text:
itself. Zimmerman on the ground being beat can be taken as reasonable (if you find him credible). "bad vibes" is a lot more iffy. I would additionally say that the examples above of cartwheels etc should not apply. IMO these "bad cases" probably go back to the creation of liability against police and the state for arrest/prosecution in case of self defense. I would definately support some "tests" of when this immunity is in play, and to allow for arrest/prosecution in the gray area cases without liability. The way it is now, they will probably only arrest/prosecute the sure things out of the massive financial impact.

Someone above is incorrect that SYG requires de-escelation - That is the primary purpose of SYG, vs standard self defense. On homicide vs deterence, deterence was not used as a justification for passing the law. Prior to SYG, even if you were in legitimate, unquestioned fear of your life (bad guy with gun in your home for example), you were required to retreat and de-escelate. That puts the homeowner in danger, as during the time you are attempting to retreat, the bad guy gets to shoot you.

Martin possibly had a self defense claim. We don't know. Maybe Zimerman chased Martin down. Maybe Martin came up from behind like Zimmerman claims. Maybe Zimmerman shoved Martin or tried to restrain him in some way, or maybe Martin knocked Zimmerman down, etc. There are an endless number of counterfactuals we could come up with to prove a valid self defense scenario for either one. Martin is dead, so we won't be getting his side of the story, which is tragic. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not in a reasonable belief of death/bodily harm. I think that is likely an insurmountable bar in this case, as there is some physical evidence supporting his case, and no real evidence to disprove. (I am not saying he proved it was self defense - just that there are plausible scenarios, and that that is all reasonable doubt requires). Possibly Manslaughter would have been more provable, since that does not require malice etc, and the provable things Zimmerman did (leaving the car, starting to follow, etc) might be enough to create that level of culpability. But we are where we are. Everything will revolve around the credibility of Zimmerman. If you believe the last 30 sec of his story, the verdict is obvious. If you do not, then its up for grabs, but the prosecution still has to prove it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is still OT but you appear to be mistaken about the house bit. Per this source, Florida had the Castle doctrine before SYG so there was no duty to retreat from your own home. Also I believ you're mistaken about how duty to retreat usually works. See our article. There's no duty to retreat if you have a good reason to believe you cannot do so safely. Of course some people may clain they felt they couldn't so so safely but a jury may not agree they had a reasonable belief. (And obviously if you just go around shooting anyone who you think may be a threat you're potentially at a slightly lower risk then someone who tries to retreat when they think they can do so safely since if you make a mistake in your judgement, you're primary risk is the law presuming you don't screw up and make things worse by failing to kill but also therefore convincing the other party to fight back.)
 * P.S. as I understand it, the primary difference that SYG or for that mattetr the castle doctrine makes is not so much in you needing to put yourself at risk by retreating although as I mentioned it may provide some protection when you felt you couldn't safely retreat but others disagree. But rather in if someone threats you or trys to steal or damage your property you can refuse to give in since if necessary you can defend yourself even though you could have also (and you believed you could) safely gotten our of the situation by retreating even if it meant your property was lost or damaged, or you left an area you were fully entitled to be in.
 * talk) 13:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this source looking for something else,it is an RS making an SYG analysis similar to some of the WP:FORUM above, which may be useful for the article.
 * http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

based on finding that one, I did a quick search to see what else I could find that might be useful for sourcing SYG analysis
 * (great analysis showing various hypotheticals) http://verdict.justia.com/2012/04/18/stand-your-ground-laws-and-competing-visions-of-fight-or-flight-in-the-real-world
 * (interview with author of SYG law discussing motivations) http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149404276/op-ed-why-i-wrote-stand-your-ground-law
 * http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-18/George-Zimmerman-Trayvon-Martin-police-documents/55061830/1
 * (somewhat outdated before arrest) http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_-_April/ANALYSIS-Zimmerman_s_challenge_in_citing_Stand_Your_Ground/
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577350010609562008.html
 * http://digitaljournal.com/article/322135
 * http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-blackwell/stand-your-ground-law_b_1414676.html
 * http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-10/opinion/opinion_dershowitz-trayvon-prosecutor-nightmare_1_encounter-evidence-prosecutor/2?_s=PM:OPINION

huge article
Hi,

The article is huge. Maybe split it up into articles like "Media coverage of the Shooting of Traybon Martin". Just an idea. Cheers. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 * A huge subject, with many ramifications that are critical to contemporary American life. Can't see anything we could eliminate and still tell the story. BTW, often see suggestions in the public discourse, made by people on both sides of the issue, encouraging others to read the Wikipedia article as the most comprehensive, unbiased source available.  And I think it truly is. Apostle12 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Altercation
Apostle12, Regarding your edit summary, " 'Altercation' is better here--began with exchange of words, then escalated; not a common 'fight'. We know beginning and end, not what happened in between." — How do you know that there was an exchange of words at the beginning any more than you know that there was a fight afterwards? There's the testimony of Zimmerman for the exchange of words and the fight, and additionally there are eye witnesses and physical evidence for the fight, i.e. Zimmerman's injuries. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited for that paragraph use the word fight, rather than altercation. It's probably best to stick with what the secondary sources say. I changed it back to fight as per sources.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  04:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's a small point. Altercation became an attack (Martin on Zimmerman, or Zimmerman on Martin--still unclear), which then turned into a fight, which led to the shooting. Both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend allude to the initial exchange of words (the altercation), and we know it became physical (hence Zimmerman's injuries), ending in Zimmerman shooting Martin. Perhaps there is no single word that adequately covers what took place. I guess for me "fight" just sounds too simple, though Isaidnoway is correct that sources favor this term. Apostle12 (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No evidence
'''NOTE : This somewhat schitzophrenic conversation with myself was originally in reponse to a "no evidence" line in the previous section which has now been edited away - I had mistakenly thought I was responding to someone else talking about this issue. I still stand by my logic below, but the conversation doesn't make as much sense now without the line I am responding to from the "suspicious" section above. ''' Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Just trying to clarify and sort things out as best as I could under the circumstances. I think we're OK now. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The "no evidence" line was added by me, and is actually a direct quote from serino's report (although I did not provide a ref to prove it). There is no way to know what Martin was or was not actually doing. There is no evidence he was commiting a crime. While this does lead to the possibility that we are implying he was commiting a crime and there was merely no evidence for it, it is the most accurate statement possible, and a direct quote from the police to boot. NOTE:I AM NOT TYRING TO IMPLY MARTIN WAS COMMITING A CRIME AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. I am merely acknowledging that interpreting the text that way is possible, and that us saying as a matter of fact that he was not commiting a crime is speculation (although a very likely accurate speculation). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I misquoted serino. The source I am using is http://www.local10.com/blob/view/-/15491178/data/1/-/14w3bvp/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf Approximately 40% through the doc is the FBI report about Serino (sorry, my PDF reader won't show me pages!)  (Name abbreviations mine)  Obviously the original report would be a better WP:PRIMARY but this is a direct quote from the original report. Investigator Serino review reviewd his police report dated 3/12/12 in which he wrote "The encounter between GZ and TM was ultimately avoidable by Z, if Z had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to M as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each parety's concern. There is no indication that TM was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. Z by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of M made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to M's purpose for being in the neighborhood".

To avoid WP:PRIMARY here are several RS quoting the relevant section.
 * http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/18/new-trayvon-martin-evidence-10-things-you-should-know/
 * http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvon-shooting-report/55046944/1
 * http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/17/new-evidence-trayvon-martin-had-drugs-in-his-system/
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html
 * http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-17/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting_1_autopsy-results-thc-fatal-shooting?_s=PM:JUSTICE
 * http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/17/2804442/law-officers-set-to-release-evidence.html
 * http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-17/news/os-george-zimmerman-evidence-released-20120517_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-new-evidence-documents

Based on these sources, I am going to replace the "no indications" line, as a direct quote, and source it to these refs unless there is a significant objection raised. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD]ly added. [[WP:BRD if needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit summary, "specific naming of the document the quote comes from, per the sources, and the text later in the article." — I didn't see where the source said or implied it was in the capias request. The source did mention capias request, but went on to mention the "indication" comment only being in "new documents", not necessarily the capias request. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You cite seven sources in support of your edit, I can easily find seven sources that say he was not committing a crime. There is nothing speculative about saying Martin was not committing a crime. There is nothing controversial about saying Martin was not committing a crime. The reason the police use terms like "no evidence" and "no indication" is to discredit Zimmerman's perception of Martin. Even Zimmerman doesn't go so far as to say Martin was committing a crime, not once in his call to the police does he say there was a crime being committed, or in subsequent interviews with police does he say there was a crime being committed. So, by all accounts, the police and Zimmerman's, Martin was not committing a crime.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree that such wording is used to contrast Zimmerman's perception - which is our intent in quoting it here. I note that it would contrast/discredit him even more to say formally that Martin was not commiting a crime as a fact, but that cannot be done as we (the everyone we), have no knowledge as to his actual actions/intentions. "No indication of criminal activity " is 100% accurate. "Not commiting a crime" is speculation.  Zimmerman made a report of suspicious activity, while it is our duty to cast the appropriate skeptical shadow on that statement, and to provide evidence to the contrary, saying that he was objectively wrong in his opinion is not our place. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I would however, not object to the state's position that "he was not commiting a crime" as quoted from the affadavit, being put into the prosecutions account. The lede needs to maintain neutrality and objectivity of "facts". when we get into the various sides opinions, we can be more liberal about presenting their opinion directly, with less importance of if their opinion is correct or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We go by what the RS are reporting, and there are just as many saying he was not committing a crime. According to multiple RS, "not committing a crime" is 100% accurate as well. "Our knowledge" as to his actual actions/intentions is irrelevant and speculative and does not belong in this article. We go by what the sources say and leave our own opinions out of the narrative. You found the sources to support your edit and to support a particular narrative, and that is fine, I'm not objecting to your edit. But, saying that "not committing a crime" is speculation is merely your own opinion, as there are RS stating it as 100% accurate. If the police say he was not committing a crime, and Zimmerman doesn't report Martin committing a crime, then the logical conclusion is that Martin was "not committing a crime" IMO.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When I said "our knowledge", I was not refering to us as the wikipedia editors, but the general public, the police, "humanity" per se. The only remaining observer to Martin's actions at that time was Zimmerman, and obviously his version needs to be taken with a grain of salt, therefore almost everything is speculation to some degree. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 14


text:
Talk:Megadeus

Alan
I have a question. Did Alan really need to be hardwired in order to pilot Big Duo? I was always under the assumption that he just let it take control of him, the way Fau did to Alex and the way Big O almost did to Roger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs)

 * Yes he did, because remember when Alex first piloted the Big Fau it went haywire, it needed memories or a dominus. -The Big X 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Venus
Why is there no info on Big Venus? I'd think there should be...Venus obviously connects with Angel (and has done so before) and has the power to either destroy or "reset" Paradigm City. And in keeping with Lucifer/fallen angel, the whole "a bird whose wings have been plucked will shed all its feathers and turn back into the beast it was before it evolved into a bird." —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs)

 * because this is Wikipedia and no one has gotten around to it yet? I mean, hell, I keep forgetting to get the info for The Big O infobox, let alone this.  There's a lot of articles to edit, and as much as I love Big O, it's sort of low on my priority list right now.. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The article pretends that Venus doesn't exist. Fau is said to be the last Big, but clearly it isn't.--Claude 02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Again, if this is so.. then be bold. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I just edited the article so there is a section on Big Venus using information I got from a Big O website (Paradigm City) plus images of Episode 26 that featured Big Venus (which looks a lot like Big O). Ned Scott, when you have the time, please relay what you think of the addition and if you think there should be any changes, I'll try to accommodate your request. --GrievousAlpha95 23:24, 24, August 2006

Big Venus is clearly seen in many flashbacks to the Event, where it can be seen fighting alongside the other Bigs. So it does exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 July 2006

Perhaps worth adding is the connection between Venus and Lucifer through their mutual reference to the term "morning star"--perhaps apropos given the glowing/incandescent appearance of this megadeus. From the Wikipedia article "Lucifer": "Lucifer was originally a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star", the planet Venus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 August 2006

 * Comment: I only recall seeing Big Venus in a single flashback in Act 26; was it definitely in others, and if so, which episodes? In addition, I don't recall seeing it referred to in the show as 'Lucifer', as the article states; is this only in the original Japanese? Also, a picture of Big Venus would be very good to illustrate its bizarre colours and similarities to Big O (and a clearer picture of Big Duo would help, too). <IP_ADDRESS> 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I've seen the series a couple of times and I don't remember Venus "seen fighting alongside the other Bigs" prior to the final episode. A screenshot, and exact episode and time would be appreciated.
 * The stuff about Lucifer comes from the Official Companion Book. There's a note from Konaka where he establishes the Planet Venus is also known as the "Morning Star", which in turn is another name for Lucifer.--Nohansen 14:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: I think that a different picture should be used for Big Venus. The image being used shows that it had wings and that it was present during The Event, but it doesn't really say anything important about its appearance. Being just a shadow it doesn't show any features, and in particular it doesn't show its strange negative properties or its resemblance to Big O; even if it only had those properties for metaphorical reasons, they characterise its lengthiest and clearest appearance. The current image is also misleading as it implies that Big Venus is bigger than Behemoth, but again, when it actually appears it's the same size as Big O, and only its shadow is such an enormous size. I think it'd capture the Big better to use something more like from around 3:10 on this video: (No offence, Big X.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 November 2007

Ammunition?
It states in several places under the armaments section that various laser weaponry, including O Thunder and the eye lasers, require an unknown ammunition. What evidence is there that they are anything more than lasers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs).

 * In a broad sense ammunition could be taken to mean the power supply for the weaponry, as in how long it can fire before that supply is exhasted. I know that similar attributes are often given to the Mobile Suits of the Gundam universe with regards to laser weaponry; presumably, that is also what is being done here. TomStar81 05:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps. It just seems like a rather ambiguous way of speaking about laser weaponry. Nobody would use the term about the power supply of modern lasers. One may argue that that is due to the lack of the widespread use of lasers in war, but... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs).

Deus ex Machina
I know I've seen speculation on a connection between the term Megadeus and the literary term [Deus ex Machina], but I can't for the life of me find any proper sources on it. The idea was the the name megadeus was a pun off the term, as Big O served as a fairly obvious Deus ex Machina at the end of each episode, at least initially. I don't want to put anything up uncited, though, so if anyone can find any mention of this, it'd be much appreciated. <IP_ADDRESS> 06:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Images
Could someone add images of the four Megadei/Megadeuses? It seems as though that would improve the quality of this article. <IP_ADDRESS> 05:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * What do you mean "four" megadei? There are only The Big Three, the Archetypes, and the Foreign Megadei. -The Big X 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Speaking of which, don't the foreign megadei have names of their own? I'm pretty sure I saw them on a fansite. Most of the megadeus names aren't given in the show itself, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 November 2007

Attribution of the boot sequence quote
I was curious about the source of the "Cast in the name of God; Ye not guilty" quote, and a bit of research seems to indicate that it is not directly lifted from Conan's sword as this article states. One of the swords used in the first Conan film has "Suffer no guilt yee [sic] who wield this in the name of Crom." See:

http://filmswords.com/conan/conan-sword-master-fathers-anniversarys.htm

http://www.danielsengraving.com/engraving/sample8.shtml

I'm not sure if this is a translation issue in the original article Kazuyoshi Katayama read about John Milius, or whether the cited web page paraphrases a bit, but I'd suggest that the section be revised to indicate that the phrase isn't a direct lift from the Conan prop. I think it is reasonable to call it an inspiration, though.

--VishnuSchist 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sentence fragments
The edit made by User:Nohansen at 23:16 on 21 February 2007 included a few sentence fragments, along with complete revisions of the article. <IP_ADDRESS> 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Organization
Alright the article looks much, much better this way. The beginning complements the image of the Big Three, and listed all the enemies in such a scurried manner doesn't look good. The Big X 18:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The the monsters were listed in order of appearance. There was nothing with that, but what the hell, let's live the Big Three up top. The "other megadeuses" could be divided in monsters and actual megadeuses, though.

 * I did change something. Adding "Land", "Sea" and "Air" was unnecessary. It's obvious and the series doesn't actually make the distinction. Also, the image of the legion of Big O does nothing for this article, so I removed it. It would be better if the Paradigm City article had a section on the Event and move it there.

 * By the way, the Official Companion Book calls the "Water God", Eel.--Nohansen 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I wanted to rename the "Water God but didn't know its name. I would have assumed Eel but we all know what assuming does, lol.

 * But I would say that the series does indeed make that distinction between the Megadei, but you are right they don't belong in the title. --The Big X 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I put the two legendary beasts in one section, good idea? -The Big X 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Different ways of organization
Is there anyway to divide the article and the megadei by similarities, but then have another table of contents for when they show up in the series? --The Big X 19:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) sorts the monsters by the number they are given in the series. RahXephon's Dolem is in alphabetical order. I think for this article, order of appearance is best. Doing categorizing in terms of power, mythology, etc. is likely to get this article tagged as "In-universe fancruft" and deleted.

 * And no, I don't think a "Legendary Beasts" section is a good idea... specially since Behemoth does nothing in the 15 seconds it's on the show. Like I said, if anything, we could separate the robots (mecha) from the monsters (kaiju).--Nohansen 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah i was probably going to revert that. This page would be better if named Enemies of The Big O, because not all the creatures on this page are mechanical, or Megadeuses, a lot are robots. -The Big X 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright we need to start talking about the new way of organization. First of all, monsters? That sounds childish and unprofessional, where if you want it that chronologically then you should just revert it to the way it was before i edited the article. -The Big X 05:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * How is the word Monster "childish"?--Nohansen 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * "Organic enemies of The Big O" sounds much better. Monster sounds like a term used due to lack of ability of description, and just isn't a word that would be used to name a section in a Wikipedia. -The Big X 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Fau and Big Duo
These sections hold considerable differences from the other sections, unless the other sections can be conformed to uniformity these sections belong in their own section titled "The Big Three". -The Big X 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I can agree with putting the main Big descriptions in episode articles; if anything, I think that the one-off enemies should be described in detail in episode articles, but that the ones that are more important than just a "monster of the week" should be covered here. (Strictly speaking, "The Big Three" would be an original research term, and also inaccurate if we count Big Venus, but unless it's stated in the art book or something it's probably also OR to note Big Fau's adaptation for underwater combat, but I doubt there's any real debate on that.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 November 2007

Big Fau
First appearing in Roger's memories of "The Event" in Act 13, and first seen in action during Act 21, aptly titled "The Third Big", Big Fau is the third and final "Big" found in the series which had a certain importance and was piloted by Alex Rosewater. Considered by the Union and Alex to be the most powerful "Big". The parts for Big Fau were transported within the three foreign megadeuses that fought Big O offshore of Paradigm City at the end of the first season and the beginning of the second season. After the foreign megadeuses were disabled (but not destroyed), they were recovered by the Paradigm science team and Big Fau's parts were salvaged and re-assembled secretly under the supervision of Alex, but lacked a memory core. Despite missing this vital component, Big Fau was activated and piloted by Alex Rosewater. Judging by Big Fau's streamlined appearance, its ability to travel effortlessly through the water, its conning tower shaped head, and the flexible periscope-like laser cannons on its back, it is likely that the Big Fau units were used primarily for naval combat, functioning as heavily armed amphibious craft, and providing ocean-based combat support for land- and air-based megadeuses.

During its maiden battle against the Union Megadeus Bonaparte, Alex could completely control the Big, allowing him to tear Bonaparte to pieces before finally destroying it with Fau's dorsal beams. Once Bonaparte was vanquished, however, Big Fau's dorsal beams disobeyed Alex's orders and began to assault the domes. In response to Alex's claim that he was Big Fau's dominus, Big Fau displayed the message "Cast in the Name of God... Ye Not" before shutting down. Later, Big Fau was jerry-rigged into working by Jason Beck using R. Dorothy's Memory Core, finally completing Fau and allowing it to declare Rosewater "Not Guilty." The Big Fau is the only Megadeus in the series to defeat the Big O after a challenge from Roger Smith. Fau is also the only known Megadeus to fuse with its pilot, Rosewater, via a series of cables plugged into the pilot's back, although Big O attempted to do the same with Roger. Big Fau was eventually disabled by Big O's Final Stage at the end of the Act 26 and removed by Big Venus. Big Fau may be a reference to Frankenstein because of its long head and bolt-like ears, as well as the nature of its reconstruction.

Due to its limited screen time, Big Fau did not display as much armament as the other Bigs. Still, it filled this gap by using advanced weaponry and technology which gave Fau the ability to easily defeat the Union megadeus Bonaparte and later, seriously damage Big O and injure Roger Smith during their final confrontation in the last episode.
 * Features

 * Saw Cuffs: As the name indicates, Big Fau's wrists are equipped with extremely sharp rotative blades which are very useful in close-combat. Used very effectively against the Union Megadeus Bonaparte and later, Big O, they are powerful enough to damage and grind into tiny bits even the thickest armor. They also give Big Fau the ability to travel underwater by using them as turbines.

 * Eye Beams: A standard weapon for every Big, the Eye Beams are super heated beams of light that are shot out of the eyes. This weapon can be used as a long range attack and for cutting through objects. Not actually used during a battle in the series, Big Fau is seen using this weapon in the flashbacks Roger has of the rampaging Bigs.

 * DD Beams: There are two lasers on Big Fau's back called "DD Beams" or "Dual Dorsal Beams" that are attached to a snake-like movable tubing situated on his back which allow these lasers to be fired in any direction. They are powerful enough to destroy a normal Megadeus as seen in the episode "The Third Big" but are no match against Big O's Arm Shields.

 * Charger Cannon: More powerful and larger than the Dorsal Beams, these cannons are integrated in Big Fau's frontal upper torso and deployed horizontally when needed. They appear to use kinetic projectiles instead of beams- they need to charge first before attacking, and combined with their incredibly long-range, could be likened to howitzers. The main problem with them is, that they can only fire at objects situated in front or above the Big Fau and the Megadeus must pivot on himself in order to fire in other directions.

 * Impact Barrier: Big Fau is the only "Big" of the whole series to exhibit a standard non-physical barrier. A special invisible shielding which protects Big Fau especially from frontal attacks, making him almost untouchable and invincible. Big O's Final Stage was the only weapon able to penetrate it. It is possible that this was a "non-standard" modification added during Big Fau's construction, but it bears similarities to Big O's Plasma Gimmick.

 * Rocket Drills: Big Fau can spin his fists and Saw Cuffs at extremely high speeds while his arms are shot out of their sockets by small rocket boosters situated at the back of the arms, turning them into highly destructive moving drills. This seems to be more of a last ditch weapon, as the rocket drills can be destroyed while in flight, literally disarming Big Fau and taking away its ability to move underwater as well.

These are the sections put here for archiving purposes, these need to be incorporated into their articles. -The Big X 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Let's discuss this...

 * Oppose. "Megadeus" is how the giant robots of this series are known. Sure, this article also covers the non-robotic monsters, but that's easily forgiven (or deleted). Also, renaming the article to "Enemies of The Big O" would imply that either Big O is getting its own article (which it doesn't deserve) or it'll be moved to the list of characters (where it doesn't belong).--Nohansen 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Do. The show also makes it very clear that not all giant robots are megadeuses, along with the organic beings. Why doesn't The Big O deserve its own article? And I doubt anyone would move an article about giant robots and beings that are not at all characters and do not fit under that description. -The Big X 03:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I would support splitting Big O's section into a new article if we had info on its role in the manga and Robot Wars videogame; but, as it is, it's not enough. On a related subject, the article is missing the manga-only mechas (namely "Charybdis", "Don Juan", "Dantalion", "Vodyanoy" and "Gigadeus", according to the Japanese article).--Nohansen 15:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Why is it not enough? "Megadeus" is extremely vague and only describes about 4 of the robots on here. -The Big X 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What do you mean, "only describes about 4 of the robots"? The giant robots in The Big O are "megadeuses":
 * In Act:04, Schwarzwald says, "these Megadeuses were nothing special" when talking about the Archetype.
 * In Act:07, Alex Rosewater calls Dagon "a decrepit Megadeus".
 * In Act:14, Dastun calls the robots coming from the sea "foreign megadeuses"
 * In Act:15, Roger says "no one will ever know why Wayneright had enough memories to contruct an android and a Megadeus." He's talking about R. Dorothy and Dorothy-1.
 * After Glinda shows up, Norman informs Roger "a Megadeus has appeared at the Upper East Side Dome."
 * See?--Nohansen 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So then Megadeus only describes 8 of the 23 entries, it is still not enough to keep the article named "Megadeus." And you can barely call the archetypes Megadei, as they are prototypes. -The Big X 20:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you change the entire page to a different organization without consulting the community? This is a better way of organization, seriously why would you call it "Monster of the Week"? This is wrong in so many different ways. When was each episode created a week apart from each other? -The Big X 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * You didn't even what the show, did you? It aired weekly, therefore "monster of the week". And the giant robots are called megadeus.--Nohansen 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * If you have any further concerns, bring them up at WT:ANIME. These articles don't get a lot of traffic and if the Project is notified we can get a better feel of the "community"'s opinion.--Nohansen 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I watched the show when it first aired but don't have that good a memory to remember what day(s) it was on. And no, not all the robots are called Megadeī (Latin declension of Megadeus would be deus, deī, deō, deum, deō for singular and deī, deōrum, deīs, deō, deīs for plural). -The Big X 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Try List of Mecha in Big O. Thanks to Cartoon Network, I've only seen random episodes. If the account that not all of the mecha are megadeus, then the term "mecha" should cover them all. The bionic aspect of some won't factor; after all, Evangelions are considered mecha, despite their bionic traits. KyuuA4 07:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 * But the term is Megadeus. Just like the "monsters of the week" in Evangelion are called "Angels and in RahXephon, "Dolems". There's no need to move the article.--Nohansen 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is every mecha in this article a Megadeus? KyuuA4 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the "organic enemies" (and maybe the RX3), it's safe to say all giant robots in Big O are megadeuses. The series doesn't make a distinction between "megadeuses" and "regular robots".
 * In Act:12, Roger says, "The megadeuses left us a technology that surpasses any other in the world."
 * In Act:17, Dastun wonders "Megadeuses... why do they keep coming?"
 * In Act:20, Norman informs Roger "a Megadeus has appeared near Central Dome."
 * Those three quotes, coupled with the above, are evidence enough... I think.--Nohansen 18:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, if they're ALL Megadeuses... then they're all Megadeuses. Simple as that.  If that's the case, no need to change article name here. KyuuA4 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What I really want to do is create articles for the 26 episodes, move the megadeuses and homages to their respective episodes and merge this article's lead with Paradigm City in hopes to create a fictional setting article similar to Ivalice.
 * That was my idea when I wrote The Big O article. This (a "List of mecha in The Big O" and a "List of allusions in The Big O") is not what I wanted.--Nohansen 15:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As for separate articles per episode -- um, you should check with Ah My Goddess about that. Apparently, episode articles ended up being merged with an episode list per WP:Notability. KyuuA4 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because AMG's episode articles were only a plot summary. There's seem nothing against episodes articles, as long as editors follow WP:EPISODE.--Nohansen 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Act:05 Roger says, "Tell me one thing, where did you get that robot from? Bonnie Frazier?"
 * Act:06 R. Instro says, "He built this robot, Constanze."
 * Act:10 Roger says, "I don't believe it, that robot is a walking bomb!"
 * Act:19 Construction robot is obviously a robot.
 * I am still watching the episodes to find the quotes give me a little while longer. -The Big X 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean they are not Megadeuses.
 * "Roger's Monologues", comic strips released in the Japanese DVDs, define a Megadeus as "a giant offensive robot."
 * And in Act:20, Alex is watching Bonaparte walking through the city and wonders, "What do those Union robots hope to accomplish at this point? I thought those scrapheap robots fulfilled their purpose."
 * Exchanging "robot" for "Megadeus" in one sentence doesn't change a thing.--Nohansen 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, it does. There is a difference between "robots" and "Megadei," you can't say that it doesn't change a thing now, that is what this entire section had been about. Saying that shows that you don't have anything else to say other than that.

 * And by "Japanese DVDs," are they only Japanese? Because in different languages such a definition may only be that way because of the limitations of the language. Also how can you prove this is the case? I don't have the Japanese DVDs, I live in the U.S., no one can back you up on that claim because you are the only one saying that. -The Big X 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * And when Alex Rosewater said that about the Union robots, remember he couldn't say Megadei because the Union had also sent in robots with the Megadei, such as the construction robot and Eumenides. -The Big X 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Beck calls Dorothy-1 "robot", Roger says it's "Megadeus"; Norman calls Bonaparte "Megadeus", Alex says it's a "robot". There's no clear distinction.--Nohansen 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Which episode and what is the time in hours and minutes that Beck calls Dorothy-1 a robot? And I already stated that Alex said "robots" which could mean he was talking about the other union-sent mechas, that weren't Megadei, so yes there is clear distinction. <IP_ADDRESS> 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * At around 20 minutes into Act:02, after Roger delivers Beck to the authorities, Beck says, "Oh no... my robot... he broke it." Norman calls Dorothy-1 a robot, too. In Act:01, he informs Roger "a giant robot has appeared in West Dome #5."
 * Alex was talking about Bonaparte. He was looking right at it (on a monitor) when he said. Plus, the "purpose" he's talking about is delivering the parts for Big Fau.
 * The transcripts for "Roger's Monologues" are available at Paradigm City. By the way, "Megadeus" in Japanese is Megadeusu and "robot" is Robotto, so there's hardly any "limitations of the language".
 * Again, the series doesn't make a distinction between "Megadeus" and "giant robot". Megadeus is the term The Big O uses. Like Evangelion uses "Angel", RahXephon uses "Dolem", Code Geass uses Knightmare Frame, Mazinger Z uses Mechanical Beasts, etc. It's actually a pretty common feature in mecha anime.--Nohansen 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * The limitations I was talking about would be in the grammar of the Japanese DVDs, I knew the words would be fairly far apart.
 * Did the term Megadeus even exist in Acts 1 and 2? The first time Megadeus is used in the series is the 7th episode. Think, the creators just made their anime, they probably didn't have the term already made. And yes you said "it" but Alex said "robots" so he was talking about all the union robots that have been sent, not saying Boneparte was a Megadeus.
 * Or even is Dorothy-1 a Megadeus? When do they call her one? -The Big X 05:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case there is clearly a distinction between "robot" and "Megadeus". -The Big X 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. Here's (one more time) why:
 * At around 20 minutes into Act:02, after Roger delivers Beck to the authorities, Beck says, "Oh no... my robot... he broke it." My robot is Dorothy-1. Norman calls Dorothy-1 a robot, too. In Act:01, he informs Roger "a giant robot has appeared in West Dome #5."
 * In Act:15, Roger says "no one will ever know why Wayneright had enough memories to contruct an android and a Megadeus." He's talking about R. Dorothy and Dorothy-1.
 * "Roger's Monologues", comic strips released in the Japanese DVDs, define a Megadeus as "a giant offensive robot."--Nohansen 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright in your first post you proved what I said, the term "Megadeus" didn't exist when they created the first episode, so they used "robot", and your comparison to Act:15 isn't relevant because of this fact and that the second season holds considerable differences. As for the comic strips how else would you describe a Megadeus? Yes you can say it is a robot in a way but it is on a higher level, here is a diagram:

Megadeus /\   /\ Robot

That a robot reaches a certain point where it becomes a Megadeus, but that does not mean all robots are Megadei, then you would be saying the Construction Robot is a Megadeus, which it is not. -The Big X 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with this definition. Any megadeus is a robot, but not any robot is a megadeus. Also, is there any consensus on whether or not "megadeus" should be capitalised? I've always assumed that it's not.

 * Whether all robots in the series are "Megadeus" or not can be debated until kingdom come, but it doesn't change the fact that the term exists since the first episode ("What? Not again!... That damn Megadeus just had to show up...") and that the series doesn't make a distinction between normal giant robots and Megadeus giant robots.--Nohansen (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New move section
I think this title better suits this article. -The Big X 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that it's more accurate, so long as the non-megadeus enemies are going to appear in the article, but I think it's important that there be a megadeus section somewhere, given how distinct and important they are. Perhaps there could be a megadeus article that serves purely to define and explain the term, and also go into a bit of background on the more significant ones (the Bigs, the Archetype and Behemoth and Leviathan), but leave the actual mecha list along with the monsters? Or maybe the monsters, along with other one-off enemies, could be covered in episode articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 November 2007

 * We recently re-instituted the articles for The Big O, so this article may soon become obsolete. -The Big X 00:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * If this article becomes obsolete (assuming the episode articles don't get redirected or deleted), the lead should be merged with Paradigm City. This way, we can create a fictional setting article like Ivalice or Spira.--Nohansen (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template for appearence
-The Big X 03:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I implemented this as a better version, you can realign it if you want or fix it, don't remove it this is awesome. -The Big X 18:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bigs
The four Bigs really deserve their own section of this article, like they used to. The Episodic list format is unneeded; that's what we have the Episode List for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The monsters and robots are listed in order of appearance to avoid giving undue weight to fan favorites. While the Bigs (apparently) are more important than the other megadeuses, their appearance on the show amounts to not much more than a "monster of the week" role. Duo is only featured in Act:12, and Duo Inferno in Act:24 (or was it 25?). Fau is (officially) introduced in Act:21, but does nothing of consequence until Roger beats it in the finale. Venus is nothing more than a deus ex machina
 * A valid option would be giving the other Bigs stand-alone articles on par with Big O (mecha), but I don't believe there's enough info to write a whole article on Big Duo or Big Fau.--Nohansen (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Fau
Big Fau wasn't the only Big to be fused with its pilot. Alan Gabriel was hard-wired into Big Duo Inferno, as well. Big Fau, however, may be the only one to perform the wiring itself. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Megadeus. 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/20061007130815/http://www.ex.org/5.1/13-anime_bigo.html to http://www.ex.org/5.1/13-anime_bigo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114051218/http://www.japanhero.com/super%20robot%20reviews/big_o-2.htm to http://www.japanhero.com/super%20robot%20reviews/big_o-2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015193028/http://animeacademy.com/finalrevdisplay.php?id=448 to http://animeacademy.com/finalrevdisplay.php?id=448

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megadeus. 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/20070526213013/http://www.animeadrenaline.com/bigmegas.shtml to http://www.animeadrenaline.com/bigmegas.shtml

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Megadeus


text:
User:Biswassudipta05

biswassudipta05 or Sudipta Biswas is a well known Software developer, Web Developer & the Founder of the Facebook Page Trick or Tips. He ia also known for his famous Userstyles.org Theme Anonymous Facebook Login Theme.

Articles to which I contributed
• Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore

My Wikibooks Collections
hi:User:biswassudipta05 simple:User:biswassudipta05

title: User:Biswassudipta05


text:
User:Kbog

When the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing edit wars. They're bringing bad articles. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people.

title: User:Kbog


text:
Wikiversity talk:Schools

Manual/Craft Arts?
The School of Art and Design is part of Humanities, but there is also the Practical Arts and Sciences portal, which would seem appropriate for some of what comes under 'art and design'. I'm just wondering where the Wood Workshop should be in this hierarchy. Where would the Bauhaus fit? (Sam 02:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Circular Reference

 * Portal
 * On the Main Page for Wikiversity, Fine Arts is a portal.

 * School
 * On this page, Art and Design is a school.

Please decide!!!! Robert Elliott 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * There can be a portal corresponding to any Wikiversity category. However, there is a short list of major portals. In my view, only portals that are on that short list should be on the main page. --JWSchmidt 04:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the distinction between Social Sciences and Humanities? They seem to overlap significantly.--AdamG 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on social sciences emphasizes the difference in methods of study, with the social sciences making use of the scientific method. Traditional academic disciplines are arbitrary divisions and Wikiversity participants should feel free to combine ideas in non-traditional ways. --JWSchmidt 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Late 2012 Updates
I edited the page to show the tree structure in its entirety. It allows an expanded view. The old edit was annoying without the ability generate from an updated perspective. Brett Johnston (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete school of Accountancy
Currently there is a School of Accountancy that has very little and useless content that links to the Topic of Accounting in the School of Business which has much more useful content. The School of Accountancy should just be deleted as it is redundant and confusing.

How do I go about making this happen? I am new here.

--ttam (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 * This page is built from that category you thought was useless. :-)  The way to remove an item in this case is to remove the page from that category.  The way to make it happen is to either post on the talk page, or if that doesn't get a response, visit the Colloquium.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Schools


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/hemispherx.com

Links

 * hemispherx.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Additions

 * Displayed all 11 additions.


text:
Talk:Christianity/Gospel 101

"to a modern translation preferably gender neutral"

Sad, pretty sad.

Sorry, just can't comply to such a politically correct and that should not be a prerequisit for participation.

Real Discussion Points
Because of inept import the original discussion page was not redirected.

First Anonymous Comment - 19 September 2005.

I don't understand...why would you paraphrase the KJV in order to study? First, there are swarms of paraphrases already published; second, if you want to understand the original meaning and intent of the writers, you'll have to study the Scriptures in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) instead of simply converting 'thee' and 'thou' into modern English. Third, your admonition to be gender neutral is inconsistent with the original text of Scripture, because it was -not- gender neutral. This is a nice idea, but modernizing the English of the KJV is going to produce scant growth in the overall life of the Christian, in my opinion.

 * In some places, the original text was "gender neutral" where modern English is not. In other cases, it might be the other way around.  All languages have unique divisions of grammatical gender roles, just like the societies they complement are different,  eg. languages like French are not at all "gender neutral" and cannot be made to be. Notably, concepts commonly translated "man", are often more "gender neutral" or inclusive in the Semitic languages, approaching the meaning of the English terms 'mankind' or 'humanity'; so that in my own translations I have tended to substitute 'person' for 'man' when used in the singular (eg. 'A person cannot live by bread alone'), but only where appropriate; a reference to 'man' should be acceptable when clearly referring to a masculine character. Greatest attention should be paid to the concepts in the original languages, for greatest accuracy possible, and I feel we ought to avoid giving an impression that we intend to radically change the ancient Word into something else, solely to accomodate any modern ideology. Codex Sinaiticus 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Welcome to Modernity
Sorry for the delayed response, I forgot to watch-list this page. This course is only for those who might want to venture into translation as a theological exercise. Most are afraid and just want to cast stones, but I am in up to my elbows and it is quite rewarding. I have expanded into Syriac, Coptic and Latin just like the church fathers. The gender issue came to a head at John 3:6 and I decided to pursue it. The context of verse 3:5 is the breaking of water at birth, not baptism as most assume. That the original language would refer to the birthing woman as only "flesh" was corrected in Modernity. Even the Living Bible reads, "Men can only reproduce human life." That may be "biblical" in your eyes, but a medical impossibility in mine. The Bible is all things to all people, and worthy of pursuit in what ever form. - Athrash | (Talk)  06:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also John 3.6 discussion note from Modernity Version in Wikibooks:
 * Gender issue, double entendre in v. 6 comment. Issue, whether to pursue gender neutral at all? Why tick some people off, because the clock has been ticking long enough and, God willing, the time may have arrived. Issue (meaning, definition number 30 in the Random House, offspring), the birth itself is to issue forth and all human offspring are the bodily issue of a woman. The alternative, flesh, is only skin deep, yet beauty is … This too, a mind, body, and spirit exercise as in v. 9. If the process becomes at all cumbersome then a retraction can be issued. She/he designation (v. 5) is not appropriate for these times, but see nothing wrong with an occasional his/her. The Wikipedia article on the NRSV is of interest, commenting:
 * Gender-inclusive language does represent a change from the traditional translations, however, in many cases, the original language, Koine Greek, is gender ambiguous. For example, adelphoi, can be translated as either "brothers" or "brothers and sisters." See Matthew 12:49.

- Athrash | Talk 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename
There was a proposal to rename this page as not following Naming conventions. However, the name comes from '101 ways (or mention) to believe in the Gospel of John', rather than a course or lesson number. Therefore, the rename recommendation has been removed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christianity/Gospel 101


text:
Talk:Danilo Avilés

Wikified.

 * The article is wikified. Justice007 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Danilo Avilés


text:
San Vitale, Parma

San Vitale is a Baroque style, Roman Catholic church located in central Parma, region of Emilia Romagna, Italy. it stands just east of the Palazzo del Comune and Piazza Garibaldi.

History
A religious building at the site existed in the 9th century, dedicated to San Vitale, tradition holds it was founded by King Pepin of Italy. The present layout dates to a reconstruction that took place from 1651 to 1658 by the architect Cristoforo Rangoni, also called Ficarelli. Domenico Valmagini reinforced the dome in 1676. In 1913, the property was appropriated by the town.

The façade was decorated by the sculptor Felice Pascetti and has six statues attributed to Pietro Sbravati depicting Saints Vitalis and Valeria above, with Valeria's bride and children under the external sides, as well as Saints Gervasius and Protasius, and in the niches Saints Gregory Magnus and Ambrose.

Interior decoration
The first chapel on the right has a painting of the Charity of San Carlo Borromeo by Mauro Oddi.

The second chapel on the right has a Madonna di Caravaggio by Carlo Francesco Nuvolone.

The 3rd chapel on the right has a Saints Anthony, Francis Xavier, and Virgin with Child. Over a door is a large canvas depicting St Gregory praying for Souls in Purgatory by Giovanni Tebaldi.

In the 1st chapel on the left is a St Tiburzio Martyr forced to burn before an idol by Clemente Ruta and a marble Ecce Homo by Giocondo Viglioli.

In the 3rd chapel on the left is a Meeting of St Francis of Paola with King Louis XI of France at Ambois by Gaetano Callani.

The altar in polychrome marble was designed by Pietro Righini, with statuary sculpted by Moggiani. The main altarpiece in the church now was painted Michele Plancher. Originally, the church had a large work by Sebastiano Ricci, but this was looted by Napoleon's armies.

The frescoes in the Sanctuary and the ceiling (1763) were painted by the Abbot Giuseppe Peroni; the quadratura ornamentation (1760) was completed by Gaspare Bazzani and Antonio Betti.

The first chapel on the right is dedicated to the Holy Virgin of Constantinople or the Virgin of Deliverance (Madonna del Riscatto); the stucco decoration was completed in 1669 by Luca and Domenico Reti (or Reddi).

The second chapel has a 17th-century altarpiece depicting Phillip Neri meets St Felice Cappuccino at Montecavallo by Giovanni Battista Caccioli.

The fourth chapel has an altarpiece depicting the Charity of San Carlo Borromeo by Mauro Oddi.

The church had a copy, painted by Rondani, made of its former masterpiece, Adoration of the Child by Correggio. There was also a Santa Cecilia attributed to Girolamo Mazzola.

The Assumption of the Virgin over the entrance was completed by Giovanni Gaibazzi, and donated to the church by Archduke Leopold of Austria.

An urn under the main altar putatively holds the relics of St Vital's body, brought in 1648 from Rome by Gherardo III of Sissa.

There is a Martyrdom of St John Nepomunk by Pietro Rubini and a Sacrifice of Isaac by a follower of Lionello Spada. Moreover, the church houses canvases by Matteo Rusca, Latino Barilli and Donnino Pozzi.

title: San Vitale, Parma


text:
Category:Phoenix Roadrunners (IHL) players

This category contains articles about people who played for the Phoenix Roadrunners (IHL) when they were in the International Hockey League.


text:
Talk:Olympic oaks

Additional sources
Note: a lot of these sources have obvious errors of fact relating to the trees or to the 1936 Olympics, and therefore should b etreated with caution.

 * https://hewardblog.com/hitlers-oak-tree/
 * http://www.npr.org/2011/07/27/138590488/jesse-owens-legacy-and-hitlers-oak-trees
 * http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/20/sports/sp-crowe20
 * Palermo Polo Field in Argentina, the 1928 Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam
 * http://enjoy.org.nz/publishing/the-occasional-journal/the-dendromaniac/seeing-the-wood-and-the-trees-a-complicating-histo

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

Another tree
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/one-oak-s-nazi-heritage-hitler-s-tree-faces-chop-in-polish-town-a-634758.html

An oak in Poland supposedly planted by Hitler.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC).

one more tree in Sweden
there is another tree in Uddevalla Sweden that was won by Knut Fridell <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Olympic oaks


text:
Sean Ryder

Sean Ryder (born 18 June 1987) is a British water polo player.

Born in Nottingham, Ryder has been playing water polo since he was 14. He has competed for Rapid Bucharest, SV Weiden and the Great Britain National Team. In 2012 he was selected to represent Great Britain in the 2012 London Olympics, the first British Olympic water polo team since 1956.

title: Sean Ryder


text:
Kevin Hayes Stakes

The Kevin Hayes Stakes, registered as the Boronia Stakes, is a Melbourne Racing Club Group 3 Thoroughbred horse race, for three-year-old fillies, at set weights with penalties, over a distance of 1200 metres. It is held annually at Caulfield Racecourse in Melbourne, Australia in February. Total prize money for the race is A$200,000.

History
The race is named after the former Chairman of the Victoria Amateur Turf Club, Kevin Hayes.

Name

 * 1984–1985 - Catanach's Handicap
 * 1986–1988 - Jewel Handicap
 * 1989 - Jewel Stakes
 * 1990–1996 - Laurent Perrier Stakes
 * 1997 - Inglis Prem Yearling Stakes
 * 1998 - Swamp King Sand Park Stakes
 * 1999–2002 - Sandown Park (UK) Stakes
 * 2003 - Sandown Park (UK) Handicap
 * 2004 onwards - Kevin Hayes Stakes

Distance

 * 1984–1988 – 1400 metres
 * 1989–1997 – 1200 metres
 * 1998–1999 – 1100 metres
 * 2000 onward - 1200 metres

Grade

 * 1984–2013 - Listed race
 * 2014 onward - Group 3

Venue

 * 2006 - Sandown Racecourse
 * 2023 - Sandown Racecourse

Winners

 * 2022 – Argentia
 * 2021 – La Mexicana
 * 2020 – How Womantic
 * 2019 – Crack The Code
 * 2018 – Booker
 * 2017 – Fuhryk
 * 2016 - Risque
 * 2015 - Sabatini
 * 2014 - Spirits Dance
 * 2013 - Octavia
 * 2012 - Soft Sand
 * 2011 - Miss Gai Flyer
 * 2010 - Set For Fame
 * 2009 - Typhoon Tracy
 * 2008 - Absolut Glam
 * 2007 - Gina Lollawitcha
 * 2006 - Chetwynd South
 * 2005 - Hollow Bullet
 * 2004 - French Bid
 * 2003 - Brief Embrace
 * 2002 - Fair Embrace
 * 2001 - Queen Carey
 * 2000 - Heaps Of Fun
 * 1999 - Rainbow Bubbles
 * 1998 - Drop Anchor
 * 1997 - Chalee
 * 1996 - Rubidium
 * 1995 - Eccentricity
 * 1994 - Adagietto
 * 1993 - Crazy Neaux
 * 1992 - Rockabye
 * 1991 - Mahaasin
 * 1990 - Sister Canny
 * 1989 - Gilded Lily
 * 1988 - Golden Unicorn
 * 1987 - Fashion Fun
 * 1986 - Nancress
 * 1985 - Winged Keel
 * 1984 - Fork Tongue

title: Kevin Hayes Stakes


text:
Twistesee

The Twistesee is a reservoir on the Twiste in the county of Waldeck-Frankenberg in North Hesse, Germany.

Location
The Twistesee is located at the northern end of the Langer Wald around 30 km as the crow flies west-northwest of Kassel between Bad Arolsen in the west, Volkmarsen to the northeast and Wolfhagen to the southeast. The reason for its construction was the so-called Henry Flood (Heinrichsflut) on 16/17 July 1965 that caused serious damage and destruction in the catchment areas of the Twiste and Diemel rivers. Near one riverside village, Wetterburg, the Twiste was impounded by a dam to form a very large flood retention basin in order to control the water level.

Sights
Among the sights in the vicinity of the Twistesee are:
 * Bad Arolsen, the best known destination near the reservoir.
 * Neu-Berich, a village with an interesting past, near the lake.
 * Landau, somewhat southeast of the reservoir, has an historical old town which is entirely protected, a palace, an historical town church and the Landauer Wasserkunst, an historical water supply system.
 * Near Volkhardinghausen, not far south of the reservoir, stands the French Oak (Franzoseneiche).

Literature

 * Peter Franke, Wolfgang Frey: Talsperren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. DNK – DVWK 1987, ISBN 3-926520-00-0

title: Twistesee


text:
User:Paullusmagnus~enwikibooks

Paul Stansifer

See en:User:Paullusmagnus

Installing Linux (outline)
Intro
 * Oftentimes, installing Linux is hard because you want to keep you data/OS
 * If not, (new computer, don't care about old OS + data backup), it's easier.
 * Depending on what hardware the computer has and your experience level, the ease of installation varies greatly

Do you want to install Linux?

 * Software
 * (usually) compatible and equivalent for most purposes, and (almost always) free (table of equivalents) (include narrower, deeper list)
 * Performance
 * Good idea!
 * Price
 * Not free but close
 * Ease-of-use
 * mixed ... getting better
 * Stability
 * Good ... unless you get so hooked you start using nightly builds and unstable releases

Which of these goals apply?
 * keeping data
 * ...without restoring a backup
 * coexistence with another OS
 * sharing data with that OS
 * both ways?

Can it be done?

 * Low-end systems are almost always fine (unless you have a 286 lying around)
 * Can you backup? (do you need to?)
 * Does the hardware work? (see )

Trying Linux

 * Floppy distros
 * Knoppix/Gnoppix
 * Very useful later on as well; if it provides an Internet connection while you're trying to set up the main one, it can save you a great deal of trouble.
 * Running Linux from another OS's partition.

Choosing a Linux
(or do you want a BSD instead?)
 * Desktop environment (GNOME/KDE/blackbox/wm/console)

 * Distros: ease-of-use vs. power, package management. A visit to http://www.distrowatch.com/ should be mandantory.
 * Debian
 * Don't use the stable release (as of 2004, it is over three years old)! (unstable is better)
 * For a quick&easy install, get Knoppix 3.3 or later and install that.
 * Otherwise, be sure to have an Internet connection and be prepared to learn a lot.

Stuff you should learn

 * Basic command line manipulation
 * Text editor: vi/EMACS
 * Recompiling the kernel (not that hard, may be necessary).
 * Using Lynx

Getting Linux

 * Download
 * CD
 * Spare partition
 * Network install
 * CD
 * Floppies
 * Spare partition
 * Buy a CD/DVD
 * price/donations
 * Buy a computer with Linux on it
 * Skip to Using Linux

Dual-booting

 * Nodestructive repartitioning
 * defragment first!
 * FAT - FIPS
 * NTFS - ntfsresize
 * Backup and reinstall
 * writable CD/DVD
 * network
 * tape

(Re)partitioning

 * unnessecary sometimes, with FAT partitions
 * but you probably want to do it anyways
 * what partions you'll need to make
 * ext3? ReiserFS? XFS?
 * how much space per partition

Installing

 * You ought to already know enough about the hardware at this point.
 * This has become a lot easier.
 * But, know about your hardware, and be sure to have Internet access, in case something doesn't work.

After the install

 * Data transfer/conversion
 * Configuration
 * security
 * environment
 * Proceed to Using Linux

Computer Graphics: 3D
Because computers are millions of times as fast at arithmetic than humans, they can be used to generate the 2-dimensional view of a 3-dimensional scene algorithmically.

Raytracing describes the process of simulating the straight lines that light follows as it bounces off objects into the viewer's eye. Because determining the path of millions of photons is incredibly difficult, backwards raytracing traces the path from the eye to the object to the light source, so only one ray needs to be sent out per pixel in the finished product.

Here, the Persistance of Vision Raytracer, or POV-Ray, will be used to demonstrate raytracing for the following reasons: It may be downloaded from http://www.povray.org for Linux, Microsoft Windows, or MacOS. The help files are extensive and can serve as indrotuction to ray-tracing on their own.
 * It is free software, and availible on virtually all platforms, so it is accessible to everyone.
 * Scenes are defined by means of text files, so examples are easy to follow and the underlying aspects of raytracing are more evident.
 * The scene files are also modular as in a programming language, so it is easy to build off the work of others.
 *  [plus, the author hasn't used anything else]

Sanity check
We will now render the original computer graphics cliché: a mirrored sphere hovering over a checkered plane. Enter the following text into "lesson01-test.pov" (Windows users can enter it into POV-Ray for Windows's internal text editor and save it as this when prompted)

/*Test scene*/ global_settings{ assumed_gamma 1.0 //make sure that this looks the same on all monitors }
 * 1) version 3.5; //this code will work in POV-Ray version 3.5

background{ color rgb <0,0,1> } //Objects plane{ y, 0 /*normal vector, position along that vector*/ texture{ pigment{ checker color rgb <0,1,0> /*green*/ color rgb <1,1,1> /*white*/ }   } } sphere{ <0,2,0>, 1 /*location, radius*/ texture{ pigment{ color rgb <0,0,0> }      finish{ reflection{0.9} ambient 0.0 specular 0.5 }   } } //light light_source{ <0,0,0> /*location*/ color rgb <1,1,1> /*colored white*/ } //camera camera{ location <-4,2.5,0> look_at <0,2,0> } What's antialiasing?

The pixels on your computer screen are large enough for you to see individually. Since the real world isn't made up of tiny squares like pictures on a computer screen are, diagonal lines and curves tend to come out looking jagged. Antialiasing counteracts this by making pixels that cover an edge border an average of the two colors. This looks better, but takes more time, as multiple rays must be sent out per pixel. Render this with the command line parameters "+W320 +H240 +A0.3 +FN" to output a PNG file called "lesson01-test.png" that is 320x240 pixels and is antialiased. If it goes too slowly, use "-A" instead of "+A0.3" next time to turn off antialiasing. If you can see the preview window and don't want to save the image file, next time, use "-F" instead of "+FN".

If all goes well, you will see a mirrored sphere hovering over a green and white checkered floor against a blue sky.

POV-Ray's syntax
Programmers will feel right at home with POV-Ray's syntax, because it is inspired by the C programming language. Whitespace and ends of lines are ignored (camera{location<-4,2.5,0> look_at<0,2,0>} is perfectly legal), comments surrounded by <tt> /*...*/</tt> are ignored, as are comments coming after <tt>//</tt> on a line. The scene file should consist of sequence of "scene items" (their order doesn't matter), where scene items are usually the camera, lights, and objects.

A page about setting up POV-Ray belongs here.

How to use objects
There are two objects in the test scene, the plane and the sphere. Let's look at the sphere. sphere{ <0,2,0>, 1 /*location, radius*/ texture{ pigment{ color rgb <0,0,0> }        finish{ reflection{0.9} ambient 0.0 specular 0.5 }     }   } Change the <tt><0,2,0></tt> to <tt><0,0,0></tt> and rerender. What happens?

[....]

Objects
Objects are made of primitives, simple and not-so-simple constructs like "plane", "sphere", "isosurface". They can be combined by means of Constructive Solid Geometry or CSG. CSG works by adding and subtracting primitives and is very useful for the creation of objects with a large number of simple surfaces, such as floppy disks and furniture.

POV-Ray primitives are seperated into categories:

 * finite solid primitives :These are most like real objects. The simple finite solid primitives include <tt>box, sphere, cone, cylinder, lathe, torus,</tt> and <tt>text</tt>.
 * finite patch primitives :These don't have any thickness. They are <tt>polygon, disc, triangle,</tt> and <tt>bicubic_patch.</tt>  Triangles can be efficiently grouped in very large numbers with <tt>mesh</tt> and <tt>mesh2</tt>.  Usually, this is used for files imported from other formats.
 * infinite solid primitives :<tt>plane</tt> is the only common one, the others create surfaces defined by polynomial equations
 * special math objects :<tt>parametric</tt> and <tt>isosurface</tt> can be used to mathematically define complex surfaces.

The CSG operations are
 * <tt>union</tt>/<tt>merge</tt> :Combine multiple objects into one. <tt>merge</tt> removes internal surfaces for use in, for example, glass.
 * <tt>difference</tt> :Cut out the shape of one object from another.
 * <tt>intersection</tt> :Remove all the shape that isn't in both (all) objects.

The <tt>inverse</tt> keyword turns an object inside-out. The difference is not visible with a plain object (because objects consist only of their surfaces and the surface is in the same place), but is very useful in CSG. <tt>intersection{object{A} object{B}}</tt> is the same as <tt>difference{object{A} object{B inverse}}</tt>. (The <tt>object{}</tt> syntax will be explained later).

For example, here is a coffee cup scene. Try this out in "<tt>lesson02-csg.pov</tt>"

#version 3.5; background{color rgb <0,0,1>} /*objects*/ plane{ y, 0 pigment{checker color rgb <0,1,0> color rgb <1,1,1>}} union{ difference{ cylinder{ <0,0,0>, <0,2,0>, 1 /*bottom, top, radius of cylinder*/ pigment{ color rgb <1,0,0> //red }        }         cylinder{ <0,.1,0>,           <0,2.0001,0> /*results are unpredictable when this is <0,2,0> because it creates "coincident surfaces"*/ 0.9           pigment{ color rgb <0,1,0> //green }        }      }      torus{ .5, .15        rotate x*90 translate x*1.5+y*1 pigment{ color rgb <0,0,1> //blue }     }      translate z*1 }  /*light*/ light_source{<2,5,-4> /*location*/ color rgb <1,1,1> /*colored white*/} /*camera*/ camera{location <0,3.5,-4> look_at <0,2,0> right x*image_width/image_height } Notice that the parts that we are not currently concerned with have been compressed onto their own lines.

Standard practice
But you've been leaving "<tt>texture</tt>" out!

<tt>texture</tt> blocks can contain <tt>pigment</tt>, <tt>normal</tt>, and <tt>finish</tt> blocks for objects with complicated surfaces. It becomes inconvenient to write "<tt>texture{ pigment{ color rgb <0,1,0> }}</tt>" if a pigment is all that's needed, so POV-Ray allows you to leave that. "<tt>texture</tt>" should be used if more than one of the above blocks are included, or if that object has layered textures (more on them later).

As in programming, POV-Ray files can become unreadable and hard to modify if not written well. The code structure is hiearchial — you could have a <tt>sphere</tt> which contains a <tt>texture</tt> block, which contains a <tt>pigment</tt> block, which contains a <tt>color_map</tt> block, for example. The general rule is that each level of hiearchy is indented one level further than the previous:

sphere{ <0,1,0>, .5  texture{ pigment{ /*don't worry about the unusualness of this section for now*/ bozo scale .4 color_map{ [0.0 color rgb <1.0,0.4,0.4>] [1.0 color rgb <0.1,0.4,0.9>] }      }       finish{ specular 1.0 diffuse 0.4} } } Notice that the rule was violated in the above example - the <tt>finish</tt> block was squished onto one line. Well, this <tt>finish</tt> statement us very short (they almost always are), and one can save space and make the code more legible by violating the rule for simple statements, especially those deep in the hiearchy.

Colors
How does one represent colors in text? Simple names like "red" and "magenta" aren't good enough for duplicating that <font style="background-color:#F5E3E9;">subtle purple-pinkish color on the main page. Any color can be described as a combination of red, green and blue because of the way the human eye works. POV-Ray represents colors as vectors of numbers between 0 and 1. <tt>color rgb <1.0, 0.4, 0.4></tt> is a red color with extra green and blue added — this makes it a light-red color.

Sometimes, a partially-transparent color is needed, like for defining colored cellophane. In this case something like <tt>color rgbft <0.5, 0.2, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6> </tt> would be used, adding two numbers to describe the transparencey. But good-looking transparent objects require more than that, so we'll save that for later.

Needed/needs consideration

 * standardized code formats
 * should we introduce so many things at once? (copy&pasting text files could be annoying, so maybe we should keep the number of things introduced low)
 * how about a .zip or .tar.bz2 with all the files needed: one download, and instructions are of the form "open Chapter07/specular.pov"?
 * standard sidebars? ("what's antialiasing?" "why'd <tt>texture</tt> disappear?" "How do I do this?")

title: User:Paullusmagnus~enwikibooks


text:
Talk:WTA Finals

Headline text
1995 Championships

Were these championships not know as the Corel Championships? --Mpokane (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

1975, 1977
In those years, there were no double masters, see: http://www.wtachampionships.com/page/HonorRoll/0,,12910,00.html--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sponsored names
I think this section could use a table as the narrative format is repetitive and hard to follow. Nyth83 (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also a google search for Corel WTA it appear that they were the sponsors in 1998. Nyth83 (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WTA Finals. 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/20141106123130/http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/0527_WTA_Finals.pdf to http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/0527_WTA_Finals.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova's nationality
What is the correct standpoint about Navratilova's nationality between 1975 and 1981? Most of the sources counts her as American. Is it right? --OPES-FRM (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:WTA Finals


text:
Bharath Subramaniyam

Bharath Subramaniyam (born 17 October 2007) is an Indian chess grandmaster.

Chess career
He learned chess at the age of five years from his father Harishankkar. Starting from 2014, he attended the "Chess Gurukul" school in Chennai, having GM Ramachandran Ramesh as his main teacher. In January 2020, Bharath was selected for a special training camp sponsored by Microsense networks conducted by former World champion GM Vladimir Kramnik and former World chess challenger GM Boris Gelfand. Bharath is currently training with Indian chess Grandmaster Shyam Sundar.

He completed his 3rd IM norm in June 2019, at the age of 11 years and 8 months. The title was officially ratified by FIDE in September of the same year.

In January 2022 Bharath earned his third and final GM norm to become India's 73rd grandmaster at the age of 14, by scoring 7.5/9 at the Vergani Cup Open in Cattolica, Italy, and raising his live rating above 2500. As of March 18th, 2024, he is the youngest Indian grandmaster.

Main results
In November he wins the World Youth Championship Under-8 at Porto Carras in Greece with 9,5/ 11;
 * 2015 – in August he wins at Suwon (Korea) the Asian Youth Championship in the Under-8 section.
 * 2017 – in August he places 4th in the World Youth Championship Under-10 at Poços de Caldas in Brazil.
 * 2019 – in January he places 4th in the blitz section of the Roquetas de Mar Chess Festival.
 * 2019 - In June he achieves his final IM norm in Goa open and becomes International master.
 * 2020 – in February he places 11th at the Aeroflot Open in Moscow with 5,5/ 9, ahead of 54 Grandmasters and getting his first GM norm with a rating performance greater than 2700.
 * 2021 – in October he is placed 4th (tied for 3rd) at the Junior Roundtable Under 21 tournament in Bulgaria with 6.5/9. He made his 2nd GM norm.

title: Bharath Subramaniyam