the team then leased operating race shop space from veteran driver Jimmy Spencer. The team was named after one of Meshkin's companies, Bang Technology Software.

The team made its debut at a  Daytona International Speedway  race in February of 2004. Its two drivers were Travis Kvapil in the No. 24 Line-X Truck and Mike Skinner in the No. 42 Toyota Truck. It marked the first time in series history two former champions raced for the same operation. By lap 15 of the race, both Bang! Racing drivers had already led the race. Kvapil finished second in the race, while Skinner finished 28th due to a crash. Bang! also announced plans to run several late-season Cup Series races, with sponsorship from eBay. From then on, Bang! lived up to its namesake, with Kvapil racking up two victories, including the first NASCAR win for a Toyota at Michigan, earning one "fast time" qualifier pole, and finished in eighth-place in season points. Skinner, despite not winning a race, had two poles during his tenure with the team. Meshkin meanwhile was credited for his salesmanship abilities, as he recruited sponsors such as Line-X and eBay. Later in the year Meshkin announced he would field the No. 82 Dodge in the Busch Series in 2005, with Kvapil at the wheel. He also began negotiations for a potential NEXTEL Cup Series team (the No. 28 Dodge) with driver Ward Burton and NetZero sponsoring; both were with Haas CNC Racing at the time. The Cup Series deal ultimately fell through.

However, trouble soon began brewing within the organization. Despite the team's success, McReynolds left the team in July due to funding and financial disagreements with Meshkin, including unpaid bills to suppliers. In August, Toyota ended its factory support of the team due to the departure of McReynolds, with the No. 42 team shutting down and driver Mike Skinner moving to Bill Davis Racing. Toyota later maintained its agreement until the end of the season which saw Bang! Racing end that season as the first race team to both lead a lap and win a race for Toyota Racing in a major NASCAR series. But after the season, several key executives at Bang resigned, and in January 2005, Bang let all of its help go and closed down its shop. Blacker wrote off his Bang! Racing seed investment money as a complete loss.

title: Bang! Racing


text:
User talk:DominusTecum

[Resolved] Possible sockpuppet
Please see User_talk:Used2BAnonymous for presentation of evidence and discussion. // Pathoschild 06:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Although possibly a well-intentioned "meatpuppet", discussion has revealed that this user is likely not a sock puppet.The notice has been removed. // Pathoschild 22:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Have fun! →Jo urna list >>talk<<  17:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:DominusTecum


text:
Bipont Editions

Bipont Editions (also known as the Bipontine Editions), the name of a famous series of editions, in 50 volumes, of Greek and Latin classical authors, so called from Bipontium, the modern Latin name of Zweibrücken (also referred to as "Deux Ponts"; English, "two bridges") in the Rhineland-Palatinate where they were first issued by the Societas Bipontina (under the supervision of Friedrich Christian Exter and Georg Christian Crollius) in 1779. Their place of publication was afterwards transferred to Strasbourg (referred to on the title pages by the Latin name of "Argentoratum").

title: Bipont Editions


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Ecumenical Centre

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page| ☎ ) 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

National Ecumenical Centre
A cut and paste of a newspaper story. The last sentence seems to imply it's used with permission, but I'm unsure if that's sufficient. In any case, if it's to be kept it needs a complete rewrite. A newspaper story is not the same as an encyclopedia article. R. fiend 17:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it can be recreated when someone is willing to spend the time to write a decent article. -- Kjkolb 03:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per R. fiend -- red stucco 08:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Bang! Racing

Comments
The footnote to why authorities are investigating Meshkin does not link to an actual article mentioning this and none of the external links seem to cover it either. I think this should be improved as the situation involves some notable NASCAR personalities like Larry Mac, Skinner and Travis Kvapil. I think there may or may not have been some legal wranglings between Meshkin and Jimmy Spencer regarding a shop lease as well. The Dunnie 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The authorities were NEVER investigating Alex Meshkin. Futhermore, Bang Racing filed a lawsuit against Larry McReynolds and a settlement was reach before trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lknfun (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bang! Racing


text:
Alex Brown (defensive end)

Alex James Brown (born June 4, 1979) is an American former football defensive end who played in the National Football League (NFL) for nine seasons. He played college football for the University of Florida, and was a two-time All-American. The Chicago Bears picked Brown in the fourth round of the 2002 NFL draft, and he also played for the New Orleans Saints.

Early years
Brown was born in Jasper, Florida in 1979. He attended Hamilton County High School in Jasper, and played high school football for the Hamilton County Trojans. As the Trojans' senior quarterback in 1996, Brown threw for 863 yards and four touchdowns, and rushed for 767 yards and eighteen touchdowns; as a starting linebacker, he also compiled 117 total tackles (with seven tackles for loss), five blocked passes, four fumble recoveries, two forced fumbles and two blocked field goals. He was honored as a Florida Class 3A all-state selection and a National Recruiting Adviser and SuperPrep high school All-American. Brown was also a standout basketball player and track and field athlete, and was the state champion discus thrower in 1996.

College career
Brown accepted an athletic scholarship to attend the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, where he played for coach Steve Spurrier's Florida Gators football team from 1998 to 2001. The Gators coaching staff decided to red-shirt him as a true freshman in 1997. He saw action at outside linebacker in 1998, recording ten tackles with two sacks and three tackles for a loss as the backup to All-American starter Jevon Kearse.

As a sophomore starter in 1999, Brown recorded fifty-six tackles with 7.5 sacks and twelve tackles for a loss. Arguably, he played his best college game on September 18, 1999, when he sacked quarterback Tee Martin five times in the Gators' 23–21 upset of the second-ranked Tennessee Volunteers. He was honored as first-team All-Southeastern Conference (SEC) selection and first-team All-American by the Walter Camp Foundation and Football News, and was one of the twelve semi-finalists for the Lombardi Award.

During the Gators' 2000 SEC championship season, Brown was a team captain and started every game at right defensive end, recording fifty tackles with 10.5 sacks, fourteen tackles for a loss and four blocked passes, while forcing a fumble and blocking three kicks. Brown was a first-team All-SEC selection, a second-team All-American, and was once again one of the twelve semi-finalists for the Lombardi Award.

As a senior in 2001, Brown recorded forty-five tackles and a career-best thirteen sacks. He was a first-team All-SEC selection, and was recognized as a consensus first-team All-American, after receiving first-team honors from a majority of All-American selector organizations. He was also the 2001 SEC Defensive Player of the Year, one of the four finalists for the Lombardi Award, and one of five finalists of the Bronko Nagurski Trophy.

During his four-year college career, Brown totaled 161 tackles with forty-seven tackles for a loss (sixth-best career total in Gators history), and set the Gators' current career record of thirty-three quarterback sacks. He was inducted into the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame as a "Gator Great" in 2012.

Chicago Bears
The Chicago Bears selected Brown in the fourth round (104th pick overall) of the 2002 NFL draft, and he played for the Bears from 2002 to 2009. As a rookie, he started nine of the fifteen games in which he played at right defensive end and logged 2.5 quarterback sacks. He also totaled 40 tackles (31 unassisted) and three passes broken up, while also contributing on special teams coverage. During the 2003 season, his first as a full-time starter, he led the Bears with 5.5 sacks, with a career-high fifty-eight tackles (forty-nine solos), and six tackles for losses while forcing two fumbles and recovering a fumble.

He started at right defensive end for all sixteen regular season games in 2004, and compiling six sacks and fifty tackles, with eleven tackles for a loss and nine passes defensed. In a game against the New York Giants on November 7, 2004, Brown recorded a career-high four sacks to go along with eight tackles, including six solos stops. He also forced a fumble and batted down a pass at the line of scrimmage. For his efforts, Brown was named the NFL Defensive Player of the Week by Pro Football Weekly.

Brown was a first-alternate for the Pro Bowl after recording 75 tackles (nine for a loss) and six sacks, eight broken up passes and three forced fumbles during the 2005 season. Sports Illustrated selected him for its All-Pro Team. He was named NFC Defensive Player of the Week following the game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on November 27, 2005. In 2006, he was selected as a second-alternate for the Pro Bowl after recording a career-high seven sacks and two interceptions while making forty-six tackles, three forced fumbles, two fumble recoveries and two passes broken up while starting all sixteen games at right defensive end.

In 2007 Brown tied for the team lead with five passes broken up, tied for second with five tackles for a loss and two fumble recoveries and tied for third with two forced fumbles, after playing in all sixteen games (two starts) for the fifth straight year, extending his consecutive games played streak to a team-high ninety-five contests. He ranked second on the defensive line with fifty-eight tackles and added five quarterback hits, 4.5 sacks, one interception, two forced fumbles and a blocked kick.

On December 22, 2008, Brown deflected a field goal attempt by Packers kicker Mason Crosby in the final twenty-five seconds of the fourth quarter to set up the game-winning field goal for the Bears in a 20–17 overtime victory over the Green Bay Packers. In the second game of the 2009 season, the Bears upset the defending Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers 17–14, and Brown recorded two key sacks of Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Brown was later carted off the field with four minutes left in the game with a sprained ankle.

After the 2009 season, the Bears released Brown on April 1, 2010, after failing to trade him to another team.

New Orleans Saints
On April 7, 2010, the New Orleans Saints signed Brown to a two-year contract. He played his final NFL season for the Saints, starting in all sixteen games at left defensive end. The Saints released Brown on August 30, 2011.

Retirement
On August 9, 2012, Alex Brown signed a one-day contract with the Bears to officially retire with the team. With the Bears, his 43.5 sacks rank fourth in team history, and his five interceptions rank second behind Richard Dent among Bears defensive ends.

In his nine-season NFL career, Brown played in 143 regular season games, started 123 of them, and compiled 421 tackles, 43.5 quarterback sacks, forty-two deflected passes, seventeen forced fumbles with twelve recovered, and five interceptions.

Life after football
Brown works for Coyote Logistics.

Brown is an analyst for the 120 Sports "Football Fix" in Chicago. He, former Bears teammate Desmond Clark, and "non-descript white guy" Ryan Steele also host the Dez Clark & Alex Brown Show sports radio talk show in Chicago. Following Bears games, Brown, David Kaplan, former teammate Lance Briggs, and former Bears head coach Dave Wannstedt serve as analysts for NBC Sports Chicago's Football Aftershow.

He is a Republican precinct committeeman in Vernon Hills, Illinois where he resides with his wife, Kari, who serves as a village trustee.

title: Alex Brown (defensive end)


text:
User talk:Teaknelson

Welcome!

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

--JAranda'' | yeah 17:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Teaknelson


text:
Mau Heymans

Mau Heymans (born April 14, 1961) is a Dutch Disney comics artist and writer. He started his career in 1987. He is primarily an illustrator and also wrote some stories with Kirsten de Graaf. Heyman does Scrooge McDuck universe comics for the publisher Oberon. His style is Barks-inspired, with long necks and beaks on the ducks. Mau Heyman's older brother, Bas Heymans, is also a Disney comics artist, and the brothers have styles very similar to each other.

Reprints
In 2018 Fantagraphics Books began publishing a hardcover series titled Disney Masters, in which Mau and his brother Bas Heymans in 2020 had a volume dedicated to their Disney works.
 * Donald Duck: Scandal on the Epoch Express (2020) ISBN

title: Mau Heymans


text:
CEY

CEY may refer to:

 * Cononley railway station, England National Rail station code CEY
 * Murray-Calloway County Airport, Murray, Kentucky, IATA airport code CEY
 * Ron Cey, a former Major League Baseball player
 * Sri Lanka, formerly known as Ceylon
 * Strand, Western Cape, by vehicle registration code

title: CEY


text:
Carl Roepke

Carl Roepke was a member of the USA Luge Team from 1983 to 1988. Roepke is the 2008 and 2009 U.S. Luge National Masters Champion.

He became a commentator for the Olympics in 2002, and has since announced at the 2006, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2018 Olympics. At times, his wife, Michelle Gleich, collaborates with him on Olympic commentary of bobsled, luge, and skeleton. He is also a commentator for the Miller Motor Sports Park in Tooele, Utah.

Roepke helped develop the public tour program at the Utah Olympic Park in Park City, Utah (site of the 2002 Winter Olympics ski events) and works there as a host and tour guide.

title: Carl Roepke


text: Category:Politics of Mexico

title: Category:Politics of Mexico


text:
Keihan Keishin Line

The Keishin Line (京津線) is an interurban partially-street running railway line in Japan operated by the private railway operator Keihan Electric Railway. The 7.5 km line connects Misasagi Station in Kyoto and Biwako-Hamaōtsu Station in the neighbouring city of Ōtsu.

Train service
Except trains between Shinomiya Station and Hamaōtsu Station in early morning and late night, all trains go directly from Hamaōtsu Station to Kyoto Shiyakusho-mae Station or Uzumasa Tenjingawa Station on the Kyoto Subway Tōzai Line. During off peak hours, the line operates every 20 minutes.

Stations and connecting lines

 * Abandoned stations
 * Midorigaoka Undōjō-mae: Shinomiya - Oiwake (extra station, abandoned in 1942)
 * Kamisekidera: Ōtani - Kamisakaemachi (abandoned on August 15, 1971)
 * Fudanotsuji: Kamisakaemachi - Biwako-Hamaōtsu (abandoned on October 1, 1946)

Abandoned section
The station list is as of 1997 before the street running section was abandoned due to replacement by the Tōzai Line subway. It also lists the corresponding subway stations that replaced the Keishin Line stations.

Rolling stock

 * Keihan 800 series, four-car EMUs

History
The line was built in 1912 (dual track electrified at 600 V DC) to connect the city centers of Kyoto and Ōtsu by electric streetcars, as the steam-powered Tōkaidō Main Line was an indirect route between the two cities before its realignment in 1921.

The busiest section of the line, between Keishin-Sanjō Station and Misasagi Station, was replaced in 1997 by the Kyoto Subway Tōzai Line, and the voltage increased to 1,500 V DC in conjunction with this project. One of the aims of the realignment was to move the tracks underground in the Kyoto area, in order to remove the former alignment along public roads. The line retains its public road alignment in Ōtsu.

title: Keihan Keishin Line


text:
Category:British National Vegetation Classification woodland and scrub communities

This category groups together articles on the woodland and scrub communities of the British National Vegetation Classification system.