text:
Modern Physics/Math/Four Vectors

Math Tutorial - Four-Vectors
We have seen that a wave is described by four numbers, the components of the spatial vector k, and the frequency ω

In special relativity these four numbers form a four-vector

It is called a four-vector because it has 3 spacelike components, forming a vector, and one timelike component when there are 3 space dimensions. It is called a four-vector because of the way it behaves when we change reference frames.

The spacelike component of the wave four-vector is just $$\mathbf{k}$$ when there are 3 space dimensions, while the timelike component is $$\omega/c$$ where the c is in the denominator to give the timelike component the same dimensions as the spacelike component.

Let us define some terminology. We indicate a four-vector by underlining and write the components in the following way: $$\underline{k} = (k, \omega /c )$$, where $$\underline{k}$$ is the wave four-vector, $$k$$ is its spacelike component, and $$\omega /c$$ is its timelike component. For three space dimensions, where we have a wave vector rather than just a wavenumber, we write $$\underline{k} = (k, \omega /c )$$.

Another example of a four-vector is simply the position vector in spacetime, $$\underline{x} = ( x, ct )$$, or $$\underline{x} = ( \mathbf{x}, ct )$$ in three space dimensions. The $$c$$ multiplies the timelike component in this case, because that is what is needed to give it the same dimensions as the spacelike component.

In three dimensions we define a vector as a quantity with magnitude and direction. Extending this to spacetime, a four-vector is a quantity with magnitude and direction in spacetime. Implicit in this definition is the notion that the vector's magnitude is a quantity independent of coordinate system or reference frame. We have seen that the invariant interval in spacetime is

 * $$I = \sqrt{x^2 - c^2 t^2}$$,

so it makes sense to identify this as the magnitude of the position vector. This leads to a way of defining a dot product of four-vectors.

Given two four-vectors

 * $$\underline{A} = ( \mathbf{A} ,A_t ) \quad

\underline{B} = ( \mathbf {B}, B_t )$$ then the dot product is
 * $$\underline{A} \cdot \underline{B} = \mathbf{A} \cdot \mathbf{B} -

A_t B_t \quad \mbox{(dot product in spacetime)} $$

This is consistent with the definition of invariant interval if we set
 * $$\underline{A} = \underline{B} = \underline{x}$$,

since then

 * $$\underline{x} \cdot \underline{x} = x^2 - c^2 t^2 = I^2$$.

Now, the key point about dot products for 3-vectors is that they are scalars, independent of the observer. They do not change if the axes are rotated, as was proven earlier.

For our definition of the dot product of four-vectors to be useful, it should also be independent of the observer. In particular, it should not depend on the observers velocity, else it would violate the principle of relativity.

We can easily check that our definition does satisfy this criterion.

It's clear that its independent of rotation, since it is the difference between a dot product and the product of two scalars, both of which terms aren't affected by rotating the coordinates.

Is it also frame velocity independent?

To check, first we need to be able to write down our four-vectors in the new reference frame. We know how to do this for the position vector — use the Lorentz transform. It can be shown that the same transform must hold for all vectors, so the components of a four vector in the new reference frame, moving at velocity v along the x-axis with respect to the previous one, are

 * $$\begin{matrix}

A'_x & = & \gamma \left( A_x - \frac{v}{c} A_t \right) \\ A'_y & = & A_y \\ A'_z & = & A_z \\ A'_t & = & \gamma \left( -\frac{v}{c} A_x + A_t \right) \end{matrix}$$

The dot product in this frame is

 * $$\underline{A'} \cdot \underline{B'} =

A'_x B'_x + A'_y B'_y + A'_z B'_z - A'_t B'_t $$

Simplifying, we get

 * $$\begin{matrix}

\underline{A'} \cdot \underline{B'} & = & \gamma^2 \left( A_x B_x -\frac{v}{c} (A_x B_t + A_t B_x) + \frac{v^2}{c^2} A_t B_t \right) \\ & & + A_y B_y + A_z B_z &\\ & & - \gamma^2 \left( \frac{v^2}{c^2}A_x B_x -\frac{v}{c} (A_x B_t + A_t B_x) + A_t B_t \right) \\ & = & \left(1- \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right)^{-1} \left( A_x B_x + \frac{v^2}{c^2} A_t B_t \right) \\ & & + A_y B_y + A_z B_z \\ & & - \left(1- \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{v^2}{c^2} A_x B_x - A_t B_t \right) \\ & = & A_x B_x +  A_y B_y + A_z B_z   - A_t B_t \end{matrix}$$

which is just the dot product in the original frame, exactly as we wanted.

We now know that the dot product of two four-vectors is a scalar result, i. e., its value is independent of coordinate system. This can be used to advantage on occasion.

In the odd geometry of spacetime it is not obvious what perpendicular means. We therefore define two four-vectors $$\underline{A}$$ and $$\underline{B}$$ to be perpendicular if their dot product is zero, in the same way as with three-vectors.

 * $$\underline{A} \cdot \underline{B} = 0$$

Because the dot product is a scalar, if vectors are perpendicular in one frame, they will be perpendicular in all frames.

We can also consider the dot product of a four-vector $$\underline{A}$$ which resolves into $$(A_x, A_t )$$ in the unprimed frame. Let us further suppose that the spacelike component is zero in some primed frame, so that the components in this frame are (0, At' ) The fact that the dot product is independent of coordinate system means that

 * $$\underline{A} \cdot \underline{A} = A_x^2 - A_t^2 = - A_t'^2$$

This constitutes an extension of the spacetime Pythagorean theorem to four-vectors other then the position four-vector. Thus, for instance, the wavenumber for some wave may be zero in the primed frame, which means that the wavenumber and frequency in the unprimed frame are related to the frequency in the primed frame by $$k^2 - \omega^2 / c^2 = - \omega'^2 / c^2$$.

Proper time
Classically, the temporal derivative, d/dt acts like a scalar so we can multiply a vector by it, and get another vector.

In relativity t is part of a four-vector, which means d/dt also is, so we can't simply differentiate vectors with respect to t and expect to get vectors.

For example, the position of a stationary particle is (0, ct).

Viewed from a frame moving at v to the right, its position becomes (-vτ, cτ), where τ=γt is the time as measured in the moving frame.

If we differentiate with respect to τ the velocity would be (-v, c)

If we differentiate with respect to t, we get (0, c) in the stationary frame, which would be (using the Lorentz transform) (-γv, -γc) in the moving frame, if this were a four vector.

These two expressions differ by a factor of γ, when measured in the same frame, so this can not be a four vector.

However, if the moving observer divides by γ, which is the time dilation, they will get the same vector as the stationary observer.

Doing this is equivalent to differentiating by the time in the particles own rest frame. Since this works for the position vector, we can expect it to work for all vectors.

The time measured in a particle's rest frame is called its proper time.

Differentiating a vector with respect to proper time gives another vector, which is the relativistic equivalent of the temporal derivative.

title: Modern Physics/Math/Four Vectors


text:
Talk:Coachella/Archive 1

Possible vandalism?
I know absolutely nothing about this festival, but over the last few days there have been a lot of edits that look suspicious. If you're familiar with the topic, I recommend giving this article a very close inspection. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct to be suspicious. The lineup for 2005 has been deleted and various ridiculous fake lineups for 2006 have been cycled through. Honestly, though, I am less bothered by clearly fake jokes than by believeable but still unsupported speculation (e.g. the previously popular 2006 lineup with Depeche Mode and the White Stripes.) The last good version was "Revision as of 20:27, 18 October 2005" Mountmccabe 23:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reverted the article to that version. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

2006 line-up is still vandalized.

The Last Three Paragraphs
Looks like someone edited the page and changed the last three paragraphs in the main portion of the article so that they are virtually gibberish.

Does anyone know when the last good version of this page was made?

 * The last good version didn't have those last 3 paragraphs; I got rid of them. swidly 17:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Stereophonics on 2005 Card
If I remember correctly, Stereophonics was initially listed on Day 2, but on the final lineup card, they played on the first day of 2005. Can anyone verify? Davemcarlson 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Artists Who have Played More than Once
Does this page really need a list of artists who've played more than once? It's a bit trivial, surely? Also - 'Old timer british rockers' New Order aren't exactly rockers, nor are they especially 'Old Timer', given that they're still writing and releasing... Annihilatenow 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For the New Order comment, I completely agree with you, they're neither rockers nor old-timer. I've made the adjustments.  For the list of multiple appearances, I'm sort of split.  I think the discussion of the festival not booking too many artists multiple times is topical.  I also think the list of performers who have played more than twice is worth salvaging, as it's interesting little trivia (yes, technically still "trivial") and it helps define the "flavor" of the festival (if you'd like me to elaborate, leave a message on my talk page). The list of two-time performers is long, and certainly not too useful.   I'd like to see it replaced with a "list of artists reunited at coachella", or something similar. Davemcarlson 08:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Salvage "History" Section?
There used to be a long section called "History" that has been removed. See the 22 September version(s) for that section. I think some of that could be salvaged. Although it wasn't really well-written, there must have been some information of interest in there. Davemcarlson 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NIN Reunion
This is totally messed up. NIN's first show in five years wasn't at Coachella but at Fresno, CA on March 23rd, 2005. (Source: Mukul R. Dwivedi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Massive Attack 'reunion'
As with the Nine Inch Nails deletion from the reunion section, Massive Attack's Coachella 2006 performance was not their first US performance since 1998. They played two shows before Coachella, the first of which being in Seattle. An article about that performance can be found here:. I am deleting them from the reunions section. Povvy 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Soulwax, or Soulwax Nite Versions?
I know the official lineup lists "Soulwax Nite Versions" but it looks like it should simply be "Soulwax". Nite Versions is their album. If you change it to simply "Soulwax", then the link will work.<IP_ADDRESS> 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Size down image
Can someone please make the image appear smaller. I don't know how. Randomfrenchie 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to whoever did it. :) Randomfrenchie 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You bet! Forgot to say done here. The resize code's simple, just one extra attribute on the image tag (the px). But you can see that in the "diff" link in history if you're interested. Ah... looking forward to this Friday at the festival. --Justin 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

images
Free images available here Flickr - CC-Attribution and Flickr - CC-SA. MahangaTalk 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

highlight
its my belief that users that actually went to the event should have say regarding "the point of the view". that is to say when i personally highlight lcd soundsystem for 2007, in my opinion that is fair. i base this judgment on concert reviews published in the LA times and personal first hand experience. TomSkillingJr. — Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * oops, then again maybe we are only techincally highlighting headliners TomSkillingJr. — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2008 Headliners
Wheres the verification for this? The name Pink Floyd came out of nowhere, I have no clue where this was heard. Can anyone clear this up?

AnthonyMDOB 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I want verification for all these huge, unlikely (nigh on impossible) reunion claims too. Pink Floyd? The Smiths? Zeppelin even. These need to be sourced or deleted, because it's both highly improbable, unsourced and damn cruel. Amphetachronism 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 Dates
The dates have been posted on The Desert Sun website. It is the Indio local news paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trassin (talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are some performers in Bold?
Are they special? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that they are the headlining band for the given day. Trassin 17:14, 18 July 2007

Coachella 2008 Bands
The unconfirmed bands for 2008 were added again by <IP_ADDRESS> without a reference. I removed her post and added a level 1 vandalism to her talk page. Trassin 17:18, 18 July 2007

<IP_ADDRESS> added the unconfirmed bands again. Thank you Thelma.6 for removing them. I added a level 2 vandalism to <IP_ADDRESS>'s talk page. Trassin 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral statements?
The following statement "Due to the capitalistic nature of the musically arts, installation arts often receive a much smaller attention; nevertheless" isnt neutral and should be removed or replaced. Insanelyquiet 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MainPostercoachella.jpg
Image:MainPostercoachella.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Goldenvoice
I find it odd that there is no mention of Goldenvoice in this article. Or that there is no article at all on the history ofthe company, a significant cultural force in SoCal. I'm an early worker so I have a COI myself. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaked bands for Coachella 2008
I didn't want to add a "Confirmed" section due to the official release not being available yet. However, I believe that the last news item on this article by Spin.com is sufficient to have Portishead listed as a "Leaked" band. --Trassin 08:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I really don't know. However, I have been trying my best to keep anything that cites Myspace, youtube, or uncited off the page.-Carados (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Self-published too. -Carados (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * since when is a band's myspace not an allowed source? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Only allowed in articles about themselves. See WP:SELFPUB. Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Length of article
Is there any support for the idea of moving previous years to their own articles with brief summaries on this one? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

April 25, 2008
Any reason why the lineup was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllTheBrightness (talk • contribs) 09:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen to artists to perform at Coachella 2008
Here is a playlist that allows you to stream every artists to play in Coachella 2008:

(external link removed) Dreaded Walrus t c 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this get taken down in the 'external links' portion of article? It's directly related and helpful to the entry...plus I spent a lot of time on it! —Preceding jonfredric comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunset at Coachella 2006
The sunset photo - while beautiful - contributes very little to the article. Given that tens of thousands of people attend each year, a photo of the crowd (for example) would be far more appropriate. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Estimated attendance
In prior years, single day, 2 day, and 3 day passes were sold. In the most extreme estimate, you could assume 60,000 single day tickets were sold for each of the 3 days. The attendance would then be 180,000 unique individuals over the 3 days. But that is not likely the case. In 2010 it was the first year they only sold 3 day passes exclusively. They sold over 60,000 3 day passes. There were a lot of gate crashers in 2010. Thus the total attendance was estimated to be 75,000 over 3 days with an average aggregate estimate of 225,000 but not 225,000 unique individuals, only 75,000 unique individuals. Attendance numbers cannot be compared to all years. 1999-2007 can be compared but 2010 and foward will have to be compared amongst themselves. In 2010 there was not 75,000 tickets sold. 2010 was the first year they sold over 60,000 tickets but no official number was ever released. The estimated attendance including the gate crashers was 75,000 people. Based on overwhelmed services in 2010 they have decided to sell less tickets in 2011 and add more space. 2010 probably had the highest number of visitors each day at 75,000 but 2007 may still have the record of highest number of individual persons attending over the total 3 day span as single day tickets were sold in 2007 but not in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag food and beverage and sustainability sections as advertisements
The food and beverage and sustainability sections are written like a promotional brochure and do not add anything of value to the encyclopedic content. These sections should be removed or rewritten in a more neutral fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

50 cent
isn't 50 cent a notable performer,too?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Have A Party (talk • contribs) 08:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing 2007 Artists
Someone from Coachella keeps removing the confirmed acts for 2007, I protected the article. The following scripts keeps getting added: '''As with the tradition of Coachella since 1999, the promoters prefer to release the line up in it's entirety. They thank you for respecting this tradition and reframing from posting premature confirmations or rumors.'''

Does this sound ok? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One0hseven (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

 * Sigh. Apparently it's not working, because it keeps getting reverted to that.  This is a place for information, not censorship.  I wish Coachella, or whoever, would stop doing that.  We're trying to list artists who have themselves confirmed they'll be playing, for Chrissakes.  (And if they're going to keep adding that script, I wish they would at least change line up to lineup, it's to its, and reframing to refraining.)

How do we protect it for real? Charolastra charolo 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats even worse is MSTRKRFT cant even come to Coachella so whoever is doing this has wrong information. MSTRKFT is on tour from away from CA.

They are only on tour until March 31 according to their website. Coachella is in April. See lineup: http://www.coachella.com/poster/web480.jpg

I agree with the Coachella people. We should be sure a band is actually playing at the festival before posting their name in "confirmed acts". It is an article about Coachella, so the organizers should have a big say. Randomfrenchie 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Randomfrenchie, I'm definitely on your side, but Wikipedia is encyclopedic, so companies and orgnaizations should not generally control information on Wikipedia that is about them. Davemcarlson 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC) (see my comment below)

Although I think it could be useful to compile a list of "possible" or "confirmed" acts, this isn't the site for that. Wikipedia isn't a news site, nor for speculation. Although Charolastra's argument about WP being a place for information is true, Wikipedia can be a "place of censorship" in order to protect copyrighted information (which the event organizers may have with regards to this info), and also to prevent original research, speculation and "news" related information. It's okay to post cited criticism of an organization or group, but posting potential or "confirmed" acts for a future Coachella doesn't qualify as appropriate criticism. For now, since the copyright status of distributing the Coachella lineup is unknown (and may even be a "trade secret" under contract law), We have 2 options
 * One thing that we could do is mention somewhere that "Prior to each festival, there is considerable activity in music publications and online to compile lists of 'confirmed acts' prior to the official release of the lineup card." and then somewhere have a link to an external site listing this information. This would require perhaps creating a new section about the online culture surrounding Coachella, or making major adjustments to the existing text.
 * Otherwise, if you can't find a creative way to present the information in an encyclopedic fashion (not news or buzz or speculation or original research or anything that breaches copyrights or trade secrets), it's best to just leave the Coachella people's statement (with Charolastra charololo's corrections): As with the tradition of Coachella since 1999, the promoters prefer to release the lineup in its entirety. They thank you for respecting this tradition and refraining from posting premature confirmations or rumors.

P.S. I'm not with Coachella. I'm a fairly experienced (3500+ edits) Wikipedian and someone who happens to love Coachella (and this page: I completed many of the historical lineup lists, and added the "Artists who have played Coachella more than once" section), so as someone who is a dedicated Wikipedian and Coachella fan, I don't think I have a conflict of interest. We just need to make sure that we don't do anything unencyclopedic nor dictated by public interest. Find a common ground. Davemcarlson 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment:  just an observation (& i know it's an OLD conversation i'm adding to here; but neither copyright NOR {trademark<contract law} has ANY PART in our considerations here.

 * simple lists are NOT COPYRIGHTABLE under us law, & we have no "contractual obligations" (of nondisclosure or ANYTHING else) with the coachella organizers, so IT DOESN'T MATTER whether it's a "trade secret" to them or not; if the information is available, we can publish it. there is no intellectual property "right" protecting "trade secrets", in the usa (thank GOD), beyond binding contractual agreements between involved parties. so there ARE NO "legal considerations" here.  Lx 121 (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"3-day, 2 weekend"
could somebody who knows for certain PLEASE add a sentence clarifying this?

does the exact same line-up repeat for both weekends? do they do variations? or have different acts? or what?

the way i read it, the text seems to imply that it's basically the same event repeated twice; but it's not stated EXPLICITLY anywhere that i can find...

also, didn't banksy have an art-thing on display @ the fest this year (2014)? if someone can confirm that (going on memory over the coverage here & no time to pursue it), it should probably be added to the art section, no?

finally; what about standalone articles for each year, or at least sections for each year (hopefully with more info)? i.e.: combining the info for that year's event;  instead of one list for acts, one list for art displays, & not much else.

if nobody presents any reasonable objections i'll come back & implement that last item when i have more time (if nobody else has done it already).

Lx 121 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

125000 saw Beyoncé?
I realize there was a potential crowd of 125000 for Beyoncé, but can we claim for absolute sure that: No other bands were playing or that all other bands playing at the same time had 0 people in attendance? And that no-one was either home sick or stuck drunk in their tents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Recycling numbers seem completely bogus
This sentence seems bogus to me: "In 2013, staff diverted over 577,720,000 pounds of materials, comprising: 36,860 tons of aluminum cans, 105,000 tons of cardboard, 65,360 tons of PET plastic, 47,040 tons of scrap metal, and 34,600 tons of glass."

For instance, 36,860 TONS of aluminum cans? The internet tells me that there's about 30 aluminum cans per pound. So by my math, that works out to over 2.2 BILLION cans. With an attendance of about 250,000 people, that's about 9,000 cans apiece. The other numbers seem similarly implausible. Unfortunately, I can't verify the source because it's not available online, but it seems reasonable to me to nuke this sentence because these numbers are clearly inaccurate. (If I were to guess, "tons" should be "pounds", but again... can't verify the source and it's possible that the source is also mistaken). Thoughts? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Here is the direct quote from the magazine that was handed out to festival attendees:
 * "'With over 180,000 people attending over the two Coachella weekends, saying that there is a lot of resource that accumulates is an understatement. In 2013 alone, the resource team diverted 36,860 tons of aluminum cans, 105,000 tons of cardboard, 65,360 tons of PET plastic, 47,040 in scrap metal, and 34,600 tons of glass. That's 577,720,000 pounds of resources! This is collected and sorted in a Matrix-like system designed to be as green and as efficient as possible.'" Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

J Balvin - "Art(ist)"
I realize that you're curating this article to make it GA. Would it be possible for you to consider adding something about the stage for J Balvin's performance at the 2019 festival? Variety magazine states about artist / reggaeton musician J Balvin, "led the way Saturday with one of the most eye-popping and elaborate sets ever to be immortalized on festival’s stage."--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

So... are we not going to mention that the owner supports anti-LGBTQ proganda?
Source (I'm User:AaronxAphmau by the way.) <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read that far into the article huh? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For IP editor's consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coachella_Valley_Music_and_Arts_Festival#2015%E2%80%932017. robertsky (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 and 2021 should be separated from 2018-present
Due to COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 and 2021 dates was postponed for 2 times out of 3 in history. My opinion is that they should be separated from 2018-present. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang   (talk)  07:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Question
Why was there no Coachella M&A Festival in 2000? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2022

The result of the move request was: Moved to Coachella (festival). Consensus favors following common usage by shortening the festival name. Of these shortenings, Coachella (festival) has the least objections. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival → Coachella (music festival) – WP:COMMONNAME; this may be touchy so express your thoughts here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What about renaming to "Coachella Festival"? It's a WP:COMMONNAME, a WP:NATURALDAB and the page Coachella Festival line-ups uses it. Skyshifter   talk  15:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for a change to the article name. Instead of trying to come up with an agreeable parenthetical disambiguator, we have the event's official title, in the event logo no less. I don't see any need to change it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Coachella Festival per WP:NATURAL. Also, I think there's an argument to be made that the Festival is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and wouldn't be opposed to discussion to place it at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Coachella Festival" seems to be the name least supported by reliable sources. Rarely are they using the word "Festival" as a capitalized proper noun. If anything, sources support "Coachella festival" instead. And therein lies the problem. There are many, many festivals in Indio, California alone, let alone the Coachella Valley as a whole. "Coachella Festival" or "Coachella festival" aren't nearly as a precise as the event's official name, which is a natural disambiguator from any other Coachella topic or any other event that takes place in the region. If the proposition to move the article away from the event's official name means having to disambiguate it, then there is no benefit gained. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose When you google Coachella, Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival appears as the name of the official website. Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival also appears in the Bio of the official Instagram page . While it is commonly referred to as just 'Coachella', I believe we should have the official title on the page. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Support Coachella (festival). I think it's clear that reliable sources overwhelmingly use "Coachella", as a quick scroll through the article's reference section makes clear. Official titles don't get any special preference, and in this case "Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival" has two flaws: it's not the common name, and it's "longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". The suggestion of a natural disambiguation like "Coachella Festival" is tempting, but I think the preference in sources for "Coachella" is just so overwhelming that COMMONNAME takes preference over NATURAL here. As for the disambiguator, I'm not sure why we'd need to use Coachella (music festival) when Coachella (festival) is unambiguous and redirects to this article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Coachella (festival), per Extraordinary Writ. We use the common name, not the official name. czar  03:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Coachella
mello, Extraordinary Writ, Skyshifter, Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Ortizesp, Naheehsp9,  czar. I noted that Coachella is the primary topic for the term Coachella, and moved the article. I hadn't looked at the talkpage to see this fairly recent discussion. Would people prefer I revert the move and make a proper Requested move? SilkTork (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am strongly considering self-reverting anyway. I think this would benefit from a discussion. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would definitely self revert any move. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 10:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted the page moves. SilkTork (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah confirming that something is the primary topic needs discussion in case a snag shows up. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Talk:Coachella/Archive 1


text:
Fátima Gómez Montero

Fátima del Sol Gómez Montero (born 13 October 1974) is a Mexican politician from the Institutional Revolutionary Party. In 2012 she served as Deputy of the LXI Legislature of the Mexican Congress representing Nayarit.

title: Fátima Gómez Montero


text:
Kilifi Bridge

Kilifi Bridge is the longest bridge in Kenya with a total length of 420 metres. The superstructure is a prestressed continuous box girder carrying two lanes. The bridge has three spans. The construction of Kilifi Bridge was completed in 1991.

It connects Kilifi and Mnarani. The road heads to Mombasa towards south, and Malindi, Lamu and Garissa towards north.

Cost
700million Ksh

title: Kilifi Bridge


text:
Talk:sleuth

I don't know very much about formatting. Can anyone help me clean up my entry?

Requests for verification - kept
Kept. See archived discussion of October 2007. 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:sleuth


text:
User:IAMK0rben Dallas/sandbox

LEGO MADNESS!

I need help with the uses of wikipedia. Please help.

LEGOs are fun, but hurt when you step on them. The most painful side is the BOTTOM, because of the edges. The top however, is less painful that the bottom. A list of the most pain full legos can be found here->http://nerdist.com/ranking-the-25-most-painful-lego-to-step-on/

And while legos are fun, they get WAY over priced. One guy did a video and the lego structure was supposedly RARE, but cost OVER $30,000! This needs to stop. Some people take lego collecting way too serious, and buy a lot of the sets not leaving them for others. And while it may be fun to play with, they have "LIMITED EDTION" bricks that are only available at certain places. Such as a lego harry potter set that was only available at movie theaters while the movie was there. The thing that made this such a good hit was that it had a LOT of purple bricks, which are nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get. So yeah, lego collecting is fun, but have fun, don't be a grump.

title: User:IAMK0rben Dallas/sandbox


text:
vigliacco

Etymology
, under influence from. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) cowardly
 * 2) contemptible
 * 1) contemptible

Noun

 * 1) coward
 * 2) rogue, scoundrel
 * 1) rogue, scoundrel

title: vigliacco


text:
User:N4hmed NA/sandbox

Evaluation Notes:

-Link to the article you will be editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

-Reason why you will be making edits and any additional notes: Recent information on Automotive Applications of Artificial Intelligence have not been included in the original article, such as self-driving trucks.

-New sources you will likely include in the final stages of edits https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/13/self-driving-trucks/663196001/ http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-trial-self-driving-trucks-platoons-roads

title: User:N4hmed NA/sandbox


text:
User:Xaba.Adia/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title Finger food
 * Article Evaluation

 * Sources
 * https://go-gale-com.libproxy.temple.edu/ps/i.do?ty=as&v=2.1&u=temple_main&it=DIourl&s=RELEVANCE&p=AONE&qt=TI~%22Finger%20Foods%22SP~14IU~4SN~0885-7636VO~34&lm=DA~120150000&sw=w
 * https://journals-sagepub-com.libproxy.temple.edu/doi/full/10.1177/0009922817733701
 * https://doaj.org/article/6653b3c46586413fb6982a6d4a119d37

Option 2 Shawarma

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Article Evaluation

 * Sources
 * https://go-gale-com.libproxy.temple.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CA375739293&v=2.1&u=temple_main&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w
 * https://jidc.org/index.php/journal/article/view/25390053
 * https://go-gale-com.libproxy.temple.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CA290112485&v=2.1&u=temple_main&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w

Option 3 Clean eating

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * https://go-gale-com.libproxy.temple.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA590723274&v=2.1&u=temple_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
 * https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.temple.edu/docview/1990920775?accountid=14270&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
 * https://www-bmj-com.libproxy.temple.edu/content/354/bmj.i4095
 * https://www-bmj-com.libproxy.temple.edu/content/354/bmj.i4095

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

title: User:Xaba.Adia/Choose an Article


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ambulance manufacturers

The result was   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

List of ambulance manufacturers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

List article that serves none of the four primary purposes outlined in WP:LIST. It is nothing more than a directory of external links in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The one internal link shows that all but one of these companies is not notable enough. Brambleberry of RiverClan Mew ♠ Tail 17:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LINKFARM.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lugnuts. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep. Noteworthy subject. Note that the contents of a list do not necessarily need to be notable on their own for inclusion for a list. It's true that the list is currently a WP:LINKFARM, but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Debatable whether this is a noteworthy subject; your opinion is noted. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Cleaning up to comply with that would result in a blank page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't mean a list of manufacturers of X cannot be included. See List of automobile manufacturers, for instance. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is a candidate for reinstatement and is being considered for such.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


text:
User:Draicone/Sandbox for Variables in PHP

Variables, as mentioned briefly in Introduction to PHP, are significant for any programming language. They can be used to store all forms of data, and are generally required to perform multiple manipulations on data not hard-coded into a script. This lesson will introduce the basics of variables in PHP.

Basic syntax
In PHP, all variables are denoted by the $ at the beginning of their identifier. They do not need to be declared; they can simply be assigned a value and used from there on. Variables name should start with a lowercase letter; this is not required but (in certain php configurations) prevents clashes with autoglobals (which will be explained later). Here is a basic example of assigning a value to a variable and printing its value onto the page:

Variable conversion
PHP also automagically switches variable types when needed. For example, all strings (a string is a series of characters) must be enclosed in quotes (both single quotes and double quotes are supported). However, sometimes values you fetch from external sources will be strings by default but need to be treated as ints (short for integers, which are numerical values) for the purpose of a calculation. This example shows how it can be done:

In this instance, we are multiplying the number 42 (in a string variable) by pi to a certain number of decimal places (a float variable - you will learn about this later). Conversion can only occur when possible, however - the following will not work:

As '4string2' is not a number, PHP will fail to convert it (in order to be multiplied by pi, which returns a floating point value) and (most likely) return an error or post a warning (depending on PHP's configuration settings in the php.ini file).

Variable types
These are the main types of variables you will be dealing with:

 * int - Short for integer. Holds any integer, i.e. a whole numerical value (no decimal places - however, if an int is assigned a number with a decimal place, it will be converted to a float automatically)
 * float - Abbreviation of floating point value. Holds any integer WITH a decimal place, to a certain precision (generally 32 digits)
 * double - Abbreviation of double precision floating point. Same as above except with far more precision - however, a double value also takes up twice as much memory (generally 8 bytes - obviously insignificant on modern servers)
 * string - Holds any array of characters, i.e. a sentence (or two). Generally has an infinite length; however, for compatibility with older servers, limit the size of strings to 32768 characters.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa-Penn State Rivalry

The result was Keep but repurpose to include far more references to wrestling. Since the main thrust of the notability argument here is clearly that a wrestling rivalry exists. Perhaps also rename the article but I'll punt this to the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Iowa-Penn State Rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The two football teams have met on and off since the 1930s, more regularly of course since PSU joined the Big 10, but the game lacks any of the hallmarks of a "rivalry" - most particularly, 3d party reliable sourcing beyond the rare stray characterization of the series as such. JohnInDC (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Discussion of such a rivalry is nonexistent in reliable third-party sources. Lizard  (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or rename to List of Iowa-Penn State games or include as part of another list. Yeah I couldn't find much in the way of third party sourcing as a 'rivalry'. This content could potentially be useful as a list article however, or as part of another list. Changed to Keep with regards to the wrestling rivalry which has significant sourcing to meet GNG. The article has substantially changed since the AfD started, and I've shifted things around a bit to represent the greater notability of the wrestling rivalry (moved it to the top). Between the wrestling and the football, there is plenty here to meet GNG and it would be a shame to throw out useful content. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand to include wrestling, based mainly on the sources that describe the wrestling rivalry between these two schools as having become one of the fiercest in the country during the past decade. For example "Iowa-Penn State is the nation’s fiercest wrestling rivalry, and right now it isn’t close"; "Penn State-Iowa wrestling rivalry 'changes direction' with sold-out dual"; "Penn State-Iowa wrestling: Hot ticket, hotter rivalry". --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting idea. I'd probably support that as well. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The schools appear to have an actual "rivalry" when it comes to wrestling, see http://www.ncaa.com/video/wrestling/2017-01-31/high-five-wrestling-rivalries-augsburg-wartburg-oklahoma-state-oklahoma, and it'd be fine to rename and recast the article as "Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry". But the notable competition in one sport doesn't bleed into the others.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is a recent creation (September 18), apparently as part of the buildup to this weekend's (September 23) football game between the two schools. The wrestling angle is a red herring.  The main topic of the article (and infobox) was and remains a purported football rivalry, and wrestling was not even mentioned until after the AfD started.  If someone were to create an article about the wrestling rivalry, its notability could and should be judged separately. However, the football series does not have the characteristics of a true rivalry or sufficiently notable series. Relevant criteria include: (1) geographic proximity - Iowa City and State College, PA, are roughly 800 miles apart, separated by three states, and lack the geographic proximity (typically intra-state or border-state series) that contribute to rivalry status; (ii) trophy - there is no trophy (e.g., Little Brown Jug) or official name for the series (e.g., Red River Showdown);  (iii) frequency/longevity - the teams did meet in 1930 but did not meet again until 41 years later, are not in the same division of the Big Ten, and have met only 26 times in total; and (iv) classic matchups - there have been zero instances in which the teams played while both were ranked in the top 10 and only three instances in which both were ranked in the top 25: 1984 (#5 vs. #12), 1995 (#18 vs. #19) and 2010 (#22 vs. #18).  All in all, I don't see enough here to convince me that this is a true rivalry or that it is a sufficiently notable non-rivalry series to warrant having its own stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NRIVALRY, sports rivalries aren't inherently notable and need to meet the GNG. That means not the routine sports coverage churned out on a daily basis by bored sportswriters on deadline puffing up the Saturday game as a Great And Enduring Rivalry.  What the pluperfect hell, this "rivalry" is all of 26 games over the course of ninety freaking years?   Nha Trang  Allons! 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Weak keep - A modern wrestling series with the sourcing I see in the article is notable, in my opinion. The word, "rivalry" here is a bit of a red herring, as it is often used as a synonym for series in the body and the headline of articles, and many series may feel like not much of a rivalry but still may get coverage in itself (rather than just a way to talk about an upcoming game in the context of a previous game between the teams). Smmurphy(Talk) 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, it should be moved to "Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry". There is absolutely no showing that there is a rivalry or notable series in football (which remains the focus of the infobox and the majority of the article).  Cbl62 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving seems like a fair idea to me; if the rivalry broadened to include football (or academic decathlon or whatever), then removing wrestling from the article title would be easy enough. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Clear out the football stuff and move to Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry. There is seriously no evidence from sources that this is an actual rivalry in football or really any other sport. ansh 666 06:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to clear out the football stuff. The names of the teams transfer across sports, so the football stuff can be kept as part of the overall article as long as it is verifiable, even if it mostly the wrestling stuff that demonstrates notability. I'd like to see some precedent that similar college sport team rivalry articles are divided by sport before I'd endorse throwing out this useful info. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  23:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While there is inconsistency, rivalries between the same schools in different sports are most effectively dealt with separately. See Michigan–Michigan State men's ice hockey rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State men's soccer rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry. See also Alabama–Auburn men's basketball rivalry, Alabama-Auburn football rivalry, Florida–Florida State football rivalry, Florida–Florida State men's basketball rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Having nominated this for deletion, I think that renaming it as Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry is a good idea, better in fact than deletion. The schools' competition in wrestling (in contrast to football) seems to qualify as a notable rivalry, worthy of an article.  The football stuff however would need to go.  If it's not a "rivalry" in that sport too then it's just clutter, a recitation of a non-notable series of games between two teams that now find themselves in the same FBS conference.  And if non-notable football is worthy of inclusion then why not also the non-notable tennis, or swimming, or basketball series between them?  JohnInDC (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Keep the wrestling rivalry is notable. The football and other sports can be ancillary inclusions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Paul McDonald, JohnInDC, and others. The wrestling rivalry should be the main focus of the article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: the renamed, essentially new, article shouldn’t include facts about non-rivalry sports. JohnInDC (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Keep, reliable sources talk about this like it is a big thing: "Iowa-Penn State is the nation’s fiercest wrestling rivalry", "The Iowa vs. Penn State rivalry in college football has ballooned in importance, especially in recent years" Antrocent (♫♬) 23:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah there are a couple of good sources for the football side too, I can't see removing the football material. If people object to the football stuff and the wrestling stuff being in the same article I think they should independently exist as separate articles. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  06:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree re the football side. It's thin, or stale, or bloggy.  There's precious little on it.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the recent changes? Two reliable sources is enough for GNG, we have that and more for both the football and wrestling sides of this. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  11:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I did look at them.  For football I see a 2010 article from "Sportsthenandnow.com" describing a football "rivalry", which is the identical 2010 article cited at bleacherreport.com (so just one source, and seven years old to boot); a 2014 ESPN article about a weird 6-4 game that doesn't mention "rivalry", and 4 routine ESPN game summaries, none of which mention "rivalry".  So I stand by my observation.  (As I've said above, I don't dispute the wrestling rivalry.)  JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * i’m also not sure about “two source“ rule. I always thought the standard was “multiple“. JohnInDC (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Two is 'multiple'. Also please note what someone else said above, the term 'rivalry' is a red herring. A rivalry means 'among the games that they have played against each other' not "rivalry" in the colloquial sense (any two teams playing against each other are 'rivals'). —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  11:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. If "two" were "multiple", or enough, then all the Wikipedia guidance would say "more than one reliable source", not "multiple" when describing what's sufficient.  (Also "multiple" means "several", which 2 isn't.)  Separately, what you're describing is not a "rivalry" but a "series".  A "rivalry" in the sports / college sports / college football sports context has a more specific meaning, usually (as described above), a series that has been elevated in some fashion by, e.g., a name for the annual matchup ("Apple Cup"), a trophy ("Little Brown Jug") or at the very least multiple reliable 3d party sources that refer to it as a "rivalry".  By your definition, literally any series of matches between any two competitors in a conference is a notable "rivalry" because the games are covered by major media.  But that's the very kind of ROUTINE coverage that doesn't make the cut.  As for wrestling - I'm sold here.  But football?  Nah.  Someone seven years ago described it as a rivalry and few if any other sources picked up that characterization in the intervening years (when the teams were routinely playing).  It's not a "rivalry".  (I'll either find some links to the College Football project page, or find someone who can direct you to prior discussions on this point.)  JohnInDC (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are being a bit too rigid, but I'll set aside the 'rivalry' argument for others to make. Multiple is clearly "more than one" in my mind (and in the dictionary), but I don't think this is the place to quibble over the meaning of policy, feel free to move this discussion over to my talk page if you wish to discuss it further. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  13:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are multiple links to prior rivalry discussions (followed by deletions) - there are probably scores of others too: Articles for deletion/Florida–South Carolina football rivalry; Articles for deletion/Mississippi State - Vanderbilt football rivalry; Articles_for_deletion/Arkansas-Baylor_football_rivalry; Articles for deletion/Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry.  There's also a good bit of discussion at the project talk page here that is helpful.  This isn't rigid - it's just what WP:NRIVALRY implies.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment My fellow editors, this discussion is to ask the question, "Should the article be deleted?" -- determining the content of the article may come in to play some about that question, but I do not believe it is a primary deletion question but instead is an editing question. Let me encourage all editing comments to move to the article talk page itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken and thank you for the gentle reminder. JohnInDC (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


text:
Talk:King Hippo

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on King Hippo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/210158/new-punch-out-documentary-is-a-knock-out/

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on King Hippo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622131740/http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=303 to http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=303
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717141120/http://www.ign.com/videogame-villains/64.html to http://www.ign.com/videogame-villains/64.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125200631/http://bitmob.com/articles/racial-stereotypes-in-video-games-how-do-we-change-them to http://www.bitmob.com/articles/racial-stereotypes-in-video-games-how-do-we-change-them
 * Added archive https://archive.is/2012.07.17-234623/http://www.1up.com/features/top-5-worst-dressed-videogame to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3169040

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:King Hippo


text:
Size Exclusion Chromatography

Introduction
This technique, also known by the name Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC) is used to determine the molar mass distribution of polymers in solution.

A polymer sample in solution is injected on top of a column. A flow of liquid (eluent) takes the sample through the column where the molecules are separated according to their size in solution. The largest molecules elute first.

The separation principle is an exclusion of large molecules from pores in the matrix of the particles in the column, letting them pass the column in a shorter time.

The equipment is in principle a liquid chromatograph, often with the option that samples can be run at elevated temperatures. Polyethylene for example can be run at 140°C in trichlorobenzene. The separation is normally isocratic, using only one eluent.

The detector is often a refractive index detector or a light scattering detector, but any LC detector could be used. The advantage of a light scattering detector measuring in a minimum of two angles is that the absolute molar mass can be determined directly.

Since the diameter of a polymer molecule in solution is dependent on the solvent, all other detectors have to be calibrated using polymer standards of differing molar mass with narrow distributions.

title: Size Exclusion Chromatography


text:
Talk:Didier Dinart

 * blp=yes

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Didier Dinart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416172303/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/di/didier-dinart-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/di/didier-dinart-1.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Didier Dinart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130128031540/www.london2012.com/athlete/dinart-didier-1107482/ to http://www.london2012.com/athlete/dinart-didier-1107482/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Didier Dinart


text:
demodulator

Noun

 * 1) Any device that demodulates a signal

Derived terms

 * pulse demodulator

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 解調器
 * French:
 * German: Demodulator
 * Japanese: 復調器, デモジュレータ
 * Russian:

Etymology
or.

title: demodulator


text:
Eynabad

Eynabad or Ainabad may refer to:
 * Eynabad, East Azerbaijan
 * Eynabad, Kabudarahang, Hamadan Province
 * Eynabad, Razan, Hamadan Province
 * Eynabad, Tuyserkan, Hamadan Province
 * Eynabad, Markazi
 * Eynabad, Fazl, Nishapur County, Razavi Khorasan Province

title: Eynabad


text:
Chester Feldman

Chester Feldman (January 8, 1926 – May 25, 1997) was an American producer of game shows born in The Bronx, New York, who was also associated with Mark Goodson Productions.

Biography
Before beginning his career in television, Feldman served in the Navy during World War II. After the war, he attended the University of Missouri where he earned a degree in journalism. Feldman first began his career as a radio producer. He later moved to television where he produced I've Got a Secret, Card Sharks (in which he created and was a creative consultant for the British version, Play Your Cards Right for the first series ) and many other game shows.

On May 25, 1997, Feldman died of complications following surgery at New York Hospital in New York City.

title: Chester Feldman


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma macroptera in flight 3 - SE Tasmania.jpg

Great-winged Petrel
Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:23:20 (UTC)
 * Reason:This petrel has a wingspan of around a meter. It breeds on a number of sub-Antarctic islands, and sometimes on the coasts of Australia and New Zealand. I think this is a very nice flight shot. I've rarely seen them on the water and my attempts from previous trips haven't been very successful.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Great-winged Petrel
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:JJ Harrison

 * Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Sharpness/detail not quite as good as some of your other shots (presumably due to the highish ISO) but still very good. Nice angle on the bird. --Fir0002 03:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice picture of a very nice species. Also, this is my first edit on Wikipedia! IamReallyReallyCool৳@₤₭ —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome, then. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Supporthigh q and nice frame al (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The size-hike proposal would make this ineligible as most of the megapixels derive from the rather generous framing. However, I think that proposal needs to be binned as it stands now anyway, so I'll support. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "proposal", wherein 2/3rds majority has been interpreted as consensus doesn't take into account the tightness of the framing, I don't think. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

--Julia\talk 18:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Japanese Language

Resources
Balloonguy 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) -- Tae Kim's A Japanese guide to Japanese grammar would be a useful resource and the wikibook on japanese also has a lot of usful stuff

 * Xlbnushk 20:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) -- Yeah, I like that. I think the format there is good. We can implement that in our course map.

I would like to suggest the site on Learn The Kana which provides a nice, concise overview of the kana along with mnemonics, great for learning.

Topic vs. stream
Xlbnushk 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) -- I made some changes to the page. Did I go against a template layout that's been agreed upon for all language streams, by any chance? Also, what's the difference (in purpose) between Topic:Japanese and Japanese stream?

Xlbnushk 06:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC) -- For those interested, this specific discussion has moved to the Topic talk:Japanese page.

Wikibooks
There's lots of great material here, but please make sure that it's not duplicating Wikibooks stuff! Some of this seems like it would perhaps be better suited for Wikibooks, and linked to from Wikiversity. I'm adding the "Welcome and Advise" template to serve as a reminder. The Jade Knight 10:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give examples of what you think would be better suited for wikibooks? Thanks! Balloonguy 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Japanese Language


text:
User:Aparna107

Name:- Aparna Dhamne DOB:-10th July 2001 Place of Birth:-Karjat City:-Ambernath State:- Maharashtra Country:- IndiaBold textItalic text

title: User:Aparna107


text:
User:DeVoiceGH/sandbox

De Voice
Joseph Ntim Mensah, better known by his stage name Jah-Kari, also known previously as Ta Hymn, Ogya Mensah and JM De Voice, De Voice is a Ghanaian Afropop, dance hall and reggae singer.

Life and Music Career

title: User:DeVoiceGH/sandbox


text:
Classical Mechanics/Symplectic Spaces

What makes the phase space variables "momentum" and "position" (p, q) so special, compared to other possible choices such as the set of variables "velocity" and "position"? The reason is the additional property of the phase space (p,q) of having a "symplectic structure".

Let us define a "symplectic unit matrix"

$$I \equiv \sqrt{-1}$$

where -1 is an even-dimensional unit matrix. The dimension of the matrices we are talking about is the phase-space dimension, which is always even (each position variable is paired with a momentum variable). This is essentially the matrix generalization of the imaginary unit that we know from complex algebra. Simply put, symplectic spaces arise when unit matrices are replaced by symplectic matrices in strategically chosen places.

This sounds simple, but there is a catch: what is the square root of a matrix? As we already know from complex algebra, there isn't just one single answer for the square root. In mechanics, the root that we mean by I is moreover 'totally antisymmetric'. This still does not completely determine what I is. To get further, we need to think about the physics in phase space. In particular, we will encounter the phenomenon of volume preservation under temporal evolution.

title: Classical Mechanics/Symplectic Spaces


text:
great saphenous vein

Noun

 * 1)  The large subcutaneous superficial vein of the leg and thigh.

Translations

 * French: veine grande saphène

title: great saphenous vein


text:
Hans Egeberg

Hans Heinrich Egeberg (26 April 1877 – 1921) was a Danish heavyweight Greco-Roman wrestler. He won the Scandinavian championships in 1901, a European title in 1902, 1909 and 10, and a world title in 1907 and 1908. In 1908 he also placed second in the Danish boxing championships. After 1910 Egeberg wrestled professionally in a circus.

title: Hans Egeberg