text:
Talk:Glasgow Queen Street railway station

Untitled
Note, the link to the SPT Crossrail microsite is not working as of 5 October. The whole section appears to be removed from their website.

I am only aware of 7 platforms on th upper level, could some one please comfirm the number, and if it is 8, tell me where the extra platform comes in?

82.40.75.55 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Name in Gaelic
I'm no expert, so I'm not going to put it back once more. What we need is a convention on whether what goes in here is the full name, or just whatever might appear on the signs (complete or otherwise). I'm more used to doing this with the Welsh station articles, and almost every station in Wales has a name in Welsh, which is always reproduced in full, and always corresponds to the name in English (nothing added, nothing taken away - as those that regularly pass through Mynydd Bach Lefel Uchel will know). I suppose it also helps that some 25% of the population of Wales also speak the language. There are various reasons why perhaps the full name might not go up, though it might be worth noting that some of the signs at London Kings Cross until very recently only said "Kings Cross". Chris cheese whine 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The railway station articles should (and as far as I'm aware, do) only state an 'other name' where two names actually appear on the station signs. It is reasonable therefore that the names given in the articles should be in agreement with the names on the signs. Any other approach would lead to endless discussions as to what was the correct Gaelic (or whatever) spelling for a particular place, as variations often exist. 90.240.228.214 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, what actually appears on the signs isn't always consistent, isn't always present, and isn't even always correct (such as the welcome signs at Newport that confused gorsaf ('station') with gorsedd). In many cases, stations might well have an 'other name' that for whatever reason isn't on the signs.  Case-in-point, Fishguard Harbour railway station shows a Welsh name once on the signs, and it's incorrect (doesn't tie in with any government documents or the printed timetables).  It's not sufficient to just go with the signs and leave it at that.  As I said, it needs some more discussion than throwaway comments on an article talk page.  Chris cheese whine 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage 06/07 (for Queen Street and Central)
The increase from 3m to 14m for me does not pass the "giggle test". Especially when compared with the reduction from 29m to 21m for Glasgow Central railway station. See 2006/7 Usage Stats. I think this may be a function of how the journeys to the two Glasgow termini are allocated. When I by a ticket from my local station it is not to Glasgow Central but to GLASGOW CEN/QST. What we may be seeing here is a less than perfect split of journeys to this combined destination. --Stewart (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I was not giggling at the almost 5x usage on Queen Street, i was just amazed at it in some ways. I think the new usage figures are more accurate overall. It is not just glasgow which sees a remarkable change. Many cities see the separation and possibly more accurate portrayal of usage although another possibly surprising thing is the sudden massive increase in usage in most stations in London, not just the London station group. Simply south (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Whatever the explanation for the traffic surge – a different way of counting passengers or an actual dramatic rise in passengers – the startling swerve cries out for an explanation in the article. It is too wild to ignore. I came from the article to the talk page to ask about it. — O'Dea (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

New photo of Queen Street Low Level platforms.
The lower level platforms have been redeveloped with a new colour scheme, and new seating. In general, the platform now looks vastly different to the current photo. Could anyone please change/add a new photo to reflect the latest redevelopment in the Lower Level Station?

Thank you! Badpiggy (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glasgow Queen Street railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/NETWORK-RAIL-ANNOUNCES-QUEEN-STREET-DEVELOPMENT-PARTNER-18b9/SearchCategoryID-2.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307050006/http://www.egip.info/projects/we-are-redeveloping-queen-street-station to http://www.egip.info/projects/we-are-redeveloping-queen-street-station

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Opening date
Can someone please confirm the opening date. In the history paragraph it states 18 February 1842 but the info box states 21 February 1842. Steamybrian2 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictures and development
Do we have a picture of the front of the station before the 70's hotel frontage, and indeed do we have any information eg an actual date for the construction of the hotel? DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


text: User talk:204.187.133.5

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

title: User talk:204.187.133.5


text:
Talk:Miss Saigon

further information
There's some more information about Miss Saigon at Alain Boublil — mostly statistics and such. Much of it probably could be removed from Boublil's page and added here, if it's accurate. Unfortunately, it appears to have been added by an anonymous contributor, so I can't vouch for its accuracy or currency. Anyway, I thought that people who have this page on their watchlist might be interested in sorting it out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Added Song
I thought it was a real oversight not to include "The Heat Is On In Saigon" as a memorable song...it was used in ad campaigns for the show all the time and was the first MS song I knew before I went to see the show. Many take it as the "theme song" to the show even though it's the black sheep of the soundtrack...someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Criticism
Also, I think criticism of Miss Saigon ought to be explained a bit better. I feel that the current short little bit about Actors Equity is slightly biased...it makes them sound like a crazy bunch of unreasonable people or something, which may be some people's opinion, but there is another side too. In terms of racial issues, in the London production, Pryce (and if I'm not mistaken, also the white actor playing Thuy) had worn eye prosthesis and bronzing lotion to try to make himself look more "Asian", which is rather offensive to many. Also, the writing does perpetuate a lot of stereotypes about Asians and has Kim saying random made up steretypical mumbo jumbo stuff steeped in mysticism, like "paper dragons in the sky" etc. Anyways, I won't get into it. I'm just saying that I think it is important to note criticisms of the show as well. It doesn't have to be in a lot of detail, but it shouldn't be dismissed or omitted either in my opinion.

Drenched 03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Drenched

Oh noes! White actors playing Asian characters! Give me a break and stop being so PC whipped Miss Saigon is not racist. In all of the productions of the musical I have seen even the Broadway production they had Asian men and women playing the Asian characters. The section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.61.192 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to talk about this controversy, several associations denounced the racist content and stereotypes within Miss Saigon. For the most part, an active tumblr blog called 'dontbuymiss-saigon.tumblr' along with several articles on the internet. Therefore, this section has its purpose FrozenHeart (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Popularity"
Personally, I think that the whole last paragraph under the header "Popularity" should be seriously edited, from: "Notability Miss Saigon was brought back in 2006 with the world High school Premiere at St. Joseph Regional in Montvale New Jersey..." to ..."University High School of Irvine, California will become the third high school to perform Miss Saigon, and has already received outstanding reviews." The VERY FIRST high school version of the show might be notable, but the whole ending about other high schools and their "outstanding reviews" is ridiculous.

If I don't hear any objections over the next few days, I'm going to edit that out and fix that paragraph big time. LBoogey 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey

 * I completely agree...I think that whole section can be cut minus the very first HS show.

 * Actually, I think that the current "Popularity" section should be retitled "Production History," which sounds more objective and descriptive of the contents. All the redundant narrative about the Tony awards can be relocated to the "Awards" section for better organization.  The sentence: "Ironically, Will Rogers Follies closed after only 900 performances (a little over two years) whereas Miss Saigon went on to become one of the longest running musicals, running over 10 years on Broadway." isn't encyclopedic and just sounds like someone is bitter, and I think it should be removed.  --Drenched 01:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree--great suggestions, Drenched. I'm going to use them later on today when I have a little more time, and fix all those areas. Thanks! LBoogey 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey
 * Since I had the time, I went ahead and made some of the edits mentioned. I left the high school stuff for you though.  Also, I didn't substantially edit the content of the text which probably needs substantial cleanup, so please edit away =)  --Drenched 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! LOL...we were editing at the same time, and that has never happened to me before. I panicked for a minute. I really like what you did with the beginning of the article--putting the photograph inspiration info right up top like that, and moving the awards info. Nice changes. I did a big cleanup of the text for typos and grammar and flow, but it still seems looooooooong. LBoogey 01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey

 * Haha I just realized that right this second too. It feels good to clean up so much of the article, nice work!  I'm just going to expand the intro a little, and maybe some of the plot summary.  I agree though, still way too long (especially the in-depth synopsis)!  Oh well, one step at a time.  --Drenched 01:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

American Bias
I think the line "Miss Saigon was part of the major European influence on Broadway in the 1980s, along with the musicals Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, and Les Misérables" is a little too "American-centric" if that makes any sense. I agree that European musicals did infiltrate Broadway, but in all fairness, Miss Saigon, the Phantom, Les Mis and the like all originally opened in Europe and were intended for a EUROPEAN audience, not an American one. Because they were such big hit, obviously they made their way across the Atlantic. They didn't set out to influence Broadway, Nroadway was just the next logical step. Maybe I am being too picky, but I think this could be re-worded. 65.94.19.87 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm open to rewording the sentence and I definitely see your point. I personally feel that the above sentence & use of the phrase "major European influence" is acceptable since the genre of musical theatre is culturally American despite the fact that the listed musicals are European in origin.  If you have a more global & less biased rewording to offer, by all means go for it! --Drenched 06:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And not necessarily American culturally but Broadway itself is American so I personally don’t see an issue with the wording. RJS001 (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed Content??
I'm not sure why my additions regarding the three alternate endings of Miss Saigon were removed, citing no sources. It is a FACT that there were three different endings to the musical. The proof is in those who have heard them. Having seen the Toronto production, and seeing as I OWN both the London and Complete Symphonic recordings which contain different endings from each other, anyone else with an equal passion for the show KNOWS that there are three different endings. But I feel the information was removed because I said there was a "rumor" that the material was altered for certain reasons. This is because the articles themselves state only rumors; however the songs themselves are not. If you would like the proper citations to be included, that's fair enough... but the existence of three different endings is NOT a rumor, and should therefore not have been removed. Removing those FACTS limits research capabilities of those who are educating themselves about the show, and erased the hard work of people who felt they should contribute missing information for those who do not know these "little known facts". So why was everything removed instead of removing only the line about the rumor?

Surely I don't have to prove that these three variations exist, otherwise much of the information in the article itself must be considered unverifiable. I even went so far as so include the titles of these variations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you do have to cite sources. Our policies include No Original Research (Wikipedia does not accept 'facts' that have not been published before) and Verifiability (so that we can check it out for accuracy). We cannot take the word of anyone random user on this site. The JPS talk to me  09:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Futhermore...
Sure, I can remove the bit about "rumors", but how does one prove that there are multiple versions of the ending? Need I cite Amazon which has track listings? Or lyrics pages? How is that information any less credible than the following (which were taken directly off the existing page):

"Miss Saigon was part of the major European influence on Broadway in the 1980s, along with the musicals Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, and Les Misérables." No citation.

"Since its opening in London in 1989, Miss Saigon was successfully produced in many cities around the world including Stuttgart and Toronto, where new theatres were designed specifically to house the show. In December 1994 the London production became the Theatre Royal's (Drury Lane) longest running musical, eclipsing the record set by My Fair Lady." No citation.

I would assume that whoever is moderating this page has sufficient knowledge enough to post accurate information, and thus possesses more than the Average Joe's share of information about the production. But as it stands, this site addresses musical numbers for only one recording. I'm not just any old Joe who comes on with information... I'm a person who has known about these changes as any Miss Saigon fan does, and happened to look for the reasons behind these changes. I came to Wikipedia, and noticed that your site didn't even acknowledge this basic information about the show. I was inclined to look elsewhere... and then I realized that I could contribute. There is no specific article about these three endings... it's just a known fact among audiences. Can you not describe an alternate ending of a movie without having to find that someone corroborates your story somewhere? Can an audience not find out for themselves by seeing it with their own eyes? Someone has to be the first to include this information when all others lack it. Otherwise, you all end up being incomplete centers for information, and your readers go elsewhere.

Furthermore, can a rumor not be included when it's a part of something's folklore? After all, sometimes rumors (when stated as such, so they are not taken as gospel truth) are a part of the phenomenon. "Miss Saigon fans believe..." etc. It's a part of the show's history, like the supposed hanged Munchkin in the background of "The Jitter Bug" deleted scene in The Wizard of Oz. Are we to exclude this bit of folklore from research simply because it's a rumor, even though it is a part of the show's history? Meanwhile, your site has articles on alien abduction phenomenon, stating that:

'Some abduction reports are quite detailed. An entire subculture has developed around the subject, with support groups and a detailed mythos explaining the reasons for abductions: The various aliens (Greys, Reptilians, "Nordics" and so on) are said to have specific roles, origins, and motivations. Abduction claimants do not always attempt to explain the phenomenon, but some take independent research interest in it themselves, and explain the lack of greater awareness of Alien Abduction as the result of either extraterrestrial or governmental interest in cover-up.'

No citation, even though the term "are said to have" is the same as saying "rumored to have". It seems that certain cases allow for rumor when they are a part of the culture, and musical theatre culture should not be excluded from that. What's worse, NOTHING about alien abduction can be substantiated enough for it to be proven a fact. The entire article can thus be classified a rumor. So, would it be more acceptable in my case to say "rumored among fans..."? Can it not be a part of pop-culture mythology to ever talk about the rumors of Jessica Rabbit's exposed vagina in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? Or that the animator was fired for creating a sex scene? Everyone knows the story.. but has it ever been proved to be more than rumor. Yet, it remains a part of the movie's history nonetheless.

My addition about the deleted song "Too Much For One Heart" was also removed, despite the admiration of fans everywhere who love the song and think it should have remained. Lea Salonga even sings it on her album and explains that it was rehearsed to death, then cut. You can watch it on YouTube, read about it in small tidbits in various places. But has it ever been discussed at length an in proper reference? Not until now. These rumors do not impact an individual or suggest opinions. I was merely contributing to an article which COULD HAVE been the first to contain missing information; information that a proper editor and moderator would realize is missing. So exactly what kind of citation is required for the FACT that there are 3 Miss Saigon endings, or that musical theatre buffs discuss why these changes were made? What would be satisfying outside of confirmation from the composers themselves? Can this not be the first place to publish such information? Is Wikipedia a center for second-hand information gathered from outside sources, or does it strive to be a center of thorough, detailed information? Your readers should have access to this information. It's all verifiable, just not necessarily through a single link. If your moderators actually spend the time, it can be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Can you not describe an alternate ending of a movie without having to find that someone corroborates your story somewhere?" No! It's easier with films with DVD releases (any alternate ending might be included on the DVD's extra features, and would thus be verifiable). If reliable sources discussed film rumours, then we could include the examples you mention. The article on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) mentions that the "Jitter Bug" song is mentioned in a DVD documentary. The Who Framed Roger Rabbit controversy is verifiable in the primary source. To verify the fact, one just needs to find a laserdisc. Unfortunately, live theatre does not have the same luxury: the primary source is usually lost in time and is unverifiable.
 * I agree that the article is not as good as it could be. If there is any material that you find is unreferenced, add next to it. We also have another guideline, though: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It means that we don't condone breaches of style/original research/verifiability just because there are other instances of it. You ask "Is Wikipedia a center for second-hand information gathered from outside sources, or does it strive to be a center of thorough, detailed information?" The former is true. In fact, we are one level down: as an encyclopedia, we are a tertiary source.  The JPS talk to me  10:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously...
I realize they can't be cited for the most part, and that's the point. That's why I didn't reference them to begin with. You can't cite every line of every article. At some point, you have to accept that a lot is generated by a writer or administrator based on known fact, as I demonstrated with selection quotations. You're assuming that your administrators are the end-all of knowledge, but I've just demonstrated that fact about this production have been overlook and then dismissed. So, who is determining what is "factual" about a topic? Are you educated in musical theater or proficient in performances of Miss Saigon? (It's an honest question. I'm not trying to be snide.)  If I was quoting a person who some material that might lead to legal problems or "misleading information" that forms an opinion in the reader, I'd understand the argument.

Just because it can't be legally cited doesn't mean it's not true. It may be up to more than just the initial writer to research the sources if they can't be cited up to your standards. "I" may not be able to cite them, but you can see for yourself by click on at least the video of Lea Salonga SINGING the song, and explaining it, that it DOES exist. That concert exists on DVD and on CD in addition to being on YouTube. It was also on YouTube several months ago when someone posted the entire staged production of Miss Saigon. You could see all three versions - live, during their original runs. But if you're telling me that Wikipedia would outright dismiss these simply because of of the legal ramifications, then it's time to reevaluate your procedures. You may not be able to cite them, but you can certainly use them as evidence that the statement is not false. It's a shame that you can't become a higher tier source of info, because everyone I know spends all day on Wikipedia filling up with "random knowledge". You have the potential to put every other "pedia" out of business, but more and more people are becoming disgruntled by the way information is handled. I gather it's a tricky thing to moderate when so many people can upload... but again... that's why actually "looking into it" instead of deleting what people took hours to write is more advantageous. Your people deleted credible material that other Miss Saigon researchers should know.

Long story short: despite the fact that I DID mention these recordings in the original posting, the info was pulled. We've come full circle, only now it's allowed when it wasn't before. I think Wikipedia has lost track of what kind of material should be referenced and what is just generic information. Otherwise, ever single word of every line should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I only came to this discussion about 90 mins ago so I admit I'm unaware of the wording. I wasn't prepared to sift through the article's history to read every bit of guff that anonymous users added.
 * Is the DVD commercially available?
 * It doesn't matter whether or not something exists. It must be verifiable.
 * We are not allowed to cite YouTube because of copyright problems. However, you would be able cite the source of that clip if you knew the accurate information (e.f. a specific promotional interview on specific programme...). Unfortunately YouTube users are quite careless in not respecting the copyright holders and not even bothering to credit their sources.
 * I am happy for you to add information that the CDs verify. The JPS talk to me  11:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A Final Word?
If you mean that citing YouTube videos would be to say, for example: "Blah blah blah, deleted song, included on Lea Salonga's Concert DVD", then that makes sense.

And to answer your question, yes, the DVD I spoke of is "Lea Salonga: The Broadway Concert" and it is commercially available. It's also on CD and, more ironically, discussed on Wikipedia, along with a similar comment about the song. So, you see... my comment was rejected, while someone else's was approved. That's where my determination is stemming from, here. Inconsistency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lea_Salonga

In regards to the comment that live theater cannot be verified because of the passage of time, why are the very audiences who saw it not verifiable? If you asked, I'm sure you could get the sheet music. Are witness accounts of any discussed crime, assassination, war, holocaust, accident, and so on inadmissible from any reference if they come to you directly? If a survivor of the Titanic tried to edit info, but had no reference except his experience, is he disregarded? His or her testimony is ALL the verification that will ever exist, whether by word or on paper.

One only need ask differing Miss Saigon fans about their experiences, or talk to the actors, or creators. Being unverifiable is only limited to things that no longer exist, and whose creators and everyone involved are dead. Miss Saigon is still an active show, and everyone is still alive. Why must it be through text that verifications are achievable? You have whole articles on the Titanic that have no citation next to facts, but we are to take them as such simply out of trust. Clearly, I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, but Wikipedia's standard of deciding what is "verifiable" based on how popular or common-knowledge the fact is. Based on what we learn in fourth grade, this type of material doesn't warrant citation. It warrants verifying, yes, but if no one trusted my additions, they could have taken the 30 seconds it took ME to locate evidence and prove my case. From there, it can be accepted without citation as being a simple fact about the show. You have a list of productions, none of which are cited, but I assume someone looked them up to see if they were legitimate.

Finally, in response to the idea that the dead Munchkin can be proven, when it cannot, I still feel it's a legitimate part of the movie's folklore despite it being a "rumor". But perhaps it's a bad example. Let's use the lunar landing. Someone looking up the lunar landing should have access to the "rumor" that it was faked. Would it be unethical for Wikipedia, then, to have a section at the bottom discussing conspiracy theories that it was false? To say "some believe, yadda yadda yadda..." That it was staged to make the Russians believe we got there first, and the cold war silently continues. A great deal of people BELIEVE that theory, but it is a legitimate rumor worth including in a knowledge base about the subject. Why does that fact, above all else, have to be cited? As a matter of fact, you site DOES discuss the rumors without citation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_landing

I think the issue here is that "verifiable" has come to mean "instantly corroborated on Google". Clearly, the person who rejected my initial post didn't take the time to verify what I'd said. A quick search was done, nothing came up, and it was assumed that it was not verifiable when in fact it was. And asking if something is commercially available isn't ethical, either. Things may be not be available in North America. Cher released a non-commercial CD which cannot be found by commercial means, but that doesn't mean it's not verifiable -- it means you won't find it by limiting yourself to Amazon. Just because something is not verifiable by the moderator in question, doesn't mean it should be removed. I did my part, but he or she may have had limited resources. It should be "subject to further verification" and maintained until its proven to be anything but.

Well, I appreciate your time on this. I feel it's viable information that involves production of the show, and should not be ignored just because someone else overlooked its accuracy. Freakydisco 12:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Here's the thing, Freakydisco -- Wikipedia uses secondary sources. The DVD, the recording, the show itself, etc., are all primary sources.  A primary source is the thing that happened, a secondary source is something that covered the thing that happened.  I didn't read your entire posts here, as they are EXCEPTIONALLY long, but I think that might be where the confusion stems from.
 * Secondly, please don't expect WP to overhaul the way things are done in order to add three sentences to the Miss Saigon article. The policy on verifiability is there for a very good reason.  We can't have people posting things like "Clay Aiken is gay because I slept with him."  That might be true, but it's hardly verifiable.  That's why the policy is in place, and it should -- and does -- extend beyond biographical articles.
 * Now, you seem to be looking at other articles to back up why you should be allowed to post what you want. It's true that there are some unsubstantiated claims throughout WP.  In the earlier days, citing claims wasn't as strenuously enforced as it is now.  There are entire articles that are unsourced, this is true.  However, there is a concerted effort to get them sourced.  There are Wikipedians who do nothing else but try to find sources for unsourced content.  Instead of making their job more difficult, nowadays, we ask that everything be sourced.
 * So, find a source on the three endings. It looks like you've been trying to do that.  I'm sure there are some out there.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source; it's not trying to be a secondary source.  Find the source, cite your contribution, and no one will have a problem with it.  —   Music  Maker  5376  12:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it's about no original research. Comments from Holocaust/Titanic etc survivors, or rumours about the Lunar Landings, would not be appropriate if they were inputted directly into Wikipedia. They would be acceptable if they were first published in a reliable source such as a book/newspaper article/documentary. :Let me put it this way: Wikipedia reflects knowledge, not create it.
 * If the sheet music were published (I own one of the early 1990s books), the you could cite it. You (or me) possessing the non-published sheet music is not acceptable. An e-mail sent from the producers to one of us is unacceptable. Wikipedia needs verifiability: that is why it says so just below the box into which you type. The JPS talk to me  12:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

'Auckland 2008'? Any proof of this? Denala (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Material
I would like to reopen the discussion on the Alternate Endings and Deleted Material that occurred some time ago -- a discussion that was quickly shelved, despite my arguments in support of the addition. After spending quite some time adding to the article, my information was deleted and deemed inaccurate and unverifiable despite the fact that my sources are precisely what the moderators were requesting as a source. It was in reference to three different endings, plus a deleted musical number which has recently gained some popularity.

The moderator stated that: "It's easier with films with DVD releases (any alternate ending might be included on the DVD's extra features, and would thus be verifiable). [For example:] The article on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) mentions that the "Jitter Bug" song is mentioned in a DVD documentary. The Who Framed Roger Rabbit controversy is verifiable in the primary source. To verify the fact, one just needs to find a laserdisc. Unfortunately, live theatre does not have the same luxury: the primary source is usually lost in time and is unverifiable."

My sources for this information were described in the article as the three differing cast albums on which these endings occur: The Original London Cast Recording, The Complete Symphonic Recording, and the 1992 Japanese Cast Recording which are still in print and available for purchase; as well as Lea Salonga's concert DVD and CD on which she explains the rehearsal and subsequent deletion of the song she's about to sing. My insistence of this was ignored, however, and the material still rejected. If DVDs are sufficient evidence and can be used as a credible source, why is an audible CD bearing three distinctive versions of material not also considered a viable source? The material has, contrary to the original moderator's suggestion, not been "lost in time and unverifiable." One needs only read the libretto, play the three recordings and the DVD to verify that this information is accurate. Given that, I still fail to see the difference in what I've provided and what the moderators are looking for. At the very least, a better explanation would suffice.

Oddly enough, a similar edit I made to the article on Les Miserables was deleted for describing verifiable material about previous composers and deleted musical numbers -- also verifiable by listen to the soundtracks or reading the libretto. This deletion was then reinserted by someone else and kept on, despite containing the exact same information. Thusly, I would like to reinstate the material to educate people on the conception and development of the show and its history, but I also don't want material to be axed after spending time on it. Furthermore, the musical numbers listed are inaccurate and in some case duplicates of the same song, bearing different titles from varying recordings. It also contains names of deleted songs, which ironically no one has checked for authenticity or spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Voice parts
Personally, I don't see much point in listing the voice parts, as they are all exactly the same. Among the principles, the males are all tenors, and the females are all belters. Having each character designated as a voice type is redundant, from my perspective.

And I disagree with the consensus that The Engineer is a baritone. Just because Jonathan Pryce has played baritone roles doesn't make the Engineer a baritone. In 'If You Want to Die in Bed' and 'The American Dream,' he has several high A-flats. I'll wager he's more often played by tenors than baritones.

80s or 90s?
The Background section states "Miss Saigon was one of the major European musicals on Broadway in the 1980s, along with Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, and Les Misérables." But the Production history section says "On April 11 1991, it opened at the Broadway Theatre in New York City". Surely one of those statements is wrong? --87.65.71.21 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics versions?
I would like to see a discussion of the different versions of the lyrics, for example how the older version had the Act 2 song "It's Her or Me" now replaced with "Now That I've Seen Her". The fact that there's two versions of the song is clearly mentioned in this article in at least two places, but I'd like to see some sort of "production notes" about when the change was made, if not why, and which recordings have it in which version. --zandperl (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I second the request for different versions to be discussed... Most common soundtracks now available, for example, have "This is the Hour" which contains material from the latter part of "Back in Town" and "Thuy's Death/You Will Not Touch Him", but the former part of "Back in Town" is missing. or the lyrics are different from "Thuy's Arrival" to "What's This I Find" (which cover the same incident), and "The Morning of the Dragon" lyrics which are online now leave out the entire center section with Thuy and the Engineer, leaving only the chorus. Songlyrics.com and Allmusicals.com have two different versions of the soundtrack. Even just knowing which version is cited would help... 75.149.19.193 (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Kardia1122 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.19.193 (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Based upon
According to Schönberg in my Miss Saigon program, Miss Saigon is based on the novel Madame Chrysantehemum by Pierre Loti. Madama Butterfly is based on a short story by John Luther Long (Madame Butterfly), which in it's turn was based on Madame Chrysantehemum.

This will probably make Miss Saigon and Madama Butterfly more of parallel stories than "Miss Saigon is based on Madama Butterfly" as claimed in the article.

Source: The Miss Saigon program from the London production.

Psy96jys (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Orther
This musical must be performed in this year (2013) in VietNam - At least just once time in Saigon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khangdu (talk • contribs) 12:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing Info
There are differences in the end of the play, depending on which production. The original London version had a song, "The Sacred Bird", finishing out the play right before "Finale". This was absent in the Broadway version, which went from "The American Dream" to "Finale". Finally, you list "This is the House (Reprise)" as the song between "The American Dream" and "Finale" in this article. Sourcing can be found through IMDB and other similar sources listing of tracks on official soundtracks from these productions. I lack sufficient knowledge to make this edit myself, in terms of Wikipedia standards and in terms of editing, but this difference and the reasoning behind it are more crucial than much of the other information contained in this article. Additionally, it's exactly (emphasis on that) the sort of thing people come to this site in particular to learn about - it's what brought me here today. Could someone be kind enough to consider this? 24.189.7.56 (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tam casting
Do we need to list each and every kid who plays Tam? That part of the cast table is getting a little out of hand and I would argue that it's not really that notable, also, it's virtually unverifiable because of the short term nature of the casting. Other than the 6 names listed on the 2014 recording and the show programme, neither of which are cited, there doesn't seem to be anywhere to verify this. CaptainPedge |  Talk  03:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing as no one has objected and I agree with the above I have removed Tam from the cast listsDragonFury (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150921085334/http://www.racialicious.com/2013/10/15/the-ordway-still-doesnt-get-sexism-and-racism-the-problem-with-miss-saigon/ to http://www.racialicious.com/2013/10/15/the-ordway-still-doesnt-get-sexism-and-racism-the-problem-with-miss-saigon/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420212111/http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222.html to http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402061014/http://world-theatres.com/longruns.html to http://www.world-theatres.com/longruns.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C970956%2C00.html?iid=chix-sphere
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201939/http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/awards/winners to http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/awards/winners

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821233314/http://www.miss-saigon.com/theshow/inspirations.htm to http://www.miss-saigon.com/theshow/inspirations.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821054252/http://www.miss-saigon.com/factsandfigures/ to http://www.miss-saigon.com/factsandfigures/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820055847/http://www.miss-saigon.com/theshow/index.htm to http://www.miss-saigon.com/theshow/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309060539/http://www.bigleague.org/highlights_saigon.htm to http://www.bigleague.org/highlights_saigon.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003022619/http://www.tcgcircle.org/2013/10/establishing-cultural-norms-our-role-and-responsibility/ to http://www.tcgcircle.org/2013/10/establishing-cultural-norms-our-role-and-responsibility/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013092625/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/133993-The-Movie-in-My-Mind-Miss-Saigon-on-Track-for-Film-Treatment to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/133993-The-Movie-in-My-Mind-Miss-Saigon-on-Track-for-Film-Treatment
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208171756/http://musical.org.nz/miss_saigon_photo_christchurch.htm to http://www.musical.org.nz/miss_saigon_photo_christchurch.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208171753/http://musical.org.nz/saigon_christchurch_cast.htm to http://www.musical.org.nz/saigon_christchurch_cast.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724174512/http://www.bomlo-nytt.no/index.cfm?event=doLink&famId=92973 to http://www.bomlo-nytt.no/index.cfm?event=doLink&famId=92973
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307160617/http://www.miss-saigon.com/tour/ to http://www.miss-saigon.com/tour
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090714062249/http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/18/18_yellow.html to http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/18/18_yellow.html
 * Added tag to http://brightlightsfilm.com/certain-slant-brief-history-hollywood-yellowface/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430204135/http://www.modelminority.com/article970.html to http://www.modelminority.com/article970.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Karen Shimakawa
I just added a section based upon the chapter on Miss Saigon from National abjection : the Asian American body on stage by Karen Shimakawa. That was just deleted under the grounds that another editor suspected it was copied in its entirety from her book. What was written was based upon her book, but it was not a copy. Her book is a RS and I very strongly feel that the material based upon her book would improve this article. Are any objections to restoring it? Thank you all for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said; I don't have access to the source material but I'll take your word for it the text isn't plagiarized. That being said, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to include a full scale analysis of the themes of any kind fictional material. Furthermore, there is a Controversy section already in the article, I'd suggest incorporating the objections raised by Shimakawa into that text. DragonFury (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you DragonFury. There are lots of other articles with books and films that analysis sections, and putting the material from Shimakawa's book into the controversy section might be a bit misleading. Thank you for your time and co-operation. Cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

When I suggested incorporating the criticism from Shimakawa into the existing section I meant include a few sentences, maybe a paragraph or two, to illustrate the core argument of her objections, not an entire dissertation spelling out every little flaw with every song and production or casting choice made. As I said before "I don't think Wikipedia is the place to include a full scale analysis of the themes of any kind fictional material" The recent edits have added over 20k bytes to the article, increasing it's length by almost 40%, most of which is not needed for what is essentially an encyclopedia article. Explanations of character archetypes, lyrical analysis, and outright comparison to its source material Madame Butterfly are best left to academic writing and analysis, not (I repeat) an encyclopedia article. At the moment I don't have time to get into a serious edit, but I do plan to seriously scale down the recent edits to something much more appropriate. DragonFury (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, DragonFury, this proprietary tone you are taking under which you graciously grant me permission to edit this article smacks very much of sounding you are claiming ownership of this article. I going to say this as politely as I can that this is not an helpful way to operate. A qualitative approach is much better than your quantitative approach. 20k bytes of good content that actually explains to the reader what the controversy is all about certainly improves an article. To be frank, I do not understand your objections to bring academic sources to an encyclopedia article, which improves an article. Since when does using proper academic sources damage an article? This is absurd. Likewise, I did not understand why you deleted the part about the media in 1990 gave almost as much coverage to this controversy as they did to the Gulf crisis, which shows it struck a nerve with the public. Making a comment in the talk section without informing me is no reason to delete a great deal of good material that improves an article. As edit warring is not allowed, I will not revert your deletions as much I disapprove. Ideally, one get a consensus here to restore my contributions, but it seems there is no-one else interested in this dispute. This is another example of how one stubborn editor can stymie improving an article by merely being stubborn. You deleted my first attempt to contribute to this article by accusing me of plagiarism without presenting any proof whatsoever, which is again not a constructive way to operate. However, I will make a good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. I take it that you will not object if I created a sub-article for the Miss Saigion controversy, which should take care of your concerns about length. --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I never objected to adding sources, the sources you provided (Shimakawa, Wong, and Corliss) are all still cited in the article, my objections were regarding the relevance of the added text to the article. Most of your edits were merely different examples of the same basic criticism a lot of commenters have about the production: that it presents a simplistic and racist image of Vietnam, a misogynistic view towards Vietnamese women, with both criticisms extending to how Asia and its people(s) as a whole have been portrayed in Western media. The core of this argument was present before your edits, and remains after my edits, with the addition of the sources already mentioned. As for making a separate article; that's obeying the letter of the law, not the spirit.DragonFury (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A Marine is not a G.I.
U.S.Marines are not considered to be an American G.I.. 89.8.137.70 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Valid point, corrected.DragonFury (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Production history in France?
The article indicates that the musical was first produced in London, notwithstanding that the composer, book writers, and one of the two lyricists are French. When and where was the first French-language production? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Critical response
There is no section on the response of theater critics. This is an important part of a theater article. Instead we had "Response" with nothing but awards info (I moved it). I am adding one critical response and I hope others can add more. Zaslav (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Miss Saigon


text: User talk:81.151.78.167

title: User talk:81.151.78.167


text:
User talk:Primeirocrime

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!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

 * Well, I'm actually an IP here, but thought you'd like a nice warm welcome from us Wikipedians. If you need any help, feel free to contact any of the administrators here listed at this page. Cheers, and have a great day! --20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Primeirocrime, nice to see you around in Wikipedia.Thanks for doing editing in the SGI article.Gammadion 13:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Primeirocrime


text:
Talk:Z (video game)

Untitled
Can anyone add some screenshots of the game, and give some technical information about the game?

Cleanup
The entire interface section (including subsections) of this article reads like an instruction manual. This is one of the things that Wikipedia is not. Also, many claims in the text are not sourced.--Drat (Talk) 05:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I cleaned it up Sections of this page are moved to the Encyclopedia gamia under [Z] and Z/walkthrough Z walkthrough because of tag move to gaming wiki. --Cs california 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Buildings
Building is not a unit. It is a part of the map landscape. -- redmond barry

Steam release?
The game is being released again on steam, can't find any details on the page other than a few screenshots and the company.206.21.161.133 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Also on GOG (http://www.gog.com/game/z). Not sure what to add to the article, so providing the link for someone who wants to update. 84.56.8.74 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What confused me is that the publisher - and hence this article - say "The Game has been rebuilt from scratch" but reading the reviews indicate that its only a port from the mobile version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty2662 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Z (video game)


text:
User talk:Inappropriatecontent

Welcome to Wikipedia! I saw some of your changes to Salt Lake pages! Good work! Hope to see more of it. You do not need to sign the history, it is automatic. If you edit, it signs for you. If you want to reply to me, please click the "talk" link on my signature, and edit that page! — [[User:JonMoore|—Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 20:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Inappropriatecontent


text:
James Hope, 1st Baron Rankeillour

James Fitzalan Hope, 1st Baron Rankeillour, PC (11 December 1870 – 14 February 1949), was a British Conservative politician. He served as Chairman of Ways and Means from 1921 to 1924 and again from 1924 to 1929.

Background and education
A member of the Hope family now headed by the Marquess of Linlithgow, Hope was the third but only surviving son of J. R. Hope-Scott, of Abbotsford House, and Lady Victoria Alexandrina Fitzalan-Howard, eldest daughter of Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 14th Duke of Norfolk. He was educated at The Oratory School and at Christ Church, Oxford.

Political career
Hope was Conservative Member of Parliament for Sheffield Brightside from 1900 to 1906 and for Sheffield Central from 1908 to 1929. He was appointed a member of the Teachers′ Registration Council in late 1902. Hope served under H. H. Asquith as Treasurer of the Household from 1915 to 1916 and under David Lloyd George as a Lord of the Treasury from 1916 to 1919 and as Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions from 1919 to 1921, when that office was abolished. He was Chairman of Ways and Means (Deputy-Speaker of the House of Commons) from 1921 until February 1924 and again from December 1924 until 1929, when he fought and lost Walthamstow East. He was sworn of the Privy Council in the 1922 New Year Honours and raised to the peerage as Baron Rankeillour, of Buxted in the County of Sussex, in 1932.

Family
Lord Rankeillour married, firstly, Mabel Helen Riddell, youngest daughter of Francis Henry Riddell, in 1892. They had three sons (two of whom succeeded in turn to the Barony) and one daughter. After his first wife's death in 1938, he married Lady Beatrice Minnie Ponsonby Moore, only daughter of Ponsonby William Moore, 9th Earl of Drogheda, and widow of Struan Robertson Kerr-Clark, in 1941.

He died in February 1949, aged 78, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Arthur. Lady Rankeillour died in May 1966. Their younger son, Henry John, succeeded his brother to the title and estate in 1958.

title: James Hope, 1st Baron Rankeillour


text:
DutchCaribbeanExel

DutchCaribbeanExel was an airline with its head office in Amsterdam. The airline connected from the Netherlands to the Netherlands Antilles and was based at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

History
The airline was established in 2004 and started operations on 15 July 2004. It was wholly owned by ExelAviation Group. The airline folded in early February 2005 when the group declared bankruptcy.

The ExelAviation Group started to disintegrate in late-2004, soon after the takeover of DutchBird; when failed Air Holland (declared bankrupt with €30M in debt) was investigated for alleged laundering of drug money and arrests were made, it put HollandExel in negative publicity as well.

In February 2005, HollandExel filed for the Dutch equivalent of Chapter 11 and its main client, tour operator TUI Netherlands invested millions to keep the airline flying. Two months later, TUI Netherlands continued HollandExel under new management, operating as ArkeFly and the fleet of aircraft plus some 400 employees moved to the new company.

DutchCaribbeanExel would later, together with its sister airline, HollandExel, be taken over by TUI AG and renamed Arkefly Curaçao.

Destinations

DutchCaribbeanExel operated the following services (in January 2005):

Fleet
The DutchCaribbeanExel fleet consisted of the following aircraft (at April 2005):

title: DutchCaribbeanExel


text:
User talk:Irishrepublican1916

Let the truth flow from here....

Ra...er  IrishRepubublican1916

title: User talk:Irishrepublican1916


text:
Talk:Qvale

I've edited to nearly a native English standard, but is this article even correct? The MG Rover article says that Qvale built their first car in 1986. --kingboyk 20:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, MG_XPower_SV says that MG only leased the factory. --kingboyk 21:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Some more Facts about Qvale
The MG Rover article is wrong and this has been corrected now. Qvale - the car manufacturer - was founded overnight in 2000 for reasons given in this article. Qvale - the Importer of European Cars to the USA - was founded back in 1947. The Qvale was first was presented 1996 as De Tomaso Biguà and it was designed around the Visteon V8. This engine wasn't available in 1986.--NicolasCH 07:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation is strange. Most English speakers would not know how to pronounce aa. It should be more phonetically spelled.

For example, what you may be trying to get at is kuh-vah-lee (like cavalie). Or perhaps kuh-vah-lay (like cavalay).

 * It is strange with the initial vowel sound here. It should be two syllables in either North American or Scandinavian pronuncuation, so unless the Italians have modified it, it seems likely to just be wrong.  Either at most a slight stop between the k and v sounds at most, or a v pronounced like u are possible in a general sense for this and variants in its spelling.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Qvale


text:
User talk:Alex G.

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! Bushytails 20:47, 5 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

Info on image, please
Please go to Image:4301308.jpg and edit that image description page to give the source (URL, if online; ISBN, if scanned from a book; and if you've taken the image yourself, just say so) and the licensing status (the list of image copyright tags might be useful) of this image. All our images should have this information; images without source or license info will be deleted after seven days. Thank you. Lupo 11:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (Also all your other image uploads.)

title: User talk:Alex G.


text:
Skin Deep (1989 film)

Skin Deep is a 1989 American romantic sex comedy film written and directed by Blake Edwards and starring John Ritter.

Plot
Zachary "Zach" Hutton is a successful author with a weakness for alcohol and beautiful women. The tumultuous course of his life takes a dramatic turn when his mistress catches him cheating with her attractive hairdresser. This discovery is followed by a perilous encounter, as his estranged wife, Alex, stumbles upon the scene, finding the mistress poised to shoot Zach with his own revolver.

As the relationships crumble, Zach embarks on a self-destructive journey marked by binge-drinking and seeking solace in a string of women. He neglects work, exacerbates tensions with his ex-wife, and even attends a formal party in a genie's costume while inebriated.

Zach's escapades include a tumultuous affair with a volatile woman named Molly, who subjects him to a skin-treatment electro-therapy machine, causing quivering spasms from head to toe. Another episode unfolds in total darkness, with Zach wearing a luminous condom as he prepares for an encounter with a woman named Amy. Unexpectedly, Amy's boyfriend returns to the hotel room similarly attired, leading to a frantic glow-in-the-dark fight.

After disrupting his ex-wife's wedding day, Zach confronts the realization that his lifestyle has spiraled out of control. Motivated to change, he sobers up, refrains from womanizing, and rediscovers his passion for writing. Against all odds, he achieves the trifecta of recovery, ultimately winning back Alex's love, proving her initial doubts about his transformation wrong.

Cast

 * John Ritter as Zachary "Zach" Hutton
 * Vincent Gardenia as Barney the Barkeeper
 * Alyson Reed as Alexandra "Alex" Hutton
 * Joel Brooks as Jake Fedderman
 * Julianne Phillips as Molly
 * Chelsea Field as Amy McKenna
 * Peter Donat as Leon "Sparky" Sparks
 * Don Gordon as Curt Ames
 * Nina Foch as Marge, Alex's Mother
 * Denise Crosby as Angela "Angie" Smith
 * Michael Kidd as Dr. Westford
 * Dee Dee Rescher as Bernice Fedderman
 * Bryan Genesse as Rick Curry
 * Bo Foxworth as Greg
 * Raye Hollitt as Lonnie Jones
 * Brenda Swanson as Emily
 * Jean Marie McKee as Rebecca "Becky"

Production
A glaring production issue is visible in the final film. John Ritter is bearded throughout the movie and for the majority of the film he has an actual beard. There were clearly some random scenes that were re-shot after he shaved his beard and in those scenes he's sporting a clearly artificial beard that does not match his actual beard very closely.

Critical reception
The film received mixed to negative reviews. The film earned a 32% "Rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 28 critics, with an average rating of 5.10/10. On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 43 out of 100 based on 12 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".

However, many critics praised John Ritter's performance in the film. One of the few positive reviews was by Roger Ebert, who wrote, "The daring thing Edwards does in Skin Deep is to try to combine two entirely different tones within the same film. This is a smart, sensitive film that knows a lot about human nature."

Box office
Despite negative reviews, the film was a financial success grossing $20 million in the United States and Canada and $25 million internationally, for a worldwide total of $45 million.

Soundtrack

 * "Falling Out of Love" performed by Ivan Neville
 * "Just to Keep You Satisfied" performed by Marvin Gaye
 * "I Can't Go Home" performed by The Robert Cray Band
 * "It's Just a Matter of Time" performed by Brook Benton
 * "Skin Deep" performed by Debra Holland
 * "Songbird" performed by Kenny G
 * "Dreamin'" performed by Vanessa Williams
 * "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" performed by The Falla Trio
 * "Have You Met Miss Jones?" written by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart (not credited in the film)
 * "My Romance" written by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart (not credited in the film)
 * Film score and additional incidental music by Henry Mancini (not credited in the film)
 * Additional incidental music by Cole Porter (not credited in the film)

The song "Killer Love" by Al Jarreau was intended to be used in the film, but was omitted at the last minute. The song was released on Jarreau's 1988 album Heart's Horizon.

title: Skin Deep (1989 film)


text:
Talk:Shirley Abrahamson

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shirley Abrahamson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125180056/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/forensics/dna/commission/members.htm to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/forensics/dna/commission/members.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shirley Abrahamson


text:
1930 Yugoslav Football Championship

The 1930 National Championship (Serbo-Croato-Slovenian: Državno prvenstvo 1930. / Државно првенство 1930.) had the number of teams participating raised to six. The champion, Concordia Zagreb, was a newly formed team consisting of previous HAŠK players.

Qualifiers
In 1930, two new sub-associations were formed. On April 13, the sub-association of Novi Sad was created, which would include the clubs from the districts of Novi Sad, Sremska Mitrovica, and Šabac. A month later, on May 9, the sub-association of Veliki Bečkerek was formed, including the clubs from Veliki Bečkerek, Vršac, Kikinda, and Pančevo districts.

Just as in the previous seasons, the two best-placed teams from the sub-associations of Belgrade and Zagreb would compete, while the rest of the sub-associations would qualify their champion. The Yugoslav Football Association, in order to increase the number of teams in the final stage, made some alterations, including that the first two teams positioned in the previous season (Hajduk Split and BSK Belgrade) qualify directly to the final stage.

The representatives were:

 * Sub-association of Belgrade: BSK Belgrade (qualified directly) and SK Jugoslavija
 * Sub-association of Zagreb: HAŠK and Concordia Zagreb
 * Sub-association of Split: Hajduk Split (qualified directly)
 * Sub-association of Ljubljana: Ilirija
 * Sub-association of Osijek: Slavija Osijek
 * Sub-association of Sarajevo: Slavija Sarajevo
 * Sub-association of Skoplje: Empty
 * Sub-association of Subotica: Bačka

Qualifying round:
 * Bačka – Jugoslavija 2:1, 0:6
 * HAŠK – Slavija Osijek 3:3, 3:3 extra match: 1:1
 * Ilirija – Concordia 1:6, 0:6
 * Slavija Sarajevo was qualified as the Sub-association of Skoplje failed to present their team.

The qualified teams were Jugoslavija, Slavija Osijek, Concordia Zagreb, and Slavija Sarajevo. The first leg matches were played on July 6, with the second leg matches on July 13. The extra match between Slavija Osijek and HAŠK was played in Osijek on July 14. The Sub-association of Skoplje failed to present a champion as three clubs finished the league with equal number of points: Jug, SSK, and Sparta.

Winning squad
Champions:

CONCORDIA ZAGREB (coach: Bogdan Cuvaj)

Source:
 * Sergije Demić (10/0)
 * Stjepan Pavičić (10/0)
 * Boško Ralić (9/0)
 * Nikola Pavelić (8/0)
 * Daniel Premerl (6/1)
 * Gustav Remec (4/0)
 * Miloš Ferić (3/0)
 * Radovan Pavelić (10/4)
 * Dragutin Babić (10/0)
 * Edigio Martinović (10/1)
 * Ivan Pavelić (10/10)
 * Boris Praunberger (9/3)
 * Aleksandar Živković (8/5)
 * Vladimir Lolić (1/0)
 * Pavao Löw (1/0)
 * Božidar Armano (1/0)

Top scorers
Final goalscoring position, number of goals, player/players and club.
 * 1 - 10 goals - Blagoje Marjanović (BSK Belgrade)
 * 2 - 9 goals - Đorđe Vujadinović (BSK Belgrade)
 * 3 - 7 goals - Ivan Pavelić (Concordia), Leo Lemešić (Hajduk Split)

title: 1930 Yugoslav Football Championship


text:
Robert Makłowicz

Robert Witold Makłowicz (born 12 August 1963) is a Polish food critic, journalist, historian and television personality, notable as a promoter of the Polish cuisine and slow food.

Biography
He was born in 1963 in Kraków to sailor father Włodzimierz and mother Beata (née Preiss). On his father's side, he is mainly of Ukrainian origin, except for his great-grandmother, who was Armenian with Ukrainian self-identification. Initially, the surname was Mokłowicz (Моклович), including that of Robert's grandfather — Izydor, but upon Polonisation some members of the family changed it to Makłowicz. On his mother's side he also has Polish, Hungarian and Austrian ancestry.

He became fascinated with European cuisine during his studies at the Faculty of History of the Jagiellonian University. After the end of communism in Poland, in 1993, as a joke, he had shown one of his friends a recipe for wiener schnitzel he prepared himself. He was instantly offered the job of a culinary critic of the Kraków variation of the Gazeta Wyborcza daily. Soon afterwards his essays and descriptions of various restaurants in Kraków became so popular that he was moved to the all-national weekly magazine published by Gazeta Wyborcza. He also started cooperation with various other newspapers, including Przekrój, Wprost (2002–2005) and Newsweek Polska (since 2005).

In 1996 he was also offered a short programme in the morning block of the public TV. Although far from prime time, the programme gained much popularity and, since August 1998, Makłowicz has been preparing a weekly show named Robert Makłowicz's Culinary Travels. Each show is prepared in a different region of the world and presents the local cuisine as prepared by Makłowicz himself or by local people, not necessarily professional chefs. In 2016, he appeared on ''Bake-Off. Ale Ciacho!'' culinary show broadcast on TVP2 channel.

In 2017 TVP ended cooperation with Makłowicz. His show Makłowicz on the Road is shown on the Polish Food Network.

In 2020 Makłowicz created his own channel on YouTube.

Personal life
He has a younger sister named Dominika. In 1991, he married Agnieszka Pogoda with whom he has two sons: Mikołaj (born 1992) and Ferdynand (born 1996). Makłowicz is Armenian Catholic.

His grandfather's brother was Volodymyr Moklovych, a former combat officer of the Ukrainian nationalist UVO District Command in Stanisławów and a member of the OUN in Belgium. After the war Robert's father used to live with him until his departure to Poland.

Books
Makłowicz also published a number of books on culinary traditions of his homeland, Galicia. The first of the series, the C.K. Kuchnia (K.u.K. Cuisine) became a nationwide best-seller. Other Robert Makłowicz's books:

 * Zjeść Kraków (Eating Cracow, 2001) with Stanisław Mancewicz
 * Dialogi języka z podniebieniem (Dialogues of a Tongue with a Palate, 2003) with Piotr Bikont
 * Czy wierzyć platynowym blondynkom? (Do You Believe Platinum Blondes?, 2004)
 * Kalendarz znaleziony w brytfannie (A Calendar Found in a Baking Tin, 2005)
 * Podróże kulinarne Roberta Makłowicza. Smak Węgier (Robert Makłowicz's Culinary Travels. The Taste of Hungary, 2006)
 * Stół z niepowyłamywanymi nogami (A Table without Broken legs'', 2007) with Piotr Bikont
 * Fuzja Smaków. Podróże kulinarne Roberta Makłowicza (The Fusion of Tastes. Robert Makłowicz's Culinary Travels, 2007)
 * Cafe Museum (2010)
 * Dalmacja. Książka kucharska (Dalmatia. The Cookery Book, 2016)

Filmography

 * 2023: Asterix & Obelix: The Middle Kingdom (voice role)

title: Robert Makłowicz


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customize.org

 * 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. Carbonite | Talk 12:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Customize.org
Looks like spam, unless there's something really notable about this site (in which case, let's hear what it is).Keithlard 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Keithlard 20:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Never heard of them myself but Find web pages that contain the term Customize.org i.e.  throws up a lot of hits.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   21:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it has an alexa ranking of 36,000+, without other claim to notability this doesn't seem like a keeper. --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; added link to skin (computing) Anetode 21:51, 5 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:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Notability changes

This is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles.

'''Since policy and guidelines are DEscriptive rather than PREscriptive, there is no need to discuss it further. Deletions for lack of notability happen frequently. Hence, policy and guidelines reflect that practice.'''

Proposal
Specifically, this proposal is to add text to the following pages:

A) to What Wikipedia is not:

 * {| border="1" style="border-style:solid;border-width:2px;border-color:black"

Although there is debate about just what makes a subject notable, there is a consensus that a subject must be in some way significant, important, or notable to someone for it to be a proper subject of an encyclopedic article. Articles on completely trivial subjects, even if accurate and verifiable, are not appropriate.
 * Wikipedia is not for articles about non-notable subjects
 * Wikipedia is not for articles about non-notable subjects
 * }

B) to Deletion policy

 * {| border="1" style="border-style:solid;border-width:2px;border-color:black"

!Problem with page

!Solution !Add this tag
 * Is about a non-notable subject (see WP:NOT)
 * List on Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)
 * }
 * }
 * }

(Note: this actually adds text only to the one cell in the first column of the existing table, the headers and the cells in the other columns are to make it clear exactly where the text is to be added.)

C) in Notability

 * {| border="1" style="border-style:solid;border-width:2px;border-color:black"

 * Replace It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria
 * with Notability is generally deemed an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOT), as it is one aspect of the requirement that an article be encyclopedic. Thus it complements our other criteria
 * }
 * with Notability is generally deemed an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOT), as it is one aspect of the requirement that an article be encyclopedic. Thus it complements our other criteria
 * }

Procedure

 * 1) This proposal will require 75 percent support ("Support" choices in a poll) to pass.
 * 2) Votes by users who are not logged in will be discounted, as will votes cast by any user that had less than 50 edits when this vote started.
 * 3) The wording of this proposal will be fixed when the poll has opened. Please do not edit this page, but discuss changes on the talk page.
 * 4) When the poll has opened it will take place on the /poll page
 * 5) The poll will close 2 weeks after it opens.

Pro

 * Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia. it is frequently cited as a reason for deletion on WP:AFD, it has been formalized as a reason for speedy deletion in at least one case (see WP:CSD point 7). Therefore it makes sense to require notability for everything, rather than just people.
 * WP:NOT already says: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. and Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. and Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. and Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. WP:VAIN asks us to consider if a person is "noteworthy".
 * Most importantly, Five pillars (which is neither a policy nor a guideline) says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that articles must be encyclopedic. From this follows our requirement of the Neutral Point of View, and of verifiability. From this it also follows that articles should be about notable topics. While the degree of notability required may be debated, completely trivial topics do not belong in an encyclopedia, even one that is not paper.
 * While notability can be subjective in some cases, even then it is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it - for example WP:WEB is accepted by many in AfD as a requirement for the inclusion of certain websites
 * When people give opinions on things they don't much know about as "non-notable" they can easily be convinced/outweighed by the more knowledgable ones. AfD is a discussion, after all.

Con

 * Notability is a point of view, and therefore too subjective – there is never a predefined consensus on what is or isn't notable in any given field. We cannot presume to know what our readers, either now or in the future, will consider to be notable.
 * Notability is just an excuse for "I haven't heard of it so delete it." Most of the people that nominate or vote on articles are not experts in the field in question, so this creates an exposure that valid content could be deleted. Notability is also sometimes an excuse for "I don't have an interest in the topic", "I consider the topic worthy of contempt", "I don't think the topic is sufficiently excellent (i.e. an NBA benchwarmer)", etc.
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. Wikipedia is several times larger than any paper encyclopedia, so there is room for topics that would never appear in a paper encyclopedia.  Consider that a search on Amazon.com in the Books section for "encyclopedia" yields over 27,000 results.
 * Using notability as a criterion for deletion as opposed to verifiability is much less polite to new users who write about obscure topics.
 * The deletion policy already deals with non-notable articles. It says that they should be merged into larger articles, thus building the encyclopedia up.  If content can be used to help build better articles, it should be kept, not deleted.
 * Most importantly, Five pillars (which is neither a policy nor a guideline) says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that articles must be encyclopedic. From this follows our requirement of the Neutral Point of View, and of verifiability. From this it follows that even subjects that might not be notable, such as Qubit Field Theory, should still be retained because its verifiability makes it encyclopedic. The verifiability rule already includes an implicit notability requirement, as few things that are completely non-notable are verifiable.
 * A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a constructive process which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible, and due to the high standards required of a reliable source, the vast majority of articles which proponents of a notability criterion would like to be deleted would in fact be deleted. On the other hand, making notability an official requirement would be a retrograde step away from this policy and would ensure that AfD continues to degenerate.

Discussion
Please discuss this proposal on the talk page.


text: User talk:82.209.175.169

title: User talk:82.209.175.169


text:
Philip Serrell

Philip Martyn Serrell (born March 1954) is an English auctioneer, antiques expert and television presenter who appears as regular presenter on BBC TV antiques programmes such as Bargain Hunt and Flog It!. He began his career as a livestock trade auctioneer, but he became a chartered surveyor in 1988 to analyse antiques. Serrell has also participated in musical charity events, performing as a singer with The Celebs.

Early life
Serrell was born in Worcestershire into a farming family and attended the Royal Grammar School in Worcester, where he was a schoolmate of the Pakistani cricket captain Imran Khan. Serrell played both cricket and rugby for the school, prior to his attendance at, and graduation from, Loughborough College of Physical Education as a physical education teacher. In 2009, he received an Honorary Centenary Degree from Loughborough University.

Career
Dissatisfied as a teacher, Serrell changed careers to become an auctioneer, working in the local livestock trade until qualifying as a chartered surveyor in 1988, specialising in fine art and antiques.

Serrell owns an auctioneers and valuers firm with offices in Worcester and a salesroom in Great Malvern, established in 1995. He has been a regular expert on the BBC series Bargain Hunt since 2016, also appearing on Flog It! and a couple of appearances on ITV's Dickinson's Real Deal. He has also featured on other BBC series Antiques Road Trip and Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is (where he is light-heartedly billed as Phil "The Fox" Serrell).

Serrell has toured theatres as part of the "An Evening with..." shows. He has regularly appeared on BBC Local Radio, and has also written a biweekly column for the Worcester News.

Music recordings
In 2017, Serrell recorded a Rock version of the classic "Sleigh Ride" in aid of BBC Children In Need, with fellow BBC Antique Experts Charles Hanson, Charlie Ross and James Braxton. The single peaked at number 1 on the Amazon Rock Charts.

In 2018, Serrell performed a new Christmas song called "Rock With Rudolph" with Ross, Braxton and 24 celebrities, under the name The Celebs. The song was released to raise money for Great Ormond Street Hospital. The music video debuted exclusively with The Sun on 29 November 2018 and had its first TV showing on Good Morning Britain on 30 November 2018. The song peaked at number two on the iTunes pop chart.

Personal life
Serrell lives in Worcester.

Published works

 * An Auctioneer's Lot (ISBN 0340838957)
 * Sold to the Man with the Tin Leg (ISBN 0340895020)

title: Philip Serrell


text:
User:Pmanderson/notes

Wright:Golden transcendence

 * p. 162:
 * ''War and bloodshed, terror and fear;/The wailing of widows, the clash of the spear
 * p. 288
 * Xenophon Oeconomicus

Emancipator's wife
by Barbara Handley
 * 53: AL and Jerusalem
 * 117: Nathaniel Bodley, Presby
 * Cassius Clay
 * 160 Speculation and its fish tokens
 * 393 Benjamin Helm
 * 554-5 Elizabeth Packard.

=Misc= Federica Ridolfi Casual gamers Single-tax Libertarians GQ Tekken

Narbonic villanelle
Insanity governs all our cast; full text

Single life tiger whisperer

McDonald
1 uses Dem-Rep (see #3) 6 use Republican 1 uses Jeffersonians (#6) Longman: http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/discipline/0,,72158,00.html ch 5 has section Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties. ch 9. Revolutionary Legacies, 1789—1803. Competing Political Visions in the New Nation. Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism in Action. ch 8 student guide Controversy between Federalist supporters of the national government and the emerging Jeffersonian Republican opposition first erupted over domestic policies designed to stabilize the nation's finances and promote its economic development. Those policies revealed deep-seated conflicts between economic interests and raised urgent questions of how the new constitution should be interpreted ch 8 = Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision. from Bedford St Martin http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/bcs/index.html Jefferson's Agrarian Vision Hamilton's financial programs divided the Federalists into two irreconcilable political parties and led to the emergence of the Republicans, a group headed by Madison and Jefferson. Republicans in Power 1800-1824 http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/roark/pages/bcs-main.asp?v=&s=09000&n=00010&i=09010.00&o=
 * 98, 103, Hume
 * c. 120 oligarchy (does not mention patroonship.
 * 130; consent of the Sentte to remove.
 * 158 "in many cases, such hostility was justified"
 * 362, PoV
 * 1 Tindall-Shi (W W Norton) “Republican Party” 	http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/history/usa6/TOC.pdf
 * 2 Mark C. Carnes, and John A. Garraty,
 * 3 Jones: Created Equal
 * 4 Gary Nash American People
 * 5 Divine, Am Past & Present
 * 6 Martin, Concise History.. "Jeffersonians"
 * 7 Henretta America’ History (Bedford) ch 7/
 * 8 Roark American Promise (Bedford)

Sherlock Holmes and the Red Demon

 * Grace Stageberg Swenson: From the Ashes
 * Joseph G. Pyle - editor
 * Boston Corbett
 * Constance Kent
 * Catherine Wilson - nurse and murderess
 * Nellie Bly 72 days around the world
 * Angus Hay
 * "jack pine twins"
 * Mary Robinson

Books
Books: Grace abounding
 * HLGates on Oprah
 * Joshua Levinson, on Aesthetics.

Kim Stanley Robinson Trilogy
40 50 Khembalung 60
 * p. 193, memo on what the NSF could be doing.
 * 53 Pentagon report written by Andrew Marshall; Extractive Industries Review Commission, published by Fortune/
 * Enviromental Science and Engineering for the Twenty-First Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation.
 * 82 ARDA prime.
 * 92 Why We Run
 * 98 Acheulian hand axes/killer frisbees.
 * 102 mastigatory efficiency
 * 144 avatar of the Corps of Engineers
 * or Maternal sentiment not innate, Taiwanese mothers give children away
 * 147 Baron in the Trees Calvino
 * 204 Walter Sullivan: Beethoven and the "mad blind energy of the universe.
 * Hammerklavier finale and Grosse Fuge
 * 224 Emerson for the Day
 * 289 Zeno's minesweeper/ Laura Ingalls Wilder: The Long Winter
 * 307: "Somebody wrote four books about Alexandria?"
 * "That would be Alexandria, Egypt." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 317: Louis Armstrong: "The odds were a hundred to one against us" as Tibetan song.
 * 13: Poet's words: You would almost say the body thought
 * 46 Frederick Church/Mount Desert Island/Acadia National Park
 * 50 Guys who are jocks are not always nice/ Nancy Drew/Sue Grafton/Sara Paretsky
 * 73 Monty Hall paradox a cognitive illusion as strong as optical illusions like foreshortening.
 * 103 Janos Kornai and shortage economics
 * 123 "choice between admitting I'm wrong and destroying the world, then bring it on" \
 * 168 Disney lions around Grant statue at United States capitol
 * 192 Ástor Piazzola: Adios Nonino; Mamuki
 * 218 Vennacher Col/Cartridge Pass
 * 223 "Now I know you're not the only starfish in the sea."/Red Rubber Ball.

Harry Turtledove: The Sacred Land

 * 20 "Custom is king of all" < Herodotus < Pindar
 * 75 smoked eel Cylabras/ Phaselis
 * 81 Cleopatra, d. of Phillip, imprisoned by Antigonus
 * 133 Pordoselene, by Lesbos
 * 324 fruit-eating bats of Citium
 * Stasanor of Curium, betrayed Cyprus to the Persians, at Salamis, c. 520.

Stevermer and Wrede, Mislaid Magician

 * Laid couching

Foreign ministry

 * EB: Spandau, Berlin#city layout
 * Encarta; none
 * Columbia: none

Melpomene
Lenny CD 17328 VW CD 448 De Boeck cd 5054 suppl. Schuman 5054 Havelka 15400 110 in the shade 17513

 * David M. Schaps.The invention of coinage and the monetization of Ancient Greece CJ335 .S3 2004

numismatica

 * Speaking for myself only, I would expect another paradigm to replace it, at least as far as it has replaced Narain; it may take another forty years to happen. It will not be Narain's, any more than Narain has been replaced by Tarn revived; but it will contain elements of him, as the present synthesis contains the conquest of Mathura he denies. This is not the place to write that synthesis, of course, and I do not suggest in any way that we do so.
 * I do think the "numismatic synthesis" is at least open to question: Do you have termini post quos for all five Stratos? More seriously, is the whole system falsifiable? is there any conceivable observation that cannot be dealt with by making each series, if necessary each coin, attest a different king?

Darkover

 * John Boswell: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life
 * Tom Stoppard; Rock and Roll, et seqq.
 * Patricia Briggs
 * []:This sentence in fact does not have the property it claims not to have.

Choir

 * Voces novae & antiquae

China and Africa

 * In search of Wealth and Power
 * Guns and Rain
 * A Green Estate

Pollack
A Path out of the Desert
 * 11: in 2005, 85 mbpd consumed globally, 23 mbpd fr. Middle East, 19 from Persian Gulf.
 * 139: Jack Goldstone: stagnant economic conditions + high pop. growth tend to revolution Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World; "Economics in Peacemaking" Northern Ireland
 * 169: Jerrold Post in Roots of Terrorism (coll.) on soc. rev. v. nationalist terrorists
 * 173: on studies of the psychology of terrorists: how many cases are there that have been studied.
 * 210: Salafi extremists quote Ibn Taymiyyah on religion and government inseparable, but not on "there is no holy place in Jerusalem" (Palazzi)
 * 223: Washington Consensus on economic reform (Richards)
 * 225: Either reform or hope that the Arab regimes will be able to repress dissent indefinitely.
 * 237: Incompatibility of Islam and democracy:
 * (parallels: Kurth "Ignoring History", Democracy's unsteady march
 * Lebanon 1934-75, 2005-
 * Feldman: After Jihad et permulti
 * 360-5 Iranian support for terrorism instrumental.

Clarke

 * Firstborn endnote.

Latin
Solvet saeclum in favilla ; Teste David cum Sibylla. Quando judex est venturus, Cuncta stricte discussurus. Per sepulcra regionum, Coget omnes ante thronum. Cum resurget creatura, Judicanti responsura. In quo totum continetur, Unde mundus judicetur. Quidquid latet, apparebit, Nil inultum remanebit. Quem patronum rogaturus ? Quum vix Justus sit securus. Qui salvandos salvas gratis, Salva me fons pietatis. Quod sum causa tuse vise ; Ne me perdas ilia die. Redemisti crucem passus ; Tantus labor non sit cassus. Donum fac remissionis Ante diem rationis. Culpa rubet vultus meus. Supplicanti parce Deus. Et latronem exaudisti, Mihi quoque spem dedisti. Scd tu bonus fac benigne, Ne perenni cremer igne. Et ab haedis me sequestra, Statuens in parte dextra. Flammis acribus addictis ; Voca me cum benedictis. Cor contritum, quasi cinis : Gere curam mei finis. Qua resurget ex favilla, Judicandus homo reus. Pie Jesu Domine ! Dona eis requiem. AMEN.
 * 1) . pUESirae, dies ilia,
 * 1) . Quantus tremor est futurus,
 * 1) . Tuba minim spargens sonum,
 * 1) . Mors stupebit et natura,
 * 1) . Liber scriptus proferetur,
 * 1) . Judex ergo cum sedebit,
 * 1) . Quid sum miser tune dicturus,
 * 1) Rex tremendse majestatis,
 * 1) Recordare, Jesu pie,
 * 1) Quaerens me sedisti lassus,
 * 1) Juste judex ultionis,
 * 1) Ingemisco tanquam reus,
 * 1) Qui Mariam absolvisti
 * 1) Preces mese non sunt dignae,
 * 1) Inter oves locum praesta,
 * 1) Confutatis maledictis,
 * 1) Oro supplex et acclinis,
 * 1) Lacrymosa dies ilia,
 * 1) Huic ergo parce Deus !

title: User:Pmanderson/notes


text:
User talk:Dpimco

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! Bushytails 20:51, 5 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:Mercedez_Sweetie_Baby.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mercedez_Sweetie_Baby.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 Media copyright questions. 12:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Veronika Zemanova DVD Front.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Veronika Zemanova DVD Front.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Oden 11:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Candace Kita 2004.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Candace Kita 2004.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok  ☠  03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More replaceable fair use images

 * Image:Destiny Davis GC34.jpg

— Chowbok  ☠  03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Stacy_Sanches_Nov_2001.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stacy_Sanches_Nov_2001.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of DanniGirls
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of DanniGirls, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process  because of the following concern:
 * "award" that website gives to its own models is just spam in disguise, and also turns out to fail reliable 3d party reference test

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of DanniGirls
I have nominated List of DanniGirls, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of DanniGirls. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. EuroPride (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dpimco