text:
Talk:Aptronym/Archive 1

Crapper
You've put the horse before the cart. "Thomas Crapper, maker of Vicrian flush toilets" is not an aptronym of the same vein as the others listed. The term "crap" became synonymous with defication AS A RESULT of Mr. Crapper's occupation. It wasn't just a coincidental name to be born.

Leave it, cut it, make a cute little side note... whatever. I just felt it appropriate to clarify.

[--anon.]

 * Sorry, not true. The recorded use of the word in that sense dates to 1846, when Mr Crapper was 10 years old. See the article on Thomas Crapper. -HFM.

Wikified as part of the wikification drive.
Wikified as part of the wikification drive. KarenAnn 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Snow
Why is Tony Snow listed but not John Snow?

Is "Tony Snow" only listed because of the colloquial meaning of "snowjob"? That would be kind of lame... AnonMoos 15:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Snow job. Hmm... I guess it passes. ~ Rollo44 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is some proof that Tony Snow is "covering anything up," of which I am unaware, it would need to be cited. As such, bye-bye Tony Snow. Cliffietheman

Rev. Sinner
Are "Cardinal Sin" and "Rev. Richard Sinner" actually ironic, considering that Christian theology holds that all men are sinners? - Calmypal (T) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thusly all the more fitting!

J. P. Losman, Bills quarterback
Is it appropriate to add J. P. Losman, current NFL quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, as his name is synonymous with his team's performance since joining ("loss man"), or is it more irony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgriebel (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an aptronym, it's a soundalike / lookalike. Even if his name were " J. P. Loser", it would still be a subjective view of his team's performance in a current sports season.  Dei z  talk 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Spikes, former Major League Baseball player
What does the term "spike" have to do with baseball? If he were a volleyball or football player, the name would be an aptronym, but baseball? Am I missing something? — DIEGO  talk 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Spikes" are the names of the shoes worn by baseball players because of the small spikes on the bottom of the soles (for traction).  Keeper  |  76  14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of specific association
I think that aptonyms must be quite specific. I don't agree with the inclusion of the following:

 * George Best: The word "best" may apply to him (in someone's opinion), but it doesn't have anything to do with football; it doesn't tie in to any aspect of George Best's specific individual achievements.
 * Eric Gagne: He may be a winner, but the word doesn't tie him with any specific individual achievement either.
 * Mario Lemieux - Lemieux means "the best" in French. Same complaint; the association is not specific enough.

As an aside:
 * Tiger Woods. It is interesting to see the mention, but somehow he needs a partner (does Jeremy Irons play golf?) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Organizations?
I've had a brief discussion with Saltation on his talk page and mine regarding the inclusion of BAAPS here. Saltation added it, I removed it, we discussed the removal, and it has now been added back in by Saltation. instead of just removing it again, I'd like other input regarding organizations names - do they fit here? Keeper |  76  23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Company names are chosen.. aptronyms are inherently coincidental, not selected.  Dei z  talk 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 * If that was correct, fictional aptronyms could not exist. Yet they are widely cited.
 * Probably better in context to say "Unintended", not "Coincidental". Mens rea. I agree that intentional aptronyms should not be bundled with "genuine" aptronyms. (For example, Alicia Keys and Joe Strummer could be reinstated in a section labelled "Deliberate Aptronyms" or somesuch, although the extant mingling of fictional and nonfictional aptronyms then becomes problematic.)
 * This particular aptronym happens to be both coincidental and unintended. Speaking to the element of intention: does anyone seriously think a brittle brit "professional" group would deliberately choose to associate that cliched euphemism with their professional standing and their public brand? When the group was put together specifically to push that public brand?  Check their media presence if you think they're not serious.
 * As I said in my initial response to your post on my talk page, Deiz (which I noted used a different reasoning to your post here), I'm not particularly motivated to correct this deletion. It's hardly central to the topic.
 * However, I do not regard it as appropriate to justify that deletion by warping the definition.
 * Saltation (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, I do not regard it as appropriate to justify that deletion by warping the definition.
 * Saltation (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Saltation (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

File path
The term "/path/to/file" is used in some documentation. Isn't this an aptronym, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddor (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If a file existed there, I suppose you could argue that, but no operating system I've heard of has that directory or file. Mikkel (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Arsene Wenger
Just a suggestion, he is the manager of Arsenal Football Club. He also used to be a footballer and Winger is a position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Guest
Michael Guest was the US ambassador in Romania. I think it's quite obvious that his name is an aptronym. Any opinions against? Reject 666 6 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, mainly that it is not an aptronym. Michael Ambassador yes, Guest absolutely not.  Dei z  talk 13:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Finnish examples
There are two Finnish examples that come to mind: Arno Kasvi (brother of Jyrki Kasvi), botanist ("plant") and Pekka Pouta, meteorologist ("fair weather"). <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Aptronym vs nominative determinism
If I understand the definition (looking at the Encyclopaedia Britannica on which the lead is based) it suggests the difference is:

 * Aptronym - the name comes after the characteristics, that is this is essentially a literary term (as you can define a character and then fit the name to them) and other examples might include the characters in Charles Dickens (Murdstone is given on the article) and Molière, as well as the Carry On films.
 * Nominative determinism - the name leads to the job/character

However, the examples here seem to be largely of nominative determinism. Now I might have misunderstood the difference but there seems to be a disjunction between the lead and the EB definition and the examples. If they are examples of aptronyms then this article should probably be merged with nominative determinism but it strikes me there is a clear difference even if the examples don't suggest it. (Emperor (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Ryder Hesjedal
Suggestion: Ryder Hesjedal, the Canadian cyclist. To be honest, I'm a little surprised it isn't here already. P (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Chip" Jett included but "Chip" Reese was removed?
Poker player Charles "Chip" Jett was included, so I added David "Chip" Reese. Why was Chip Reese removed but not Chip Jett? That makes no sense. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Chip is a shortened version of Charles. Like William/Bill or James/Jim. As for David Reese, "Chip" is just a nickname... Not an Aptronym. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So then Chip Beck the golfer should be good since its shortened from Charles Beck. I'm adding him to the listRacerx11 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

William Dement, professor of psychiatry
Just wondering, is the William Dement listed here the same person as the William C. Dement, the Stanford professor and sleep research pioneer? If so, I think its still good. I found a couple sites confirming he's a professor of psychiatry. To whomever included him, the problem is we usually use a link to the person's article if they have one. He has one, but when you go to it, it mostly talks about his association with sleep research and doesn't mention him being a professor of psychiatry. So it doesn't really support his name being a aptronym. I won't remove it, but someone might consider this one a borderline aptronym.

I should mention the WP article on Stanford University School of Medicine has him listed under "notable faculty" as "William C. Dement - Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, pioneer in sleep research." which does support an aptronym.

Anyway, should we go ahead and link the name to William C. Dement? And if so, should we add to his article that he is a professor of psychiatry? Racerx11 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd definitely agree in both cases. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 04:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of unreferenced names, I'd also vote for finding a ref for Jacques Moron, Lara Weller, and Kent Wells. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 04:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Done, on both the Dement issues. I remember seeing on some site a "history" of the different Lara Croft models that included Weller, so I think there is stuff out there on her. I don't know about the other two you mention.Racerx11 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Links with no External References
I don't know how trafficked this page is, but I figured I would post here before deleting the fairly substantial number of red links that have no citation whatsoever, like So-and-so is the owner of Such-and-such company, which I will do in a week from now. JesseRafe (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Earl Boykins?
Maybe I'm missing something, but should Earl Boykins, just because he's short, be listed on this page? I'm assuming the reference is to Boykins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorself (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge
Isn't it about time that the Charactonym article was merged into this one? Dadge (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Barry White
Inaptonym example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bobbitt
Surely the term came after crime, not before. Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Bob means to cut short or shorten by cutting. Actually a very old term. Certain hair cuts were once called "bob-cuts" and the old song "Camptown Races" from the 1800's contains the line, "I'll bet my money on de bob-tail nag". "Bob-tail nag" here means a horse with its tail cropped or cut short.

 * so bob (cut short) + it (penis) = Bobbitt.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Original Trivia
OK, can someone justify how the list of "examples" is not both a bunch of trivia (discouraged) and original research (not allowed)? -<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Lampman (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No as in it's not, or no as in there's no possible justification? —烏Γ (kaw at me), 04:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all OR without a good ref. Perhaps some are fair, but something like Bobbit to me seems OR/stretching the definition. Malick78 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Nominative determinism should be merged into this article. They are largely duplicative, and the combined material will be better than both articles separately. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * My personal opinion is that it should go the other way; we ought to merge this article into Nominative determinism. But that's just me. Thor Rudebeck 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles would seem to suggest that they are different things. I had not heard of aptronyms before but they seem to primarily refer to fictional names. The other article is about an alleged or humourous theory that roles are assumed according to one's name. It is widely discussed in papers and journals and deserves an article. I has become something of a boffins game to find them in technical journals. I just found all this on the random page, sorry if I am late to discussion. - Fred 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Support: They overlap in subject but not in article content, and thus would make a merged article far superior to either of the individual articles.–Skomorokh 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They should stay separate as Fred suggests, due to the largely fictional nature of aptronyms vs. the happenstance nature of nominative determinism (which makes it funnier). Though they would both benefit from expansion to become proper encyclopedia articles.Andybuckle 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't nominative determinism require (or at least imply) causation, much in the sense of "giving a dog a bad name"? Aptronymy would seem to involve coincidence rather than causation (or at least punning when the named individuals are fictional). <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Places?
Does this trope apply to places as well as individuals? Grimsby, Slough and Crawleigh in the UK all spring to mind ... as would Bangkok and Phuket in Thailand, albiet for different reasons. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good name, but not quite an Aptronym
How about the equal opportunity person at a large company I used to work for in Chicago: Juanita Wong! I think is is one of the most perfect names:jobs relationships, but not an Aptronym. WardXmodem (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle
Is Charles de Gaulle an example? Leader of the French, his name seems to mean 'of Gaul'—i.e., 'of France'. AJD (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I'd say no. Now, if CdG were a fascist, especially a nation-race-centered fascist like Mussolini or Hitler, then, there'd be an argument, as he's not only leading the nation state but leading the people (or the state's [mythical] founding people).
 * As Gaul and Gaulle are only superficially similar (Gaul (en) and Gaule (fr) are both unrelated to Gallia (lt), and all three totally different from Gaulle - not the point, I know, as many of these aptronyms are also coincidentally homophonous) would that make any other leader named Frank, Frances, etc also eligible if they ever held power in what's now called France (As we're skipping around with temporalities, as the land is not called Gaul or Gallia or Celtica etc anymore)? JesseRafe (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Joe Strummer
Should Joe really be included, as his real name is John Mellor, he just gave himself the name Joe Strummer after his playing style? Pennywisepeter 15:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The same goes for Alicia Keys; that wasn't her birth name. Surely these names should be verified for them to be considered aptronyms. Thefamouseccles 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe that without Joe "Strummer" on the list, Alicia "Keys" shouldn't also be there. User:Guest 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)
 * An aptronym is not necessarily the "given" name. To be considered an aptronym, the name must merely be reflected as a name that, for whatever reason, is especially appropriate. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * That would be a cse of aptronymy without nominative determinism.1Z (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jung's examples
"£Jung listed striking instances among psychologists — including himself:

"Herr Freud (Joy) champions the pleasure principle, Herr Adler (Eagle) the will to power, Herr Jung (Young) the idea of rebirth…"[4]"

Should these be under "Other languages". 1Z (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe's recent edits
Another consistency problem. By the criteria used to revert my recent edits, virtually nothing counts as a aptonym except "Major Major" or "Judge Judge" ("Godman is not himself a godman"). Wisdom is about as relevant to philosophy as Angst is to psychology, to compare to example found acceptable. Note that the point about Professor Wiseman was the professor, not the psychology -- cf Dr. Unk. Note also that The Imperial Animal, which I have read, is partly about non-human animals, since it is about the origins of human social organsiation in primate behaviour. 1Z (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Maybe some of the readily available online summaries of the Imperial Animal could do to mention that, but even so, I fail to see the connection. The Godman thing is beyond tenuous. He's an authority on some guy (not to be dismissive but that's basically who the sage is), and that guy is a Hindu and Hinduism has figures known as "godmen". Are you serious? And I'm being pedantic for removing it... Likewise Wiseman, is he a professor of wisdom? What makes him a wise man? Because he's a professor? There are millions of professors in the world, not to mention "scientists" (however one may define it) and engineers or other fields where one needs to be "smart" and tens of thousands of them have vague names to intelligence, but compare that to Russell Brain who's not merely a brainy scientist, but a neurologist. For the same reason why Chris Moneymaker the poker player belongs in the list, but a banker that someone kept adding named Rich does not. Likewise, Angst has a lot to do with psychology, whereas wisdom has almost nothing to do with psychology nor professorship (Dr. Tenure would be apt for a professor of any subject, for example). Yes, Elizabeth Unk is nothing close to an aptonym, but Dr. Unk is pretty funny. Maybe doesn't belong in, but I remember when that story was circulated all over teh internetz several editors were adding and refining that entry. Further, your blanket reactionary undo failed to notice other changes made to the improvement of the article as a whole that you did not reincorporate back into the article, such as further explanation of the aptness of malarkey and a simplification of the entry for Commoner. JesseRafe (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Wisdom has to do with philosophy.

 * The names Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox are in any case apt to the name of the book.You seem to be editing according to criteria pulled out of thin air.. 1Z (talk)

 * Explain to me how. Other than the etymology meaning "love of knowledge" there is no 1:1 connection between wisdom and the entire field of philosophy. You don't have to be wise to be a cynic, or an empiricist, or write a book about Socrates. And being a gnostic or a scholar of Kant or any other vacuous way of "being" a philosopher doesn't make you wise. It just doesn't. It's not there and never will be. Do you have to be healthy to be a doctor?
 * Yes, I simply don't believe the Tiger and Fox thing is apt. They're not zoologists or veterinarians. And the discussion of the book makes it seem any reference to animals is anecdotal, and the title seems to me an attempt to evoke other uses like "political animal". But yes, that is solely my opinion and no, I haven't read the book. Of course, I'd bow to consensus, and I feel less strongly about Tiger and Fox than I do about Wisdom or Wiseman or whomever the above was about. I just think the Tiger and Fox thing is lazy and "hey looky!" more than wrong. JesseRafe (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Judge Learned Hand, Amelia Earhart
Judge Learned Hand was famous for writing (by hand, I presume) his opinions, many of which are still cited in court cases.

Amelia Earhart, pronounced "air heart," loved to fly.

And if I complain enough can I get into the Spanish version of this article? My last name is pronounced like "quejo," which means "I complain" or "he complained." :-) --TDKehoe (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Soundalikes" are not acceptable. If a person was truly notable for complaining, or was the notable head of a notable complaint-related body, such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission, it could be considered.  Dei z  talk 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 * If soundalikes ae unacceptable, Bernie Madoff should be pulled. 1Z (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Your rationale is based off one editor's dictum, an editor who has basically stopped used wikipedia a year ago and more-or-less only contribution to this page was making one cleanup and then reverting back to his/her version of it again and again and then coming on the talk page without making any further edits to the principal... six years ago. I think the article has evolved and obvious "soundalikes" like Madoff, Kayode, and Stepanova are acceptable to most, but ones like Gamova etc are contrived. Same as Earheart. Heart-Air would be more appropriate, as made-off, KO'd, and stepping over, are grammatical AND their names, but "air heart" doesn't make any sense. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Soundalikes
Are they in or out? There are many examples on the page already. Are they going to be pulled? 1Z (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Not quite sure what you're talking about. You mean like Madoff or Gamova? JesseRafe (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, like Madoff and Gamova.

 * So what's the question? Are they in? Yes, they're on the page, what's the problem? A boxer who Kay-Os people named Kayode isn't apt, or? Something else? JesseRafe (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Re "Soundalikes" are not acceptable" here. If they are, could Earhart go in? Could this page set out a clear set of guidelines, instead of inconsistency, and editors inventing their own on the spur of the moment? 1Z (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * That's from six plus years ago. I think Amelia Earhart doesn't belong not because it's a soundalike, but because it's not an aptroynym. I think that editorial consensus is a good guideline, is something an aptronym per the definition? Yes or no, what more is there? JesseRafe (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't be the least bit sorry to see Earhart go, and anything else that is far-fetched or inappropriate, thereby trimming the over-long list. A few good examples should suffice to demonstrate the topic, and we already have many more than a few.  I don't think the article was intended to include an ever-growing collection, nor should it. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Steward Copeland
What about him ? Drummer of The Police. Also son of a CIA agent. Inherited aptronimy. Agumonkey (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 * What about him? JesseRafe (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agumonkey was probably thinking of cop (a variant of Copeland is Copland). Bit tenuous. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured that later, but didn't feel like editing my response. More than a bit, I'd say. If he actually were a policeman, or his name were Steward Snareland or Hihatman, but I don't see how a name that's not even pronounced (except as a variant) like a synonym for the name of a band that they themselves picked, not an occupation, could be included. JesseRafe (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since this wasn't deleted
My complaints about the article from the AfD nomination all remain true. This article needs a complete overhaul, and at the very least, each name on the list needs a source that explicitly mentions it being considered an aptronym. —烏Γ (kaw) │ 19:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually not every name needs a source. The requirement is verifiability not reference everything.  Most, if not all, of these names are well known, and trivial to check.  Editors can by all means add references if they wish, but there is little here that is challenge worthy.  Shotgun  is not useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC).

States Rights
I'm guessing that for a child named after the "states' rights" ideology to become a prominent figure in the Confederacy was no coincidence. That is, he was presumably raised in that mold, to some greater or lesser extent. Does that make it less suitable for this page? I think of the classic aptronym as having little or no cause-and-effect link between name and occupation (unless one subscribes to nominative determinism)--a coincidence, in other words, as opposed to a scenario in which someone is brought up in a certain tradition, is named in honor of that tradition, and then pursues an occupation aligned with the tradition. Jcejhay (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that his cousin was South Carolina governor William Henry Gist father-in-law turned out to be South Carolina governor James Hopkins Adams, you make a very good point that this is likely a bonafide case of nominative determinism. My only nitpick about removing Gist from the list is that there is still, to my knowledge, an ongoing dispute about merging the two articles and it seems like it might be silly to start moving names back and forth and open an unwelcome precedent. Maybe just a note on his entry? JesseRafe (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Non English
, I find your comment in the comment line very aggressive, mocking and uncalled for: "and not in, oh wait, what's the called, oh yes, ENGLISH." By the way, I checked at Verifiability that "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia." Ziko (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do yourself a favor and actually read the article maybe, and perhaps even the numerous discussions over it, and you would see that non-English examples do not go in the main list. End of story. Besides the fact that they are tenuous and dubious examples and shouldn't be included even if they were in English. It all relies on supposition. JesseRafe (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Usain Bolt
"Has been rejected many times" according to an edit summary. Why? There is nothing on this page.1Z (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Bolt was, it seemed to many editors (or at least, enough) to be too tenuous or too metaphorical. His name is not "Usain Run" or "Usain Sprint", nor does he study lightning. JesseRafe (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Among the definitions of bolt is "to move rapidly" which is not at all metaphorical. Lightning is only one of bolt's dozens of definitions. Extempore (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's literally what a metaphor is. Its meaning "to move rapidly" derives from its meaning as a bolt of lightning, which moves rapidly. Very simple to understand. JesseRafe (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Original research and lack of sources
Should examples in Aptronym be reliably sourced as being aptronyms or inaptronyms rather than determined by individual editors' opinions of the concept of aptronym or inaptronym? In other words, does there need to be a source that the name or place is an aptronym (meaning it is not sufficient that the person or place only has notability and there is no verification the name/place is an aptronym). Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Yes - See my comments below in "Threaded discussion" (made prior to this RfC) for an explanation of the issue. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 * No, but only on the condition of requiring strong consensus for inclusion. It's understandable why it might be desirable to have every entry backed up by a reference, but I think we're in WP:BLUESKY territory here. All it takes to determine if a name is an aptronym is basic command of English and a bit of common sense, and I don't see any expertise that could have gone into an authoritative published list. Having said that, it's worth pointing out that things fall on a spectrum and anything that doesn't sit at the extreme end of it would be subject to disagreement among editors. So it's best to limit the list to the most obvious cases. If an entry is obvious enough, no editor would remove it; and if an editor removes an entry, then apparently that aptronym isn't that apt after all, so don't put it back. Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. To be sure we understand your point of view, are you saying any challenged addition of an item requires consensus (or a source)? The items that are obvious to most people as aptronyms would fall under WP:BLUESKY (i.e., consensus by default) and likely would not be challenged and could remain in the article without a source. The reason I ask is that, if you look at the history of the article and the discussion below, you'll see that some individual editors resist removing anything from the article, especially items that they contribute. That's how we end up with absurd examples such as the "Amelia Earhart" (which I removed) that I describe below. So I could agree with you if you are saying that items that are challenged either require a source OR consensus. There are some items in the article that are obvious to me, so I would be willing to leave them. Others are quite a strain to fit into the concept of aptronym. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. If an entry is challenged and removed then it's a sign that it probably doesn't belong here. If an editor can be bothered to try to bring it back, then either consensus or a reference would be needed (which is the normal situation on wikipedia after all). Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * No, for the reasons that Uanfala gave and the those that I already gave on history of this Talk Page. Given the threaded discussion below and the above comment, and by using the criterion for inclusion of an aptronym on this list suggested above, "basic command of English", User Sundayclose is attacking the editor not the edits, namely me, and refuses to discuss this in a civil manner. I am now being branded as someone who refuses to remove anyone from this article? Can you please look at the page history? I've removed hundreds of names from this article. Literally, hundreds of poor additions. (Edited to add I've even been given a "Clean Up Barnstar" for removing entries from this article.) This accusation is patently false and is clearly only made to further their agenda and at the same time discredit me. Further, the additional dig "especially items that they contribute" is another baseless accusation, as I've made the original addition of no more than a handful of these. Please show the diffs to substantiate any of these claims. And lastly, for possibly the fourth time, Amelia Earhart is not on the list of aptronyms. Why are you still accusing me of adding it? Look at the page history for the number of specific times I have removed that entry as tenuous. It's even been discussed on the talk page, such as here: Talk:Aptronym/Archive_1 and Talk:Aptronym/Archive_1 where I unambiguously state Amelia Earhart is not an aptronym. But according to Sundayclose, I'm the one clamoring for its inclusion. How many baseless accusations are you intending to make about me and my edits that are so obviously and easily countered by the facts? JesseRafe (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is "attacking the editor." No one "accused" you of adding Amelia Earhart (give us the diffs of that accusation). I removed Amelia Earhart before I started this discussion and have never accused you of adding it, as I have already explained. Please stop personalizing this discussion; it's not about you. This RfC likely will be here for a while, but as of now the consensus is that if an item is challenged it must either be sourced as an aptronym or get consensus to stay in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Absurd that you just twist and manipulate the facts, you are making this about individual editors (me) rather than the facts of the discussion on the article. Is this not you referring to me, "you'll see that some individual editors resist removing anything from the article, especially items that they contribute. That's how we end up with absurd examples such as the "Amelia Earhart" - Sundayclose (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)"? Because it sure looks like it is you accusing me of something which I have provided endless evidence of being inaccurate. Unless there was another editor who you were trying to put words in the mouth of in the Threaded discussion subsection. The fact that you cannot make the argument without trying to discredit me via your misunderstandings is a problem. As is your contention that the RfC is already solved and is in your favor. The items on the article as of right now already have consensus, you are the only one trying to remove them. Please contact every frequent editor or peruse the history for what has consensus, not a sneaky comment in the height of summer assuming no one will disagree with you. JesseRafe (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did I state your username when I mentioned Amelia Earhart? This is the diff where I removed Amelia Earhart. Did I state that you added it in that edit? If I stated it on this talk page, again, give us the diff. Now, again, this discussion is about an issue of article content, not you. And I never said the RfC is resolved. I said as of right now the weight of opinion is that challenged items require consensus or a source. That can change. We'll see if it does. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're just moving the goalposts. Your contention was that "individual editors resist removing anything from the article" and you pointed to the "discussion below" for your supposed evidence. Clearly this was meant as an attack on me, and now that you've been confronted with evidence that you're completely off-base you've resorted to another logical fallacy to try to make your beleaguered point. There is without a doubt no individual editor who has removed more from this article than me, and yet your argument hinges on the existence of a putative "individual editor who resists removing anything", this is a boogieman. Such a person doesn't exist and you are weakening your argument and obfuscating the issue. Also, again, you have two NO votes against your proposal. The article existed happily with editors acting civilly before you came making veiled threats, and with editors' broad consensus on the talk page and in edit summaries for a long time, as can easily be seen if you for once, please, just looked at the edit summaries in the page history, such as:
 * reflecting consensus that Wordsworth was not an aptronym, 16:23, 18 March 2015 JesseRafe (Undid revision 651945904 by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) reverting spurious addition, came up before, but consensus was simply "words" wasn't enough of a connection)
 * reflecting consensus that Wooods was not an aptronym 20:40, 4 February 2015 JesseRafe (Undid revision 645667239 by Dv82matt (talk) removed frequently, consensus was not tied close enough)
 * Usain Bolt removed by "consensus" multiple times, rather than laboriously providing diffs:
 * 10:16, 17 March 2016 JesseRafe (talk | contribs) . . (17,671 bytes) (-55) . . (Undid revision 710002218 by Pastichey (talk) please see Talk. This has been consistently removed as too metaphorical) (undo)
 * 18:19, 3 November 2015 Hertz1888 (talk | contribs) m . . (19,748 bytes) (-220) . . (Reverted 1 edit by Blckmgc (talk): Please take both entries to talk page per WP:BRD. See talk page for existing Bolt discussion. (TW)) (undo | thank)
 * 02:23, 3 November 2015 Hertz1888 (talk | contribs) m . . (19,748 bytes) (-137) . . (Reverted 2 edits by Blckmgc (talk): Bolt previously rejected (repeatedly); Quick not hockey-specific. (TW)) (undo | thank)
 * 00:00, 31 July 2015 Hertz1888 (talk | contribs) m . . (19,594 bytes) (-43) . . (Reverted good faith edits by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk): Removing Bolt (again); pllease see talk page discussion. (TW)) (undo | thank)
 * 14:32, 21 May 2015 JesseRafe (talk | contribs) . . (18,905 bytes) (-78) . . (Reverted to revision 663314046 by DominicMauro (talk): Please see Talk Page re: Bolt. (TW)) (undo)
 * The point is that even though the Talk page entry, Talk:Aptronym, doesn't have a plethora of voices, edit summaries from regular page watchers exhibit consensus in fact, not just on Talk Pages which not every single editor with an interest bothers with. Sundayclose's proposition is just to make a big todo about an issue that doesn't exist. All of the entries on the list already are there via broad editorial consensus. Spurious and tenuous ones are removed and borderline ones are discussed. This is the way it already happens. What is your aim other than picking fights on imaginary issues? JesseRafe (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finished bickering over your personalization of a content issue because I have never directed anything at you personally, so if you have a problem with me personally take it up on my talk page or WP:ANI. An RfC is not the proper venue for that. In fact, I would like to encourage you to address any of my behavior you consider inappropriate at ANI. As for "two no votes", you're not quite right. As always on Wikipedia, it's not just a matter of votes. Look again at the comments above. An editor agrees with me that any challenged items require a consensus or a source. And this RfC is not over. So you and I are finished here. Sundayclose (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, and not only that, the article should contain just a handful of striking, illustrative examples. As it currently stands this is one of the stupidest articles I've ever seen: "Lance Armstrong, a Tour de France-winning cyclist, became famous because of leg, not arm, strength". And just when you think things couldn't get stupider than that, we find this Bolt nonsense being proposed. Unbelievable.  E Eng  20:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No because this is going to be opinion, even if we have a RS. Why should some local newspaper editor be any better as a reason for inclusion than a random WP editor? But I am swayed by Uanfala's requirement of a strong consensus, and even more so by EEng's suggestion that the examples be just a handful - which of course we are unlikely to get a source for. Ler's just have five of each, and if somebody wants to include another name, it better be a bloody good example or they can mention it on that person's bio article and see how it fares there. (On that note, there is no mention of "inaptronym" on the Lance Armstrong page, which strikes me as particularly forced. It's like a joke that has to explained is not much of a joke.) --Pete (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (Pete) Thanks for your comment. To clarify, would you agree to removing any item that has neither consensus nor a reliable source that it is an aptronym? Some editors are likely to take your "No" vote quite literally to mean that anything can remain in the article since sources are not required. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes --Pete (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes/No per others, consensus rather than ref and per EEng, a short illustrative list of striking examples, rather than anything which could be stretched to fit the bill. Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes of course - Wikipedia is based on policies of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:LISTPEOPLE, etc. Original research is never appropriate, regardless of whether people agree with it on the talk page. I have no idea what the history of this article is such that we arrive at this RfC, but there cannot be an actionable "no" outcome here per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because in my opinion, it is fairly obvious whether or not a name is an aptronym. Individual editors can make this decision for themselves. Of course, controversial additions can be discussed here. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. To avoid confusion, would you agree that if an editor thinks an item in the article is not clearly an aptronym and challenges it, it should be discussed here (or properly sourced) before restoring it? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for asking. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment - Oh my god, guys. Do not add or remove a single entry from this list. This has already gotten quite out of hand. I could understand why current entries would be disputed, but for what practical purpose would you add any more examples to that absurdly long list? It's  masturbatory, almost. I wasn't sure if I was reading a Wikipedia article or a book of jokes.  Ender  and  Peter  21:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is excessive. I want to make sure I understand your perspective. You said "do not add or remove". Are you saying that you don't think examples should be removed, including those that have no source or have not been agreed upon by consensus? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow I haven't been here for some time. Very delighted by the new ping feature! Anyway, since the list is rather long, maybe it would be better for some to be removed, but I must admit I was surprisingly disappointed by how many examples were cut. Still, I do agree with the view that only sourced examples should be up there, or it will just be too tempting to go crazy. Ender  and  Peter  02:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment RfD as non-encyclopedic. A copy of it in its current form would be appropriate at Wiktionary, since it is a complete dictionary definition and nothing more. (In response to RfC.)--John, AF4JM (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article mentions whole books written exclusively on the subject of aptronyms as well as discussion of the topic by notables like Jung, as well as tangent topics like Nominative determinism. None of this content would be appropriate for Wiktionary. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations ) 16:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support (rather than Yes since we do not vote at Wikipedia). Without sources what is to prevent inclusion of fictional aptronyms (examples) or stage names that are deliberate aptronyms (found ubiquitously in the porn industry). At Wikipedia we do not write about what we know/feel/think/believe ... we write about what others have already written/said in published reliable sources. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations ) 16:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
This article of loaded with original research: items with no sourcing that the item fits the concept of aptronym or inaptronym. Most of the items are purely the opinion of the editor who added it, which is OR and POV, and in many cases the fit to the concept of aptronym is strained at best. Flying through the "air" was in the "heart" of Amelia Earhart??? I could come up with a hundred such absurd examples in just a few minute. And the basic problem is not that my opinion is any better than the opinion of the editor who added that item; the problem is that we have no way to draw the line between a good example and an absurd example, except with reliable sources. Like Misnomer and List of common misconceptions, this article is a crap magnet and turning into a bloated, endless list of everyone's favorite idea of what he/she considers an aptronym. I am challenging everything that is not sourced as an aptronym; a source about the notability of the person without reference to the name being an aptronym is inadequate. There is a global tag of original research on the article. If you want your favorite items to stay in the article, find reliable sources that they are aptronyms, or get a consensus here to keep the item. Otherwise they will be deleted. An exception would be if the item links to another Wikipedia article that sources it as an aptronym. Sundayclose (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is my second notification of my plan to delete items with no sourcing that the item fits the concept of aptronym or inaptronym. I'll wait another week before beginning. The OR tag has been up about a month, and so far there has been no effort to add sources. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I for one didn't respond, because rarely do people who type in solid blocks of text have anything worth saying, and I didn't read your comment beyond "Amelia Earhart" because if that's the center piece of your point, it is entirely moot because she is not even listed on the article. JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your failure to respond is not my fault. "Amelia Earhart" was an example, not the centerpience, of my comments. Read my comments above again. I have challenged every item that is not sourced as an aptronym. Per WP:BRD, please self-revert your restoration of material that you did without discussion and stop edit warring. Wait for consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Amelia Earhart isn't on the page! An example of one that is not included? What purpose does that serve? Are you literally making the case that using a strawman argument is a valid argument that should be respected? JesseRafe (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you actually READ my original comment above? Amelia Earhart is only an example. Let me repeat something from my original comment since you seemed to have missed the point: "I am challenging everything that is not sourced as an aptronym; a source about the notability of the person without reference to the name being an aptronym is inadequate. There is a global tag of original research on the article. If you want your favorite items to stay in the article, find reliable sources that they are aptronyms, or get a consensus here to keep the item. Otherwise they will be deleted." So again, WP:BRD, please self-revert your restoration of material that you did without discussion and stop edit warring. Wait for consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please learn how to be WP:CIVIL. As I said, I didn't read your comment because it was moot. Amelia Earhart is an example of what should not be on the page, and, as I said, is an example of what I have removed time and time again. Once, you rested your case on Ms. Earhart's inclusion I stopped reading because you were engaging in a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument and I saw no benefit in wasting my time reading a solid wall of text of someone rambling about something irrelevant. Presumably other editors chose not to react to your wall of text based on a misconception as well. Please seek consensus before making sweeping changes. JesseRafe (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What is it about "I have challenged every item" that you don't understand? We have a clear communication problem here. So please tell me what you don't understand about that phrase so I can try to explain more clearly. Thanks for acknowledging that you did not read my entire post (the most important part); that explains some of your misunderstanding, but there still seems to be a communication problem. Sundayclose (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. That there are any "No"s from editors who aren't brand new is concerning. "Consensus" is not a numbers game, but based on strength of arguments insofar as they apply our policies and guidelines. A handful of people who say "let's include this" doesn't trump the most fundamental of content policies. Per WP:BURDEN, once challenged (and it's very clear there have been challenges), the burden is on those who want to include the material to provide citations. I cannot imagine this RfC having any outcome other than "yeah, WP:V and WP:NOR are still policies and apply to this article". —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. Ok. Phew. So I actually went through each and every one of the examples and every one of the sources. There were a ton of unsourced entries, but in some ways the sourced ones were even worse. I give you, as perhaps the most terrible:
 * "Douglas ("D.") Terman, author of several Choose Your Own Adventure books, where the user determines the ending ref."
 * The source barely even mentions Terman, and certainly makes no mention of his name being an apatronym. An editor (I haven't looked at who it was, and I apologize for singling you out), seems to have said "if you say it out loud, 'D. Terman' kind of sounds like 'determine', and he wrote books in which you determine the outcome", and so added it to the list.
 * In another example, we have:
 * "Lance Armstrong, a Tour de France-winning cyclist, became famous because of leg, not arm, strength ref"
 * Yes, that source is a Yahoo Answers-style Q&A website on which one user asked "Should Lance Armstrong change his name to Lance Legstrong?" That is what we are using as a source there.
 * Anyone really want to defend this stuff? In case it needs to be said, in removing these I'm challenging their fitness for inclusion in the list. That's not to say you can't possibly interpret them as having an apatronym -- it means that's not good enough. —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * . Thanks. I agree with your comments and your changes to the article. The RfC has been up a few weeks and there is overwhelming sentiment that any challenged items must have either a source that it is an aptronym or agreed upon by consensus here. There also are several opinions (I'm adding mine) that even with the requirement for a source or consensus, the examples should be especially good ones and limited in number. Sundayclose (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that some editors on an article talk page can bypass WP:V through group WP:OR. (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). As this is a list of people, WP:LISTPEOPLE also applies, which further makes the case that any addition should have a source. Local consensus here doesn't override any of that. —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Although possible, I doubt a consensus to include an unsourced item will occur. Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the form of consensus that occurs when no one challenges a particular edit (see WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:SILENCE) then yes consensus can allow an unsourced entry in the list, but it seems more than obvious that is not going to happen here. Any other form of consensus would be a violation of policy (see WP:CONLEVEL) as already noted by . Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations ) 15:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Courage
Proposed for addition: Alexander Courage, composer of the theme to the original series of Star Trek. Opening narration spoken as music plays: Capt Kirk says "to boldly go ... " etc. Courage = Boldness. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Having received no objections, I've added it. Pete <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See the lengthy section immediately above this one. :) Anything added to the list needs to be supported by reliable sources calling it an aptronym. —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you object before? I put it up for discussion, you didn't object, so I included it. Pete<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What is a reliable source?
So what would you consider a reliable source anyway? How about the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology? http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095420551 Lists the following as psychology-related examples: Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, Karen Horney (1885–1952), Sir Henry Head, Iris C. Love, Gay Search, J. J. C. Smart. Since these are reliably sourced, can we include them? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that looks to put us in a pickle a little bit, as it's a strangely incompetent entry in what I think is an otherwise reliable source. Looks like Freud makes sense based on this, but the rest? Jung isn't an aptronym even by its own definition -- it's about his relation to Freud, not his nature, occupation, or activities (he's "younger"). And Gay Search is an aptronym because the person wrote about the sexual abuse of children? I was going to comment about how anachronistic it was, but I see that the same definition has been republished as of 2015... —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the entry is incompetent. Reliable sources aren't always 100% reliable for every circumstance, and this is an example. In fact, the "Oxford" group of online sources has deteriorated in quality over the past few years. In any event, if something is challenged here it needs consensus, and I certainly challenge the items mentioned in this source (including Freud). Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Inaptronym proposal: Butch Goring
Butch Goring, NHL hockey player and winner of the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy (awarded to the player exhibiting the most "gentlemanly conduct"). Goring played 1107 games but spent only 102 minutes in the penalty box, the lowest for any player appearing in more than a thousand games. DRead (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"Goring" as an inaptronym? So his behavior and personality are "not goring", or is it "not butch"? That's too much of a stretch. Thanks for asking before putting it in the article, but my opinion is no. We are limiting the number of examples and only including the very best. Sundayclose (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Slate
A few people have added Anthony Weiner to the list without a good source calling his name an aptronym. An IP did just add one that looks ok, though: Slate. you reverted saying it's not a good source. What am I missing? Slate is about the same level of reliability we use for the rest. The only thing I can think of is a possible higher bar for BLP reasons, but given how thoroughly covered the content it references is, I don't know about that. There's certainly something to be said for not including any negative/mocking aptronyms on the list because, well, it doesn't add a lot of educational value to the article and does really serve mainly as a joke. That's a conversation worth having. Pending that, though, given the precedent set by other sourcing I've restored Weiner and the other two notable names in the Slate piece. I don't feel like I've worded the Trump line ideally, fwiw, if someone wants to take another stab. —  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion. But I also am trying to follow the spirit of the discussion above that we limit the examples to especially good ones. I don't consider Weiner or Trump very good examples, but that's a matter of opinion. I think if we continue to add examples we will have a bloated article with everyone's favorite example. That has happened in other articles; for example, see Misnomer, which at one time was out of control but examples were limited by consensus. I think henceforth if someone adds a good example, a less worthy example should be removed. If there is disagreement, it's decided here by consensus. But for now I'll leave the examples you added. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lucretia MacEvil and Cruella de Vil
While these are not flesh and blood women, the song has the line "Evil that's your name.", while the antagonist of the original One Hundred and One Dalmatians and the live action 101 Dalmatians and 102 Dalmatians is equally fitting. They are very apt indeed. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 * That's because they were named to be as such, making them not an aptronym at all, but a ham-fisted way of letting the audience know they're bad. JesseRafe (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aptronym/Archive 1


text:
User:RavandAzadSa'adi/sandbox

NAME is Ravand Azad Sa'adi (Born in 4/2/2000) he's live kurdistan he's best goalkepper and he like barcelona and love messi he like italy international he like del piero he's father say him im very proud of you

source: wikimedia

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

title: User:RavandAzadSa'adi/sandbox


text:
A. Loudon Snowden

Archibald Loudon Snowden (August 11, 1835 – September 7, 1912) was an American diplomat. He served simultaneously as the United States Minister to Greece, Romania, and Serbia from 1889 to 1892 and as the United States Minister to Spain from 1892 to 1893. During the American Civil War, he raised a regiment of infantry and served as lieutenant-colonel during their training. He subsequently served as captain in the First City Troop. He held multiple roles at the Philadelphia Mint, including as chief coiner from 1877 to 1879 and as superintendent and Chief Executor from 1879 to 1885.

Early life and education
Snowden was born in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on August 11, 1835. He was a son of Margery Bines (née Louden) and Isaac Wayne Snowden. His uncle, James Ross Snowden, was a politician and director of the United States Mint. His father was a surgeon in the U.S. Army and served in the First Seminole War under General Jackson and was wounded at Fort Scott.

Snowden graduated from Jefferson College in 1856. He studied law after graduation but never entered the bar.

Career
He was made register of the United States Mint 7 May 1857. Politically, Snowden was a Democrat until 1860 when he switched to the Republican party believing that the Democrats' policies were detrimental to the manufacturing interests of the country.

After the American Civil War broke out in 1861, Snowden assisted in raising a regiment of Pennsylvania volunteer infantry and was commissioned Lieutenant colonel. When the regiment was entered into the United States Army, they were divided amongst several Pennsylvania regiments. Snowden was not voted as one of their officers and he returned to his position at the Mint. He was subsequently elected captain of the First City Troop of Philadelphia.

He was elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society in 1873.

Post-war career
Snowden became chief coiner at the Philadelphia Mint on 1 October 1866. In 1873, he was elected Vice President of the Fire Association, an insurance company, and became president in 1878. From 1877 to 1879, he served as postmaster of Philadelphia, Snowden served as the superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint from 1879 to 1885. appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant. In 1878, he twice declined to serve as director of United States Mint, offered by President Hayes. In 1879, he became the Chief Executor in the Philadelphia Mint and served in that role until Grover Cleveland's election in 1885. In 1887, he served as the Marshal of the Centennial celebration of the United States Constitution, which was held in Philadelphia.

He made improvements and inventions relating to coining machinery, and wrote articles on subjects relating to coinage, the great seal of the United States, and other subjects. He was identified with railroads, insurance companies, and other business interests.

Diplomatic career
In 1889, Snowden succeeded Walker Fearn and served simultaneously as the United States Minister to Greece, Romania, and Serbia from 1889 to 1892. From 1892 to 1893, he served as the United States Minister to Spain, succeeding Edward Burd Grubb, Jr.

Later career
Snowden was the president of the Fairmount Park Commission. In 1903, he was accused, along with Charles A. Porter, former State Senator, C. Kennedy Crossan, a contractor and Ludwig S. Filbert, of making illegal profits through the Danville Bessemer Company.

Snowden died on September 7, 1912, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after battling a nine-month illness. He was interred at Laurel Hill Cemetery in the Bridge section, Plots 9 & 10.

Family
On February 16, 1864, Snowden was married to Elizabeth Robinson Smith (1841–1910). Together, they were the parents of:

 * Caroline Smith Snowden (1865–1960), who married Stuyvesant Wainwright (1863–1930) in 1889. They divorced and she married Dr. Carl F. Wolff (1864–1934).
 * Mary Buchanan Snowden (b. 1866), who married Frank Samuel in 1887.
 * Charles Randolph Snowden (1871–1913), who married Berthe de Pourtales Churchman (1878–1958) in 1899.
 * Archibald Loudon Snowden (1878–1878), who died young.

Descendants
He was the grandfather of Stuyvesant Wainwright (1891–1975), Snowden Wainwright (b. 1893), Loudon Snowden Wainwright (1898–1942), and Carroll Livingston Wainwright (1899–1967), and great-grandfather of Stuyvesant Wainwright II (1921–2010) and Loudon Wainwright, Jr. (1924–1988).

title: A. Loudon Snowden


text:
High Falls, North Carolina

High Falls or Highfalls is an unincorporated community in Moore County, North Carolina, United States. The community is located along North Carolina Highway 22 and the Deep River 11.2 mi north-northwest of Carthage. High Falls has a post office with ZIP code 27259.

The community was originally known as The Great Falls or The Big Falls in homage to a 15-foot waterfall in the Deep River at the site. In 1780 William England established a grist mill at the location. In 1904, Thomas Woody built a spinning mill, a cotton mill, and a grist mill, incorporating them as the High Falls Manufacturing Company. In the late 19th century a small, single-room school was built for the community. It was later replaced by a larger structure. In the late 19th century the High Falls Dam on the Deep River was also constructed. It was modified in the 1920s to generate hydroelectricity for Hydrodyne Industries. In April 2018 the dam was acquired by Unique Places L.L.C., a real estate investment firm which proposed removing the dam to improve the river ecosystem of Cape Fear shiner. The plan was suspended indefinitely due to opposition from local residents.

title: High Falls, North Carolina


text:
مما

Etymology
🇰🇲.

Pronoun

 * 1) from what
 * 2) which
 * 1) which

Etymology
🇰🇲.

Conjunction

 * 1) than

title: مما


text:
Kani Kouyaté

Kani Kouyaté (born August 8, 1990) is an Ivorian female professional basketball player.

title: Kani Kouyaté


text:
Jaruco

Jaruco is a municipality and town in the Mayabeque Province of Cuba.

Geography
The town is located in the east of Havana, between San José de las Lajas and Santa Cruz del Norte. The municipality borders with Habana del Este (municipal borough of Havana), Santa Cruz del Norte, Madruga and San José de las Lajas.

The Escaleras (stairs) of Jaruco rise up out of the plains and provide views of the area. The area is protected as a park and is a visiting spot from Havana and the beaches.

History
Jaruco was founded in 1762 under the name San Juan Bautista de Jaruco (Ciudad Condal de San Juan Bautista de Jaruco). "Ajaruco" was the pre-Columbian Taíno name of the settlement.

In 1940, the municipality was divided into the barrios of Arroyo Vuelto, Casiguas, Castilla, Ciudad de Jaruco, Don Martín, Escaleras de Jaruco, Bainoa, San Antonio de Río Blanco del Norte and Santa Ana.

After 1959 this area was grouped into the Regional San José (with the small municipalities of Jaruco, San Antonio-Caraballo (formerly part of pre 1959 Aguacate municipality), Bainoa, etc.) Later Jaruco was the capital of Regional Bainoa which included the municipalities of Jaruco, Camilo Cenfuegos, Santa Cruz del Norte, Aguacate y Madruga.

Since 1976, the Jaruco municipality includes: Jaruco, Caraballo, San Antonio de Rio Blanco del Norte, Bainoa, Casiguas, Vista Alegre, Escaleras de Jaruco (and its beautiful park inside the mountains), Castilla y Tumba Cuatro.

In 2009 the Benedictines being a Roman Catholic congregation started to erect an own residence in Jaruco. The project failed in 2010 because of lack of water so that the Benedictines remained in their provisorial house in Havana (2011).

Demographics
In 2022, the municipality of Jaruco had a population of 24,162. With a total area of 276 km2, it has a population density of 88 /km2.

Notable natives and residents

 * Oribe - Celebrity hairdresser and entrepreneur

title: Jaruco


text:
Talk:David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland

Notability tag - sources
"...the sources in the article are either not reliable, do not provide significant coverage, are not secondary or are not independent." Into which category/ categories do the BBC, The Times and The Daily Telegraph fall? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , all three are reliable sources per WP:RSP. The problem is that none of the three currently provide significant coverage of the Duke. Pilaz (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They are required to simply support the claims made where they are used? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They are fine for verifiability purposes (WP:V), but they are insufficient to demonstrate notability (WP:GNG) since they don't cover the subject of the article in depth. The problem is notability, not verifiability. Pilaz (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that would reject a source such as this on the grounds that it is promotional and/or WP:SPS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think so, since it's not independent from the subject. Pilaz (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems the only independent source, that gathers all the reliable information about Manners together, in one place, is this Wikipedia article. A perfect reason to delete it then, it seems. Can't be trusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's always the Leicester Mercury...? JezGrove (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is based on the interaction of the Duke with the Daily Mail, which has been deprecated since 2017, so that likely won't fly at AfD either. That's my personal assessment of that source. Pilaz (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found quite a lot of DM coverage on him and the Duchess. The DM seems to love all that Royal and peerage-goss, doesn't it. So some may have filtered down to (even) lesser outlets. But I'm surprised you want to start any Spring cleaning here when I'm sure there are many article stubs on British peers that will never be more than stubs. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


text:
Border Run

Border Run (earlier title The Mule) is a 2012 American mystery thriller film produced by Lucas Jarach and directed by Gabriela Tagliavini. The film is based on true events and was released on DVD in February 2013. Sharon Stone stars as an American reporter who searches for her missing brother. The film depicts human smuggling across the United States/Mexican border. The story is based on actual events.

Plot
Sofie Talbert is a hard-hitting journalist against illegal immigration to the United States. Learning that her brother in Mexico has gone missing, she goes to find him and uncovers the brutal reality of the desperate people who risk their lives to cross into the States.

Recognition
Border Run earned a nomination for Best Feature Film at the 2013 Imagen Foundation Awards.

Reception
The film has been described as "Stone's Taken". A mixed review in PEP found the film "lacking heart" while The Japan Times stated that it was "raught with old-school spy aesthetics."

Themes
The film points out that some illegals are twice-removed from their country of origin, having crossed from Central America into Mexico and then the United States, which increases the hazards they face.

title: Border Run


text:
Feltonville, Philadelphia

Feltonville is a working-class neighborhood in North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. It is located east of Logan and Hunting Park, west of Lawncrest and Juniata, south of Olney, and north of Fairhill and Harrowgate. Feltonville is bounded by Erie Avenue to the south, Front Street to the west, Roosevelt Boulevard to the north, Tacony Creek to the northeast, and G Street to the east.

Demographics
As of the 2010 Census, Feltonville was 42.8% Hispanic, 29.7% African American, 14.1% white, 9.4% Asian, and 4% mixed and all other. Although a large portion of Feltonville's population is made up of middle class Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and African Americans. Feltonville is a very diverse middle-class neighborhood, with significant populations of Korean Americans, Cambodian Americans, Trinidadian Americans, Haitian Americans, Jamaican Americans, Colombian Americans, Salvadoran Americans, Honduran Americans, Guatemalan Americans,   Mexican Americans and other immigrants, including a large concentration of Palestinian Americans . It is estimated that there are 27 languages spoken in the neighborhood.

History
Feltonville was known circa 1890 as "Wyoming Villa" or "Wyoming Valley." In 1927, the City of Philadelphia set aside a corner of the recreation field at "B" St. and Wyoming Ave. for the building of the Wyoming Branch of the Free Library of Philadelphia. Completed in 1930, this branch has the distinction of being the last Carnegie library built with funds provided by the noted philanthropist Andrew Carnegie.

Early residents noted Feltonville for its high ground, beautiful rolling farms, and many gracious homes. Before 1900, as a suburb of Philadelphia, public transportation was limited to the Reading Railroad's train from 3rd and Berks Streets to Newtown. The station was located at 2nd Street and Wyoming Avenue, on the northwest boundary of a 23 acre farm. A local historian, Edna Walmsley Hookway, described what the scene would have looked like in 1891:

Across from the station, on Wyoming Avenue, stood the Rau mansion built in 1888. Mr. David Titlow, the undertaker, lived in a stately home with a lake in front of it at Wyoming Avenue and "C" Street. Across Wyoming Avenue on the north side stood the large residences of Mr. Edwin P. Frick and Mr. Thomas Harvey, side by side.

On old Second Street Pike, now named Rising Sun Avenue, and Fisher's Lane stood the Feltonville School, having twelve grades, all taught by one teacher. Some of the classes had only five or six pupils. Several branches of the Felton family, for whom the community was named, resided on Fisher's Lane, the present "D" Street, which extended all through the community. It ran north and south, turned westward at what is now the Roosevelt Boulevard, bounding the twenty-eight-acre farm of Mr. John Hoffner. Mr. Hoffner was a relative of the Felton family. Mr. Christopher Simon was also a Felton.

A visitor arriving on the Reading train was greeted by the bright, bold sign "Wyoming" hanging on the station. On old Second Street Pike was a picturcsque property occupied by Mr. James Eckersley. On the lawn, "Wyoming Villa" was written in brilliant red plants.

A newly formed real estate company named "Wyoming Land and Improvement Association," and headed by Mr. Eckersley, employed Mr. John Walmsley to divide the fields into building lots. Mr. Walmsley brought his wife and five children to reside on Second Street Pike in the first new house built by the Wyoming Land Company.

Feltonville School No. 2 was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1988.

title: Feltonville, Philadelphia


text:
Wikiversity:Page protection

Wikiversity custodians can protect pages from edits, name changes, and recreations. Protection is most often used to deter vandalism and stop edit wars. The procedure to protect a page is to put any of several page protection templates on the page.

Semiprotection
A page under semi-protection means only participants with accounts that are at least four days old can edit it.

Full protection
When a page is fully protected only custodians and curators can edit, move, or create the page.

Move protection
When a page is move protected the page can only be moved to a new name using the "move" button by registered users or custodians. Pages protected from edits and movs are listed at Special:Protectedpages.

Create protection
When a page is create protected the page can only be created by autoconfirmed users or custodians. The protect tool is available to custodians for all pages, even deleted pages. Pages that are protected from creation are listed at Special:Protectedtitles.

Cascading protection
When Cascading protection is used, all pages transcluded on a page are also protected.

title: Wikiversity:Page protection


text:
overcrowdedness

Noun

 * 1) The property of being overcrowded.

Translations

 * Arabic: اِزْدِحَام, زِحَام
 * Russian:

title: overcrowdedness


text:
Wikiversity talk:Deletions

Comments on section titled Deletions
This is new section, written by me. Your thoughts by creating a new section with your username as the title. What is under your username is under your full control. Edit/delete as you wish. Be very brief in another person's space, as they have permission to delete what you wrote.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift
I am not quite happy with the section on Proposed deletion. For one thing, I don't know exactly what happens when the deadline for making changes passes.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Omphalographer

 * FYI, the delete template doesn't need to be substituted. prod needs  to insert the current date, but other deletion templates don't.
 * What would be nice would be if the prod template could be given a deletion reason as an argument, just like how delete can. I've been inserting reasons in  on some pages I've proposed for deletion, but having a way to make that visible on the page would be even better. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching my unnecessary use of  on undefined. Regarding the prod template, I suppose the purpose was to confine the conversation to the talk page.  It probably sounded like a good idea at the time:  The editors would thrash out their differences off Requests for Deletion.  The problem is that there is almost never more than one author that we deal with.

Voting
I don't know if this new section needs to be approved by the community (before retirement I was too busy to pay attention to rules, which is why WV was my favorite WMF wiki! Either way, feel free to vote or abstain. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * as person making the proposal--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not opposed. I think "at the top" needs to be after an introduction paragraph, and the introduction paragraph needs to mention to see below for detailed explanations. Including above the content would be another or additional approach. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems simpler and I seriously doubt it causes problems. Sounds like a high-probability net good to me. Addemf (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed modifications
I proposed the following at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Expanding_WV%3ADeletions_with_Moving_to_Draft_archive

 * "==Moving to Draft archive==
 * "A page that meets the criteria for deletion from the main resource namespace that was most likely created in good faith and is not blatant spam should be moved to the "Draft:" namespace instead of being deleted, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, spam, and/or so forth. The rational for this is as follows. Not deleting Creating Commons Content created in good faith is fruitful to the Creative Commons as a whole, database storage is not reduced by deleting content, and there is generally no harm moving good faith content to the Draft: namespace. Additionally, whether someone created good faith Creative Commons content (related to teaching, learning, or research) to hone their writing and wiki editing skills, simply to plant the seed of an idea for others to build off of later, or so forth, moving such content to the "Draft:" namespace can give others an opportunity to develop the content later, use the content as food for thought that might spark new, useful, or novel ideas, and/or possibly another creative fruitful intellectual processes related to Creative Commons content creation not described here.

Also, I started Template:Draftify recently.

limitless peace Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion @Michael Ten. I've lightly revised the current guideline to more clearly incorporate moving content to the user or draft namespace as an option and added the draftify template (it could also be added to the nutshell). Perhaps, could you review and suggest any further, specific changes? I don't think I'd support going as far as requiring that pages be moved to draft, but I do think we should be highlighting this option. Perhaps also consider how the distinction between Pagemove announcement and draftify can be sharpened. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. i was able to see your edits here i think. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ADeletions&diff=2611619&oldid=2605804 bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 03:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also support this proposal. From Wikiversity_talk:Drafts, it seems that User:Addemf also supports it. ( as you can see, our conversations are "all over the place"). If I count votes, I get 4 votes (Guy, Michael, Jtneill, and Addemf) all unofficially in support.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We seem to have polling places all over Wikiversity on this motion. My latest "unofficial" tally is 3 votes in solidly favor (Guy, Michael, Jtneill) and 2 votes essentially in favor (Dan's is tentative and Addemf is relying on intuition)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Deletions


text:
Template talk:Politics of Iran

Someone continually changes the political affiliation of the National Front of Iran (listed in the National Front's wikipedia entry) to "Communist", and the National Front was never Communist nor were any of its constituent parties. Due to the realities of Iranian history and especially the coup of 1953, for which Madeleine Albright even apologized to the people of Iran (link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html). While this may not be uncommon on wikipedia, this amounts to a campaign of malicious, politically-motivated misinformation that cannot be allowed to stand. There is zero factual backing for the assertion that the National Front was Communist, though that was the main justification provided by British Intelligence and the CIA to convince the Eisenhower Administration to support the coup that it may have gone forward. There was no proof of that then, and there is no proof now, though some ossified Cold Warriors and pro-Shah extremists may cover up the facts now (as they did then) to ease their own tired consciences. However, it is an insult to the memory of Iranian pro-democracy leaders, including Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, who for better or worse sacrificed their lives and their livelihoods to bring liberty and dignity to the people of Iran, and it is an insult to Iranians at large that these lies may be permitted to stand. Furthermore, it is an abuse of the admirable experiment in adhocracy which wikipedia has become, and such deliberate campaigns spreading historical falsehoods and outright lies are despicable.

some changes
This template is becoming too irrelevant and complicated. I removed:
 * Government of Iran for its proposed merger with Politics of Iran
 * Older Elections as they can be accessed using elections article
 * Iran international crisis, its neutrality is disputed and belongs to foreign relations article, please don't put every thing about iran in this template
 * I also moved City and Village Councils to the second (legislative) section per constitutional work

see: Politics of present-day nations and states for framework --Gerash77 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Is there any standard or guidance for Politics of... series about what should and should not be included? I have seen plenty of variations myself for different countries. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think it makes sense to suppress the link to Iran international crisis. Everybody looks at the current crisis and it would not help ordinary readers not to have it in "Politics of Iran". It is definitely an important part of Iran politics. Alain10 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned before see: Politics of present-day nations and states for framework. The template is about political system of Iran. You may however put your article in foreign relations section.

 * Again, the template is about political system of Iran. Stop the edit war.--Gerash77 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have to thank you for finally deciding to respond and discuss the matters after days of revert wars!--Gerash77 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I've had a look at Politics of present-day nations and states and I can't see any framework there about what should or should not be included in this template. Could you clarify what you're referring to? Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He has written a POV article with a NEO title, which has caused significant problems of edits and tag wars since the first day. Then he is trying to spread his POV by including his article, in a template about political system of Iran. And if that wasn't enough, he has somehow has managed to figure out that I asked an admin (that would be you!) to "send him warnings": Talk:Iran_international_crisis, and he is asking on his article's talk page on how to "fight me"!
 * I think I am losing it!! WP:BITEWP:BITE
 * Regarding whether what can be included in politics templates, it is normally the overall system of government. However, even if the nuclear dispute is to be included in the template, we have enough well written articles about that, and putting what seems to be a very controversial article, would be challenged.--Gerash77 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First I am not an admin, but User:Arjun01 who protected the page is and I am an experienced editor. Alain01 is mistaken and his comments on fighting are completely inappropriate. In respect of this template, you also deleted some other links (on older elections) at the same time which I had previously added, and I would like to have a broader discussion on what should and should not be in this template. If your problem with Iran international crisis being NPOV then please state this - that wasn't apparent from your previous edits. AndrewRT(Talk) 11:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of your status, and Arjun's who took the time to block this template after my report.
 * I don't see why elections from 1997-2006 was included on the template. You can access these elections from election template and pages. Please explain why should we make this template longer than it is, to include a decade old election results which is accessible from election page included in the template.
 * We can come to an agreement regarding each issue on the template, but there is no doubt in my mind that aside from Alain, others wouldn't mind excluding his POV article from the template.--Gerash77 12:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected the template due to Revert warring. Please discuss changes now rather than constantly undoing others edits. ~ Arjun  14:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The person responsible for this edit war is Gerash77. It is very simple: the link to Iran international crisis was there since 24 December 2006 and it wasn't an issue for anybody. Then suddenly, a person, Gerash77, decides to get rid of it without any explanation. He is the guy violating all wiki etiquette. Alain10 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

About Iran international crisis
The template about politics of Iran must provide a link to the current crisis with Iran. There is an article about it, which is Iran international crisis. This link was well accepted by everybody since 24 December 2006. Gerash77 has alone, without any discussion or explanation, decided to suppress this link. This is not acceptable. Alain10 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The version should stay as it was until 24 December 2006 and the suppression or not of the link to Iran international crisis should be discussed here before any edit war. Alain10 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, there is also something which is not proper. On 9 February 2007, Gerash77 suppressed the link for the first time and did it as a minor edit. Obviously, it was not a minor edit. Alain10 19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * As it says on the protection template " Protection is not an endorsement of the current version ". There is no status quo ante bellum policy on wikipedia! We need to come to a consensus first and then unprotect and amend. Please explan why this article relates to domestic Iranian politics (which is what this template is about). It appears to me to be more about international relations. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Just to add to the above comment, the "crisis" is not referred to at all by the article Politics of Iran. This adds to my view that this article should not be included here, on the grounds that it does not concern domestic Iranian politics. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * So why is there a link to "Foreign relations of Iran"? Alain10 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * After having done what you did, suppressing a link and protecting the page, without any debate, I am chocked to see that you still don't want to discuss. Could you please answer my question? Alain10 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You make a good point about Foreign relations. Having looked at some of the other templates for other countries I can't find any that refer to any particular international relations issue, but all refer to the general Foreign Relations of... article as a matter of course. Unless you can point to another example in another country's template I would suggest it is kept to the one external relations article - Foreign Relations of Iran - in this template. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I first explained on February 9, we shouldn't include every article about Iran in this template. You want to include that article, but then where should we draw the line? What if another Wikipedian wants to include 2 or 3 other articles, and another... So you see where this leads us. I understand that you are very emotional with regards to the article that you spent time writing, but these sort of templates are supposed to be concise, outlining a very general prospective of the system. However, seeing your sentimentality, please feel free to put a
 * anywhere on foreign relations section, even on top of the page, if others don't mind.-- Gerash77 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a link between current events related to Iran and Iran politics. Therefore readers of the template should know how to go to what they may have in mind. Alain10 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your idea. Please feel free to do whatever you want to your country's political template. Add soccer matches, wine selections, local riots and relations with Ecuador, etc. But stop vandalizing Iranian templates.--Gerash77 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What you say is pure insults: I am not vandalising anything!Alain10 21:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Elections
I agree that not every election should be included. However, I think the last parliamentary and presidential elections definitely should be included. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like these sort of templates short and concise. I think we can get rid of all the elections, and simply leave a link to election page. The same goes for the Iranian ministries.--Gerash77 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit to being a bit biased here because elections are my speciality but I like having recent individual elections listed. This is consistent with other Politics of... templates I have worked on - e.g. Iraq, DRCongo. You can do it in a way that takes up very little room. You seem to be moving the goalposts here - now suggesting an even briefer template than one that's there at the moment. Bear in mind these templates are designed to be run down the side of the main article pages, there is normally plenty of room for extra articles relevant to the particular country. The Iran one is already towards the shorted end of the norm at the moment. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, but please use a smaller font for the recent elections if possible.-- Gerash77 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with keeping it at the current font size? its consistent with other politics-of templates. Its not like Iran is that un-democratic. Mikebloke 13:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image
Use "Image:Flag of Iran.svg" (or even "Image:Flag of Iran (1964).svg"), instead of the current image. Jahangard 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Request
"List of political parties in Iran|Political parties" -> "Political parties in Iran|Political parties" Peter G Werner 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 * editprotected I have unprotected the template. I hope that the disputes have died down. CMummert · talk 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

to the guy on the top, albright didn't apologize
albright never apologized, she said it 'was a setback', but came short of apologizing, and was actually criticized for this by the iranian leadership Unchartered (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

15-Khordad Foundation
Which section on the template does "15-Khordad Foundation" belong to? Twillisjr (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Politics of Iran


text:
User:Foodizone/sandbox

 Foodizone :

Foodizone  is an Indian online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform that connects customers with local restaurants. The company is based in Thane, Mumbra and was founded in 2020. The service allows users to select from local restaurants and place orders via its mobile applications. Currently the company has operating in 1 city with partnered over 40+ restaurants.

ble for the users in Playstore to download, and it is free. Convenient user interface and multiple payment options, and easy profile creation are some of the features of Foodizone online delivery app.

Type of  :- Private

Available in :-	English

Founded	:- August 2020

Headquarters	Thane,Mumbra Maharashtra India

Area served	Thane (Mumbra City)

Founder(s)	Taufiq Kazi, Mohsin Khan & Imtiyaz Shaikh

Key people

Taufiq Kazi (Founder and CEO)

Mohsin Khan (Co-Founder & COO)

Imtiyaz Shaikh (CEO-Food Delivery business)

Industry	Online food Delivery

Services	Restaurant Search & Online Ordering,

Employees	8

Current status	Active

Native client(s) on	Windows Phone, Android, Universal Windows Platform (Windows 10 Mobile)

title: User:Foodizone/sandbox


text:
Graham James Davies

Graham James Davies (1935 – 17 January 2023) was the Archdeacon of St Davids from 1996 until 2002.

Davies was educated at St David's College, Lampeter. After curacies in Johnston, Pembrokeshire, and Llangathen, he was a Minor Canon at St David's Cathedral. He held incumbencies at Hubberston, Cwmdauddwr and Kidwelly before his appointment as archdeacon.

He died in 2023, aged 87.

title: Graham James Davies


text:
User:Kntripp

I'm an archivist, beginning WebJunction's Wikipedia + Libraries course. I'm interested in learning how the library where I work might make use of Wikipedia to make our unique holdings more discoverable by researchers. I'm also interested in becoming involved with Wikipedia editing, in general.

Conflict of Interest Statement

I am an employee of the UAA/APU Consortium Library, which provides and maintains collections and resources that support the educational and research programs of the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) and Alaska Pacific University (APU). My role at the Consortium Library is the archivist for the Alaska Moving Image Preservation Association (AMIPA), a 501(c)(3) organization, dedicated to collecting, preserving, and providing access to Alaska's unique moving image and audio recording heritage. I also serve as the Executive Director of the AMIPA 501(c)(3) organization.

Additionally, I serve as the Secretary on the Board of Directors of the Alaska Innocence Project (AKIP), a non-profit corporation that provides legal, educational, and charitable services to identify and exonerate individuals who have been wrongfully convicted in the state of Alaska, and to provide educational opportunities that foster a culture that champions the defense of the innocent.

I always strive to strictly abide by Wikipedia's accepted practices on conflicts of interest, neutrality, and notability.

I do, from time to time, insert links or create articles based on library or archival resources. I also, on occasion, make edits to articles related to Innocence Project work.

I will modify my editing behavior based on problems cited by other editors or if my editing conflicts with other Wikipedia guidelines. I ask that other editors do not hesitate to contact me, via my user talk page, if I appear to be going against this declaration.

title: User:Kntripp


text:
Waves/1D Problems

Problems

 * 1) Measure your pulse r ate. Compute the ordinary frequency of your heart beat in cycles per second. Compute the angular frequency in radians per second. Compute the period.
 * 2) An important wavelength for radio waves in radio astronomy is $$21 \mbox{ cm}$$. (This comes from neutral hydrogen.) Compute the wavenumber of this wave. Compute the ordinary and angular frequencies. (The speed of light is 3·108 m/s)
 * 3) Sketch the resultant wave obtained from superimposing the waves $$A = \sin (2x)$$ and $$B = \sin (3x)$$. By using the trigonometric identity given in equation (1.17), obtain a formula for $$A + B$$ in terms of $$\sin (5x/2)$$ and $$\cos (x/2)$$. Does the wave obtained from sketching this formula agree with your earlier sketch?
 * 4) Two sine waves with wavelengths $$\lambda_1$$ and $$\lambda_2$$ are superimposed, making wave packets of length $$L$$. If we wish to make $$L$$ larger, should we make $$\lambda_1$$ and $$\lambda_2$$ closer together or farther apart? Explain your reasoning.
 * 5) By examining figure 1.9 versus figure 1.10 and then figure 1.11 versus figure 1.12, determine whether equation (1.18) works at least in an approximate sense for isolated wave packets.
 * 6) The frequencies of the chromatic scale in music are given by
 * $$ f_i = f_0 2^{i/12} ,\quad i = 0,1,2, \ldots ,11, $$ (2.42)
 * where $$f_0$$ is a constant equal to the frequency of the lowest note in the scale.

Figure 1.19: Sketch of a police radar. Figure 1.20: Sketch of a Fabry-Perot interferometer.
 * 1) Compute $$f_1$$ through $$f_{11}$$ if $$f_0 = 440 \mbox{ Hz}$$ (the "A" note).
 * 2) Using the above results, what is the beat frequency between the "A" ($$i = 0$$) and "B" ($$i = 2$$) notes? (The frequencies are given here in cycles per second rather than radians per second.)
 * 3) Which pair of the above frequencies yields the smallest beat frequency? Explain your reasoning.
 * 4) Large ships in general cannot move faster than the phase speed of surface waves with a wavelength equal to twice the ship's length. This is because most of the propulsive force goes into making big waves under these conditions rather than accelerating the ship.
 * 5) How fast can a $$300 \mbox{ m}$$ long ship move in very deep water?
 * 6) As the ship moves into shallow water, does its maximum speed increase or decrease? Explain.
 * 7) Given the formula for refractive index of light quoted in this section, for what range of $$k$$ does the phase speed of light in a transparent material exceed the speed of light in a vacuum?
 * 8) A police radar works by splitting a beam of microwaves, part of which is reflected back to the radar from your car where it is made to interfere with the other part which travels a fixed path, as shown in figure 1.19.
 * 9) If the wavelength of the microwaves is $$\lambda $$, how far do you have to travel in your car for the interference between the two beams to go from constructive to destructive to constructive?
 * 10) If you are traveling toward the radar at speed $$v = 30 \mbox{ m} \mbox{ s}^{-1}$$, use the above result to determine the number of times per second constructive interference peaks will occur. Assume that $$\lambda = 3 \mbox{ cm}$$.
 * 1) Suppose you know the wavelength of light passing through a Michelson interferometer high accuracy. Describe how you could use the interferometer to measure the length of a small piece of material.
 * 2) A Fabry-Perot interferometer (see figure 1.20) consists of two parallel half-silvered mirrors placed a distance $$d$$ from each other as shown. The beam passing straight through interferes with the beam which reflects once off of both of the mirrored surfaces as shown. For wavelength $$\lambda $$, what values of $$d$$ result in constructive interference?
 * 3) A Fabry-Perot interferometer has spacing $$d = 2 \mbox{ cm}$$ between the glass plates, causing the direct and doubly reflected beams to interfere (see figure 1.20). As air is pumped out of the gap between the plates, the beams go through 23 cycles of constructive-destructive-constructive interference. If the wavelength of the light in the interfering beams is $$5 \times 10^{-7} \mbox{ m}$$, determine the index of refraction of the air initially in the interferometer.
 * 4) Measurements on a certain kind of wave reveal that the angular frequency of the wave varies with wavenumber as shown in the following table:

Figure 1.21: Sketch of a weird dispersion relation.
 * 1) Compute the phase speed of the wave for $$k = 3 \mbox{ m}^{-1}$$ and for $$k = 4 \mbox{ m}^{-1}$$.
 * 2) Estimate the group velocity for $$k = 3.5 \mbox{ m}^{-1}$$ using a finite difference approximation to the derivative.
 * 3) Suppose some type of wave has the (admittedly weird) dispersion relation shown in figure 1.21.
 * 4) For what values of $$k$$ is the phase speed of the wave positive?
 * 5) For what values of $$k$$ is the group velocity positive?
 * 1) Compute the group velocity for shallow water waves. Compare it with the phase speed of shallow water waves. (Hint: You first need to derive a formula for $$\omega (k)$$ from $$c(k)$$.)
 * 2) Repeat the above problem for deep water waves.
 * 3) Repeat for sound waves. What does this case have in common with shallow water waves?

title: Waves/1D Problems


text:
Amazona

Etymology
Named by French zoologist in 1830 after the Amazon rainforest, which name is ultimately from.

Hypernyms

 * ; - subfamily;  - tribe

Hyponyms

 * - type species;, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (syn. of ) - other species

Proper noun

 * 1) Amazon river

title: Amazona