text:
Tuba

The tuba is the largest of the low-brass instruments and is one of the most recent additions to the modern symphony orchestra, first appearing in the mid-19th century, when it largely replaced the ophicleide.

An orchestra usually has a single tuba (though having 2 or 3 is not uncommon), serving as the bass of the brass section, though its versatility means it can double as reinforcement for the strings and woodwinds, or increasingly as a solo instrument.

Various concerti have been written for the tuba by numerous notable composers, including Ralph Vaughan Williams, Edward Gregson, John Williams, and Bruce Broughton. Tubas are also used in wind and concert bands and in British style brass bands; in the latter instance both E ♭ and BB ♭ tubas are used and are normally referred to as basses.

Tubas are found in various pitches, most commonly in F, E♭, CC, or BB♭ in "brass band" pitching. The main bugle of BB♭ tubas is approximately 18 feet long, while CC tubas are 16 feet, E♭ tubas 13 feet, and F tubas 12 feet in tubing length without adding any valve branches. Tubas are considered to be conical in shape as from their tapered bores, they steadily increase in diameter along their lengths.

A tuba with its tubing wrapped for placing the instrument on the player's lap is usually called a tuba or concert tuba. Some have a bell pointing forward as opposed to upward, which are often called recording tubas because of their popularity in the early days of recorded music, as their sound could more easily be directed at the recording instrument. When wrapped to surround the body for marching, it is traditionally known as a hélicon. The modern sousaphone is a helicon with a bell pointed up, and then curved to point forward.

Bass clef music for tuba is usually in concert pitch, therefore tubists must know the correct fingerings for their specific instrument. However, traditional brass band parts for the tuba are in the treble clef, usually a ninth above the sounded note, to facilitate fingering interchangeability with other brass band instruments. Consequently, the tuba is generally treated as a transposing instrument when it is written for in the treble clef, but not in the bass clef.

The CC tuba is the common professional instrument in the United States and is used as the default instrument in American orchestras. In the United Kingdom, the E♭ tuba is the default professional instrument, though many will supplement it with the CC tuba in orchestral applications for big works. In Europe, the F tuba is the common default instrument in orchestras, though American practice is taking hold in some European orchestras. In Germany, Austria and Russia in particular, orchestral tuba players will use a BB♭ tuba when extra weight is desired. In military or concert bands and brass bands, the BB♭ tuba is preferred because its intonation better matches that of other wind instruments in B♭ or E♭. Players of the E♭ tuba often find themselves in demand from brass bands, where they read treble clef music pitched in E♭, as well as orchestras where they read music in the bass clef at concert pitch (C).

The lowest pitched tubas are the contrabass tubas, pitched in C or B♭; (referred to as CC and BB♭ tubas respectively, based on a traditional distortion of a now-obsolete octave naming convention). The BB♭ is almost exclusively used in brass bands because the other instruments are usually based on B♭. The CC tuba is used as an orchestral instrument in the U.S. because they are perceived to tune more easily with other orchestral instruments, but BB♭ tubas are the contrabass tuba of choice in German, Austrian, and Russian orchestras. Many younger players start out with an E♭ tuba, and the BB♭ tuba is still the standard adult amateur instrument in the United States. Most professionals (and those trained or training to be professionals) in the U.S. play CC tubas, but most also are trained in proficiency of all four pitches of tubas.

The next smaller tubas are the bass tubas, pitched in F or E♭ (a fourth above the contrabass tubas). The E♭ tuba often plays an octave above the contrabass tubas in brass bands, and the F tuba is commonly used by professional players as a solo instrument and, in America, to play higher parts in the classical repertoire. In most of Europe, the F tuba is the standard orchestral instrument, supplemented by the CC or BB♭ only when the extra weight is desired. In the United Kingdom, the E♭ is the standard orchestral tuba.

The euphonium is sometimes referred to as a tenor tuba (the only practical difference lies in the presence of vibrato, which is traditional for euphonium, but is to be avoided on parts scored for tenor tuba), and is pitched one octave higher (in B ♭) than the BB ♭ contrabass tuba. The "Small French Tuba in C" is a tenor tuba pitched in C, and provided with 6 valves to make the lower notes in the orchestral repertoire possible. The French C tuba was the standard instrument in French orchestras until overtaken by F and C contrabass tubas since the Second World War. The term "tenor tuba" is often used more specifically, in reference to B ♭ rotary-valved tubas pitched in the same octave as euphoniums. Examples include the Alexander Model 151, which is a popular instrument among tuba players when the use of the tenor tuba is appropriate. One much-debated example of such application for orchestral tuba players in the U.S. is the Bydło movement in Ravel's orchestration of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition.

Playing technique
At the basic level, playing a tuba is similar to playing a euphonium. For the time being, therefore, you may wish to make use of these euphonium lessons:

Euphonium Lesson 1 - Embouchure and breath Euphonium Lesson 2 - First notes

quiz
{The tuba first appeared in the modern symphony orchestra in the ________ century. + mid-19th - 18th - 20th - 17th
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! The tuba was introduced to the modern symphony orchestra in the mid-19th century.
 * Incorrect. The tuba was not present in the 18th century orchestra.
 * Incorrect. The tuba was already a part of the orchestra before the 20th century.
 * Incorrect. The tuba was not present in the 17th century orchestra.

{The tuba replaced the ________ in the orchestra. + w:ophicleide - w:sousaphone - w:hélicon - trumpet
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! The tuba largely replaced the ophicleide in the orchestra.
 * Incorrect. The sousaphone is a type of tuba, not what the tuba replaced.
 * Incorrect. The hélicon is another type of tuba.
 * Incorrect. The trumpet is a different brass instrument and was not replaced by the tuba.

{In British style brass bands, tubas are referred to as ________. + basses - euphoniums - horns - trumpets
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! In British style brass bands, tubas are commonly referred to as basses.
 * Incorrect. The euphonium is a different instrument.
 * Incorrect. Horns are different from tubas.
 * Incorrect. Trumpets are a different type of brass instrument.

{The main bugle of BB♭ tubas is approximately ________ feet long. + 18 - 16 - 13 - 12
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! The main bugle of BB♭ tubas is approximately 18 feet long.
 * Incorrect. This is the length for CC tubas.
 * Incorrect. This is the length for E♭ tubas.
 * Incorrect. This is the length for F tubas.

{A tuba with its tubing wrapped for placing on the player's lap is traditionally known as a ________. + w:hélicon - w:sousaphone - tuba or concert tuba - recording tuba
 * type="[]"}
 * Incorrect. The hélicon is wrapped to surround the body for marching.
 * Incorrect. The sousaphone is a type of helicon with a bell pointed up and then curved forward.
 * Correct! A tuba with its tubing wrapped for placing on the instrument on the player's lap is often called a tuba or concert tuba.
 * Incorrect. Recording tubas have a bell pointing forward.

{In the United States, the ________ tuba is the common professional instrument. + CC - BB♭ - E♭ - F
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! The CC tuba is the common professional instrument in the United States.
 * Incorrect. The BB♭ tuba is not the default professional instrument in the U.S.
 * Incorrect. The E♭ tuba is the default professional instrument in the United Kingdom.
 * Incorrect. The F tuba is the common default instrument in European orchestras.

{The euphonium is sometimes referred to as a ________ tuba. + tenor - bass - contrabass - alto
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! The euphonium is sometimes referred to as a tenor tuba.
 * Incorrect. The bass tuba is different from the euphonium.
 * Incorrect. The contrabass tuba is the lowest pitched tuba.
 * Incorrect. The alto is not a term used for the euphonium.

Links

 * Tuba on Wikipedia
 * University of Kentucky Tuba-Euphonium Studio (click on "Pedagogical Material and Information")

title: Tuba


text:
Ritzy

Ritzy is a lost 1927 American comedy silent film directed by Richard Rosson and written by Elinor Glyn, Percy Heath, Robert N. Lee and George Marion, Jr. The film stars Betty Bronson, James Hall, William Austin, Joan Standing, George Nichols and Roscoe Karns. The film was released on April 9, 1927, by Paramount Pictures.

Cast

 * Betty Bronson as Ritzy Brown
 * James Hall as Harrington Smith, Duke of Westborough
 * William Austin as Algy
 * Joan Standing as Mary
 * George Nichols as Nathan Brown
 * Roscoe Karns as Smith's Valet

source: wikimedia

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

title: Ritzy


text:
User:Englishwikipe/sandbox

Wheatfield with crows by englishwikipe

WAYS OF SEEING
""it is hard to define exactly how the words have changed the image but undoubtedly they have"

title: User:Englishwikipe/sandbox


text:
XBasic

Components

 * Editor (writing computer code)
 * Compiler (creating code)
 * Debugger (checking for errors)
 * Libraries (ready made 'internal' code to call on)
 * GuiDesigner (creates the 'look and feel' of the program)
 * Signed and unsigned 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit and signed 64-bit integers
 * 32- and 64-bit floating point values. The string datatype is only for 8-bit characters.
 * Generates an assembly language file.
 * XBasic has a Windows only version called XBLite
 * SourceForge development

Chat using the java chat
[click here to join forum]

senior XBasic developers will be there to take your praise and questions (have them ready)

Attending: (senior Developers) Vic, Eddie, Steve

just click on edit to add your name to say you will be attending

Time: Starting Sunday at Sept 19 2004 at 1600 GMT

Then every 3rd Sunday of the month

Next meeting Sunday November 21 2004

History
XBasic is a variant of the BASIC programming language. Xbasic was developed in the late 1980s for the Motorola 88000 CPU and Unix. In the early 1990s XBasic was ported to Windows and Linux. Since 1999 it has been available as Open Source software.

Making a Standalone Executable
XBasic programs can be compiled to create an executable just by double-clicking the program's MAK file. The following method works for XBasic V6.2.0 and above, in Windows 95; it should also work with later Windows versions.

The setup needs to be done only once. In all of the following, replace '\XBasic with the path to your XBasic directory.

1. Using a text editor (Notepad will do), put the following lines in your AUTOEXEC.BAT. Do not put any spaces or tabs around the "=".

SET XBDIR=\XBasic

SET PATH=%XBDIR%\bin;%PATH%

SET INCLUDE=%XBDIR%\include;%INCLUDE%

SET LIB=%XBDIR%\lib;%LIB%

If the path to your XBasic directory contains spaces (eg., \Program Files\xb), then it may be necessary to use quotes around the paths, as for example

SET PATH="%XBDIR%\bin";%PATH%

These lines should be placed after any existing definitions of the PATH, INCLUDE, or LIB variables. Save the edited AUTOEXEC.BAT, and re-boot.

2. Make sure the following files are in the appropriate XBasic directories:

\XBasic\bin spasm.exe    nmake.exe     link.exe

\XBasic\include xbasic.mak

\XBasic\lib xstart.o, and all RESOURCES, STDLIBS, and LIBS listed in xbasic.mak and in your own .mak file:

advapi32.lib comdlg32.lib gdi32.lib kernel32.lib msvcrt.lib user32.lib winspool.lib xb.lib xb.rbj

(There will be more if your program IMPORTs anything other than these libraries or the standard XBasic libraries.)

3. Create the text file NMAKE.BAT, containing the following line

"%XBDIR%\bin\nmake.exe" %1

and save it - for example, in the \XBasic\bin directory. The quotes are only necessary if your XBasic directory path contains spaces (eg., \Program Files\xb). The purpose of this BAT is just to keep the DOS window open when nmake.exe has finished, so you can see results of the compilation.

4. From Explorer's View menu, select Options, then File Types to associate MAK files with NMAKE.BAT. Make this the Default association for this file type.

If you aren't familiar with this procedure, then an alternative is to double-click any .mak file. An "Open With" dialog will appear, asking you which program you want to use to open .mak files. Click "Other", then go to the folder containing nmake.bat, and select it. Also, make sure the checkbox 'Always use this program to open this file' is checked.

This completes the setup. Now whenever you want to create an EXE, just select 'assembly' from the 'run' menu in the PDE - which creates the .s and .mak files - then double-click the .mak file. Or, run XBasic from the command line, using the command xb myprogram.x. Create a DLL the same way, but select 'library' from the 'run' menu instead (or run xb myprogram.x -lib). (For more information on making a DLL, see Multiple Module Programs.)

One hint: Save the .x source before creating the .s and .mak files, not after. If the source is saved after the assembly (.s) file is created, then nmake will see the .s file as being older than the .x file, and will invoke xb.exe to re-compile the .x.

When running your EXE, remember that you should have copied xbrun.dll into your \Windows folder, and re-named it xb.dll. Also, you can run the EXE from any folder except the XBasic\bin folder; if you run it in this folder, it will link to the wrong xb.dll, and start up the PDE instead of running your program.

Collaborative Project
please add your contributions

Here is how : Help:Editing

Is Opensource the best place for collaborative projects? I am sure there must be simpler tools?

Idea 1
Xbasic on a USB stick (and/or self booting CD)

I recently put Puppy Linux on a 64 meg USB stick

Maybe a dual booting CD (Linux and Windows)

ReactOS that is developing an Open Source

Windows NT)

Idea 2
XBasic Wizards

One of the things we hear on the forum again and again

is I have just started etc

How do I etc

Well how about a list of questions

and paremeters set and then the required functions are added

This would mean that nay code we are familiar with could be added

Idea 3
. . . Your idea here. ..

Code examples

Look here to see some screenshots of projects completed using XBasic. These are programmes developed for airlines in Iceland by Stefan Saemundsson:

XBasic Program screenshot

XBasic another program screenshot

add your links here

Future Developments
A regularly updated XBLite is a Windows only version which aims to use the API of Windows to reduce the code size.

A new update of Xbasic is expected before the end of 2004

A new version XBasic 2 that generates C code rather than assembler is also being created.

title: XBasic


text:
Do You Believe in Us

"Do You Believe in Us" ("Cree en nuestro amor") is a song by Cuban recording artist Jon Secada for his debut self-titled studio album and for his debut Spanish-language album Otro Día Más Sin Verte (1992). It was released in late 1992 as the third single from his Spanish-language album. The English version peaked at number 13 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and number three on the US Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary chart, while the Spanish version peaked at number one on the US Billboard Hot Latin Tracks chart. The song was also successful in Canada, reaching number three and topping the Adult Contemporary chart for one week. It was composed by Secada, Miguel Morejon, and Joseph Stefano, while Emilio Estefan Jr. produced the piece.

This single was sung by Secada at the 1994 FIFA World Cup opening ceremony.

Production and success
Jon Secada was the backup vocalist for Cuban singer Gloria Estefan in 1989. Secada became close friends with Gloria and her husband, Emilio Estefan Jr., who helped guide Secada into the music business. Secada released his self-titled debut album in 1992 with SBK Records. The recording made up of English-language compositions and two Spanish-language tracks. It was certified triple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), denoting shipments of three million copies. Secada, with the help from Emilio, decided to release an all Spanish-language album. During the recording sessions, Secada confirmed that Gloria helped translate his English-language recordings into Spanish. He said that she told him to record songs that he would be comfortably fine with singing throughout his career as a singer. She also told them not to "translate everything literally" but to "keep the same theme of the song in play."

"Cree en nuestro amor" was released as the third single from his Spanish album on 15 August 1992, peaking at number one on the US Billboard Hot Latin Tracks on 27 February 1993.

Track listings
US maxi-CD single
 * 1) "Do You Believe in Us" (hit version) – 3:36
 * 2) "Do You Believe in Us" (hot mix) – 3:57
 * 3) "Do You Believe in Us" (album version) – 3:58
 * 4) "Misunderstood" – 4:22

US 12-inch single
 * A. "Do You Believe in Us" (Musto mix) – 4:28
 * B. "Just Another Day" (Musto mix) – 6:34

US and Canadian cassette single
 * 1) "Do You Believe in Us" (radio version) – 3:36
 * 2) "Misunderstood" – 4:22

UK CD single
 * 1) "Do You Believe in Us" (LP version) – 3:58
 * 2) "Do You Believe in Us" (hit version) – 3:36
 * 3) "Do You Believe in Us" (hot mix) – 3:57
 * 4) "Misunderstood" – 4:22

UK 12-inch single
 * A1. "Do You Believe in Us" (LP version) – 3:58
 * B1. "Do You Believe in Us" (hit version) – 3:36
 * B2. "Do You Believe in Us" (hot mix) – 3:57

UK 7-inch single
 * A. "Do You Believe in Us" (LP version) – 3:58
 * B. "Misunderstood" – 4:22

European maxi-CD single
 * 1) "Do You Believe in Us" (Musto mix) – 4:28
 * 2) "Do You Believe in Us" (LP version) – 3:58
 * 3) "Just Another Day" (Musto mix) – 6:34
 * 4) "Otro día más sin verte" – 5:25

Australasian CD single
 * 1) "Do You Believe in Us" (hit version)
 * 2) "Do You Believe in Us" (hot mix)
 * 3) "Just Another Day" (radio Spanish edit)
 * 4) "Just Another Day" (extended radio version)
 * 5) "Misunderstood"

Japanese CD single
 * 1) "Do You Believe in Us" (hit version)
 * 2) "Do You Believe in Us" (hot mix)
 * 3) "Just Another Day" (radio edit)
 * 4) "Just Another Day" (club edit)

Credits and personnel
Credits are taken from the Otro Día Más Sin Verte liner notes.
 * Jon Secada – vocals, composition
 * Miguel Morejon – composition
 * Joseph Stefano – composition
 * Emilio Estefan Jr. – production

title: Do You Believe in Us


text:
Portal:Social Sciencesnew/Categories

Browse learning resources in the Social Sciences categories:
 * Social Sciences
 * Anthropology
 * Communication
 * Criminal Justice
 * Cultural Studies
 * Demography
 * Development Science
 * Economics
 * Ethnography
 * Gastronomy
 * History
 * Language Acquisition
 * Linguistics
 * Political Science
 * Psychology
 * Social Research
 * Social Theory
 * Social Work
 * Sociology
 * Urban Studies
 * Media Studies
 * Women's Studies

title: Portal:Social Sciencesnew/Categories


text:
Portal:Life Sciences/Selected biography

Participants in the Bloom clock project track and report the bloom times of wildflowers and other plants. Bloom clocks are kept by gardeners, ecologists, and others who record the time of year different plants are in bloom. This project attempts to reduce the effects of anomalous data in an attempt to generate maps of geographical "zones" that can eventually be used when describing a plant's expected bloom time in a particular region.

title: Portal:Life Sciences/Selected biography


text:
User:DagrMouth

DagrMouth, Underground hip hop artist. Fast Flow Lyrics. Hip hop. Recording artist/photographer/Film maker/Animator/Graphic designer

title: User:DagrMouth


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chongkian

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Chongkian
'''Final (2/8/4); ended 03:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC) – Withdrawn by candidate. Steel1943 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– The following description are my contributions within the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) only (I am self-nominating myself). I joined Wikipedia in January 2009. So far I have written 2,072 articles with a total of 176,847 edits in various topics from various countries and regions. I contribute to Wikipedia purely 100% as my hobby in my own personal time, without receiving any payment from any particular party. I have received 366 thanks and 19 Barnstars from other users with 0 blocks (hopefully it will stay this way). I also have the autopatrolled and extended confirmed user rights. My AfD statistics is 81.2% matches. While my biggest contribution is on the main page, I am also active in other namespace of Wikipedia: talk, category talk, category, template talk, user, Wikipedia, template etc, which I always try to balance things out. I have created 1,482 active talk pages, 60 active disambiguation pages, 17 template pages. Generally I like to create articles which are less-famous or less importance-level, to ensure every aspect of human life is fully covered in Wikipedia and in 100% neutral and objective way. From time to time I try to de-stub articles, add infoboxes, add proper categorization, add coordinates, add its WikiProject classification, add WikiProject grade and importance level, revert any vandalism, update its information, add links to its Wikimedia Commons, ensure its navigation box template suits the article name, add references, update dead link website, update an article's photo if there is any newer version of its photo in Wikimedia Commons etc. withdraw

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A:

 * Apply, modify, and remove page protection on a particular page to restrict or allow editing, moving, or creation
 * Delete pages with 5,000 or fewer revisions
 * View and restore deleted pages
 * Restrict and restore public visibility of information in individual logs and page revisions
 * Edit fully protected pages
 * Override the title blacklist
 * Move a page to any desired title

 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A:

 * I have written 2,072 new articles, why? because having more articles will make Wikipedia a more complete encyclopedia
 * I have made 176,847 edits in various topics from various countries and regions, why? so that countries which are less famous will get more exposure to the world
 * I am active in other namespace of Wikipedia aside from the main page (52.5%), such as: talk (19.4%), category talk (13.8%), category (3.8%), template talk (2.8%), user (2.6%), Wikipedia (2%), template (1.6%) etc, why? so that people will know that Wikipedia is not only about the main page, but there are also many important pages surrounding the main page
 * I have created 1,482 active talk pages, 60 active disambiguation pages, 17 template pages, why? because by having good talk page it will make the main page of the article better, having well-written disambiguation and template pages will make people to have better experience for navigating around Wikipedia articles.
 * Generally I like to create articles which are less-famous or less importance-level, to ensure every aspect of human life is fully covered in Wikipedia and in 100% neutral and objective way (e.g. academics, anime, archaeology, artists, beach, bridges, business, churches, colleges, companies, crime, cultural centers, dams, disability, education, electrical engineering, energy, environment, event, fashion, farm, festival, forest, forts, galleries, geography, geology, harbors, hospitals, hot springs, incinerators, industrial parks, islands, lakes, libraries, lighthouses, mausoleums, meteorology, military, mining, mountain, movies, museums, mosques, nuclear engineering, organizations, parks, people, politics, power stations, representative offices, rivers, roads, shopping malls, sports, temples, theaters, theme parks, tourism, train stations, transportation, tunnels, universities, waterfalls etc), why? so that people know Wikipedia is not only about any breaking/popular/big news (e.g. Beirut blast, COVID-19 etc)
 * I like to de-stub articles, add infoboxes, add proper categorization, add coordinates, add its WikiProject classification, add WikiProject grade and importance level, revert/erase any vandalism, update its information, add links to its Wikimedia Commons, ensure its navgiation box template suits the article name, add references, update dead link website, update an article's photo if there is any newer version of its photo in Wikimedia Commons etc, why? so that Wikipedia can be a full perfect online encyclopedia and have its interconnection well established with each other and other Wikimedia Foundation projects

 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A:

To answer it in short: Always
 * Especially when there are controversial articles or different way of writing styles. Usually I will invite/ask other active editors in that particular article's WikiProject and have a group discussion. Usually when there are more editors involved and voiced out their opinion, then everyone will follow the majority's answer.
 * Caused me stress? Once in a while yes. There are some stubborn editors who think that he/she is the correct one 100%. In that situation, I try not to argue further and stay silent for a while. Based on my experience, those stubborn editors will not last long in Wikipedia (they will retire/quit easily). Once they are no longer actively around, then only I 'revert' back their works peacefully. If those editors are the well-matured and experience ones, they will never be stubborn. They will be quite open and listen to people's opinion :)

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
 * Additional questions from Lee Vilenski
 * 4. Hi! Thanks for running - you are clearly a prominent content creator. You state your admin actions you would do, but this covers a lot of ground. You mention deletion, would you close AfDs, CSDs, etc, or work in any specific areas? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A: I've been involved in several AfD discussion (although not too many), and I did voiced out my opinions why an article has to be kept or to be deleted. And yes, I'm ok to do the AfD and CSD-related works. If you ask me any specific area, what I see lacking is the standardization in writing style in Wikipedia, and I wish there are mechanism to make things as standard as possible (e.g. refer more to all of the current existing Wikipedia manual writing style guide, or even updating the guide etc.
 * 5: Your edit summary usage is sub 50% for the age of your account - and also very similar for recent activity - in your opinion, what is the important/lack of importance of edit summaries? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A: If you are adding a section in an article (e.g. historical section, architecture section etc), then the edit summary you can easily write something like add more history etc. But if you edit because of an article is lacking some structure, e.g. lacking of infobox, lacking of photo, lacking of category, lacking of reference etc, then the edit itself is self-explanation already, same like when we add new property/statement in Wikidata, the edit itself is self-explanation already. But many of that "maintenance" edit in Wikipedia most of the time is small (yet important) edit, but if I keep writing the edit summary of it, the edit summary itself is 10 times longer than the edit I did to the article itself, so it is really a discouragement for people who wish to continuously improve articles (by doing some cleanup), e.g. adding coordinate type/region, moving coordinate inside infobox, rewrite URL format writing, etc. so even this one, we should have a special mechanism in Wikipedia on how we can continuously improve articles (on those small changes of edit, but not having our time spent too much on writing the edit summary which is far longer than the edit done in the article itself.

 * Additional question from Hog Farm
 * 6. I know this runs closely to Lee's question above, but I have another angle to it. As recently as May 11, you stated on your talk page that you'd use edit summaries "on every change that I've made", in this diff.  However, your edit summary counter] actually indicates that your use of edit summaries has decreased over this time, with the last two months below 40%.  What role do you think openly explaining your actions plays in the duties of sysops, given that you're likely to make some controversial calls in a sysop role?
 * A: Lately I have been doing many edits in an article/category/template's talk page too add their respective WikiProject, because many of them are lacking of some particular related WikiProjects, and many category/template pages do not even have talk page (thus WikiProject) at all, so most of those edit I did was to add their WikiProject categorization. I did initially write on the edit summary "add its WikiProject", and I kept doing that subsequently. But then I've encountered so many pages which have no WikiProjects, so even if I were to write the edit summary, it will only just be "add its WikiProject" again and again (and it has become too much repetitive). From my answer previously, I did mention that my edit action is somehow self-explanatory already. Of course once I have started admin work and it involves controversial edits or it involves many parties, a more detailed explanation of edit summary has to be fully written. I have voiced out this concern (that we need to write longer words & spend more time writing the 'edit summary' than the actual edit itself in the article) to Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, yet no one could really give a good solution for that.

 * Additional questions from PJvanMill
 * 7: Looking at the article Hiroe Igeta, which you created a month ago, I have two questions for you. Firstly, how do you consider notability when creating an article?
 * A: Notability basically is publicly-known (not self bragging), publicly-listed (can easily found in search engine) and in public-domain (open to the public (not password-protected like some technical publications or engineering standards etc) and written by 3rd party sources (online news, but not our own Facebook page or blog)).
 * 8: Secondly, how do you evaluate the reliability of a source for a given statement? Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A: There are hundreds of different kind of articles, one from fully well-established entities (e.g. national museums, national parks, prime ministers etc) into some kind of trivial and contemporary things yet somehow it becomes 'notable' per se due to the general acceptance by the public (e.g. selfie, influencer, twerking etc). For those fully well-established entities, generally they will always have their official website, listed in the government websites (tourism ministry, local government etc), being written in the online national news papers etc, so such sources (especially the online news papers) are highly reliable, while those contemporary terminologies (selfie, influencer, twerking) for sure have no dedicated website on explaining what are those terminologies are. So in that case, we build up the understanding of those terminologies from more various sources (e.g. fashion media, celebrity media, start-up news related media etc). It involves more work to do to have solid understanding and background to support such terminologies. For people, for sure if it is a minister or governor, we can easily browse the government website listing those ministers, and their biography is generally fully well written (from education, early career, place of birth, voting result etc). But for less prominent figure (e.g. celebrities, movie stars etc), same approach should be done like those contemporary terminologies (selfie, influencer, twerking), where we need to get more 3rd party sources which keep mentioning their names.

 * Additional questions from Levivich
 * 9. Hi! Thank you for your many years of contribution to the project! I noticed you are a member of the "eventcoordinator" group and User:Chongkian lists many meetups. I didn't see any mention of this when you listed your experience above. Can you tell us more about your event coordination experience? Do you host a lot of events, are there plans for any virtual meetups in the future, and would having admin tools help with that?
 * A:Hi, yes. I have done in total 21 meetups in Malaysia (in 5 different states/cities), with co-organizing 2 meetups in Indonesia, 1 meetup in Singapore and 1 meetup in Taiwan. Why I didn't specify that because meetup organizer's job scope (based on my understanding) is that it is completely different than admin-related job. Admin do mostly online, while meetup organizers do mostly offline. So I wish to be very specific here for the RfA request. Of course if you want to know more about my Whole contribution to Wikimedia Foundation movement is, I am also very active in Wikimedia Commons (uploaded more than 2,100 photos), Wikidata, Wikiquote, Wikivoyage and into some certain degree also in other languages of Wikipedia (zh, ms, id, simple, ja). Me myself is the one who founded the user group for Malaysia (Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia) and also to have it registered here locally as an NGO organization under the Home Ministry. We have managed to get many new editors and newly written articles, and we list down every single MOM of the meetup in our meetup pages. From there, I can fully understand the obstacle faced by all of the newbie editors. Yes, so far probably around next week or 2, Malaysia user group will have its first virtual meetup. Interested to join? :) It will be done in English language. By having admin tool, I think the best way is to use the 'lock article from editing' kind of authority. Because during any meetup, new editors will take more time to write a complete article (content, infobox, insert photo, linking, coordinate, link to Wikimedia Commons, referencing, categorization, adding related WikiProject, grading the WikiProject class & importance). Although I have the eventcoordinator power to grand temporary autopatrolled to the newbie editors under my guidance, many times other editors will jump straight away to edit/revert/change/give warning etc to the newly written articles, in which I saw this as a complete 100% turn off gesture to all newbie editors, and as I expected, 99% of them do not long in into Wikipedia anymore afterwards, which is this is a very sad reality.
 * 10. Hypothetical situation: Editor 1 changes "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" in an article. Editor 2 reverts with edit summary saying there is consensus for "Taiwan" and to discuss on the talk page. Editor 3 changes "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" again. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 4 changes it back. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 5 changes it back. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 1 comes to you and asks you to block Editor 2 for edit warring with multiple other editors. If you were an admin, how would you respond?
 * A: During the peak of this edit war, firstly I will just remain silent first (while continue observing the article and talk page, just to make sure no one start to provoke one another (am I allowed to do that as an admin?). Secondly, I will try to find what are the consensus of that naming controversial (in which I am fully familiar actually due to my interest in writing Taiwan-related articles) which have been written in any talk page. If such page doesn't exist yet, then I guess it is my responsibility to invite all of those parties involved in the edit war to join and sit down together in that talk page to resolved the dispute. Those invited but never comment/write anything, their subsequent edit is the one which will be reverted first or their name/IP get temporarily blocked first (those who barely join Wikipedia and did only 1 or 2 edit for the sake of changeing/reverting ROC/Taiwan name only shall also be left out (this doesn't apply to newbie editors who have genuine intention to grow Wikipedia article contents), and those without username or with username but not registered or without talk page shall be left out). While for the remaining parties of that ROC/Taiwan naming dispute, I will tell them to list their argument why they decide to choose ROC or Taiwan, with up-to-date references/sources to back up their claim. Then I shall try to take out any trivial point first, and leave out the only main points. Again, I shall maintain neutrality at all time, and editors must be people of high-neutrality, matured-attitude and good edit history. Then we shall see if we can reach a mutual consensus (either by redirect, put the two names side by side etc) or do the voting. Of course during this course of discussion, I will also invite senior/experienced editors who normally edit in WikiProject Taiwan related articles to oversee and have their opinions as well.

 * Additional question from Mccapra
 * 11. Hi you said that one of the things you plan to do as an admin is to delete articles with fewer than 5,000 revisions. Can you elaborate on this please and tell us why you regard articles with fewer revisions than this as potentially deletable/deletable on sight? Thanks
 * A: Hi, 'delete articles with fewer than 5,000 revisions' is one of the statement listed as one of the work for admin (based on my research/browse thru out Wikipedia). I am also not sure why they list down 5,000 revisions. Many newly stub articles written has less than 5,000 revisions, and many of them can exist as articles. Based on my understanding, I think what the original writer of this 'delete articles with fewer than 5,000 revisions' is to delete those poorly written articles (even less than stub, or maybe without referencing, or maybe with completely poor article layout). While request for deletion can be done for such articles, but what I've been seeing is that most editors will just simply redirect that article to another better written articles (start-class and above). So I think we need to tell to the original writer of this 'delete articles with fewer than 5,000 revisions' to re-phrase the statement.

 * Additional questions from CaptainEek
 * 12. When would you unblock a user?
 * A: I need to see first what kind of vandalism a blocked user have done until it gets him/her blocked. If it is purely because his/her repetitive lack of understanding in writing Wikipedia style, then a mere 2-3 days should suffice (for the blocking period, before being unblocked), while at the same time I try to talk to his/her user talk page. If it is about things went from bad to worse due to heated argument in talk page resolving some disputed, then maybe a longer time is needed (maybe a week or 2), until that person cools down. When that person purposely messing up around (layout, vulgar words, changing photos to other nasty ones etc), then probably this person's username should get permanently banned.
 * 13. Are there times an admin should not use their tools?
 * A: When there is a dispute but it can be solved automatically among the communities of that article article or WikiProject..

 * Additional question from Teratix
 * 14. Some editors have highlighted that your answer to question 1 is copy-pasted from an information page about administrators. Would you like to take this opportunity to explain, in your own words, what activities you plan to complete as an administrator? (Examples: Closing AfDs, deleting PRODded and CSDed articles, helping at AIV, RPP and UAA, etc.)
 * A:

 * A:

 * Additional questions from Wugapodes
 * 15. Since Wikipedia is not paper, why should we delete a page?
 * A:

 * Additional questions from Eggishorn
 * 16. You've been a prolific article creator but the vast majority of your articles created have been stubs. Do you feel that articles such as Nandouya Mosque and Duoliang Station give you a firm understanding of the Core Content Policies and related standards such as Notability?
 * A:
 * 17. You've mentioned you intent to perform deletion work and have been asked about AfD participation but I also notice a sparse participation in project areas. Do you feel that you understand the policies & procedures that apply to administrative tasks such as page protection, blocks, partial blocks, page moves, editng through full protection, etc. where the discussion about those tasks generally take page in project space?
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for Chongkian:
 * Edit summary usage for Chongkian can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support, meets my criteria.  xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. It could help them and I don’t see them actually harming people or breaking anything with it. Yeah, they’re not the most versed on policy, but long-term content creators with no blocks who seem open to feedback are low risk. It doesn’t look like they’re a Defender of the Wiki type who will chase off new users and/or delete things that are useful, and I don’t see them going around poking their heads in much more controversial areas where I’d want more experience. So, sure. Doesn’t appear to be a jerk and looks to know what they’re good at. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can’t support after Q10, unfortunately. Sorry. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ...A long-time editor with a good amount of edits who doesn't seem like they will break stuff ... who is also gutsy enough to self-nominate. Okay by me. Steel1943  (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ...Going neutral... Steel1943  (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support based on the candidate's track record. On the content side, creating two thousand articles is nothing to be sneezed at. On the temperament side, I am impressed by the candidate's ability to remain calm under fire. A few years ago, there was an episode where, within the span of a month, about twenty of Chonkian's articles were sent to AfD by a nominator who didn't even bother to post notices on Chongkian's talk page. Many editors would have been overwhelmed by the torrent of AfDs or exchanged sharp words with the nominator, but not Chongkian. He never lashed out and worked tirelessly to improve his articles. About two-thirds of them survived AfD. I value admins who are able to handle criticism well. Chongkian is a workhorse who, despite coming under pressure, keeps calm and carries on creating content. I am happy to support his candidacy. Altamel (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Candidate expresses an interest in deletion in Q1, Q4, and opening statement.  (Also most everything else an admin can do in Q1, but I'm going to examine deletion narrowly, since that's what I'm mostly involved in.)  So I've looked through their deleted edits and recent AFD activity (2018 and later; those are: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13).  I'm afraid there's no evidence there that they're qualified to be closing AFDs or pushing a delete button: there's zero CSD activity, and few of their AFD comments are policy-based.  Some highlights are the plainly wrong call to speedy delete in 2 contra WP:CSD, the copy-pasted speedy keeps in 7 8 9 contra WP:SK, and the blatant WP:OSE vote in 13.I'm also somewhat appalled at Q7.  WP:Notability isn't policy, and you don't have to agree with it; but as an administrator that's going to be deleting articles, you're expected to understand it, and - crucially - you need to be able to explain it to new users and how it differs from its non-Wikipedia meaning.  You also need to know what public domain is, if not necessarily the specifics of what is and isn't in the public domain.  It's a very, very different concept from "open to the public and written by 3rd party (not self Facebook or blog)" (which is what their answer was as I wrote this; they've gone back and changed it now to something that's just as wrong). —Cryptic 01:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the rather poor answer to Q7.  publicly-listed (can easily found in search engine) and in public-domain (open to the public (not password-protected like some technical publications or engineering standards etc).  Publicly-listed is not a notability requirement (I use print sources all the time in articles I work on), and that is an extremely wrong definition of public domain.  I'm not seeing any knowledge of good understanding of CSD, the speedy delete !vote in the AFD listed by Cryptic is not anywhere close to a proper CSD application.  The AFD record isn't something I find encouraging either, mostly a bunch of copy-paste speedy keep !votes that rather obliquely address notability.  Apparently considers IMDB], a user-generated source, acceptable for a BLP, when WP:BLP invokes the highest standards for BLP sourcing.  The editor stated they'd work in deletion as an admin, but I'm not seeing any indication they're familiar with judging consensus or CSD applicability.  Is autopatrolled, but their article creation log  is almost entirely stubs, with many of them, including this one from earlier this month with rather dodgy sourcing.  There's a difference between content creator and sysop, and there are special skills for each one.  I'm not seeing that this candidate, while they have created many many articles and I thank them for that, quite has the sysop competencies yet. With all due respect, Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even stronger oppose after reading the answer Q11. That made me think "Oh God no", and I personally take Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain very seriously.Hog Farm Bacon 03:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Regretful oppose - I have no question about the candidate's dedication to Wikipedia, but I don't see a need for them to have a mop. To be blunt, I'm not convinced the candidate is sure what they want to use the mop for - their answer to Q1 was literally a list of things administrators are able to do, their answer to Q4 looks more to me like they are responding to the two examples (AfD and CSD) that  gave them than actually responding to the intent of the question as a whole, and the other part of their response suggested an interest in standardization/MOS which is entirely orthogonal to adminship. Alternatively, they do know what they want to use the mop for but are not communicating it effectively, in which case I'd still be concerned with their ability to communicate as an administrator. If they actually do intend to work AfD and CSD, my thoughts align with  - no CSD experience and I'm iffy on their AfD participation. I am also concerned by their answers to...well, pretty much every question above so far, which is Q4 through Q8. In particular, their opinions on edit summaries and the meaning of WP:N are what I would expect from a fairly new editor, not from someone with 175k edits. Finally, no participation in the areas I like to see from admins (CSD, AIV/UAA, RfPP, etc.), but that's not the main thing putting this in the oppose column. I definitely think that adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL, but I still expect admin candidates to have some kind of use for the tools, and I don't see that here. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) The answer to question no. 7 troubles me very much. I expect administrators, especially if they intend to participate in deletion work, to have a very thorough understanding of notability and the many notability guidelines. Zingarese  talk  ·  contribs  02:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose due to Q5.  They don't seem to understand why edit summaries are necessary.  From Help:Edit summary: Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it.  Having half their edits have no edit summaries because it is an inconvenience to them or because they feel the edit itself is self-explanation already is not acceptable.  (EDIT: It does appear that their mainspace edits at least generally have edit summaries.)  Having quite a few bizarre diffs like  (welcoming an editor active for over a decade, and not subst-ing a template they use regularly that requires subst) also gives me concern. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Based on the answer to #1 and #4, the user seems primarily concerned with page deletion, undeletion, protection, and circumventing protection. They have somewhat low (and concerning) AFD activity, little or no CSD work, no AIV reports, no RFPP requests, no patrolling. I expect to see at least some activity in these areas, it doesn't have to be a lot, not only to show the user is involved in editing that would need tools, but that they have demonstrated some sound judgement in requesting other admins to use tools. The answers to questions given so far are concerning. The answer to Lee's #4 mentions AFD and CSD briefly, but then shifts to content standardization and MOS, which is not work that needs tools. The answer to PJvanMill's #7 and #8 shows a concerning level of understanding for WP:N and WP:RS. As for the 3 standard questions... the answer to #1 is a list of admin technical abilities, which I've interpreted to focus on deletion and protection work. The answer to #2 is a list of their Xtool stats and explanation of topics they like, but nothing concrete being offered, such as a GA they're proud of or any particular article they've worked hard on. #3 is extremely concerning in that their approach to dispute resolution appears to be "wait till the other person goes away then revert again.", which coupled with the desire to edit through full protection raised my eyebrow. Their talk page has a lot of minor notices and warnings about things that don't overly matter, except I see some of them repeated several times with no change in behavior. Content work is to be lauded, and their work there is appreciated, but I have concerns with them having tools, especially in regards deletion, as more detailed by Cryptic's oppose. The stated desire to view and restore deleted pages along with the weak understanding of WP:N is also a concern. The answer to #10 was provided after I mulled over most of this oppose. This describes a basic process towards dispute resolution on a topic, and something that sounds akin to an RFC. But leaves me with an additional concern with how they describe giving out piecemeal blocks of anyone who doesn't join a talk page discussion, with no mention of protection options. And while pondering #10, the answer to #11 arrived, which shows a severe misunderstanding about deletions. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose – Promoting at at least 1 GA is a bare minimum for me. --- C & C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 02:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I suggest the candidate withdraw and come back in 6 months or a year, with a nominator to mentor them through the process. RfA is an open note quiz, thus I am dissapointed to see so many clearly wrong answers. I was holding off my vote until my questions were answered, and though I know they were a bit vague, the answers fell far short. #12 shows a misunderstanding of how blocks work, I suggest reading the WP:GAB to see what we expect when unblocking. #13 misses the whole point of WP:INVOLVED, which was also missed in #10 in a major way. The notability answers are very concerning too, which are compounded by their recent creation of a very poor stub article sourced to IMDb. Combined with the lack of experience in admin areas, this is unfortunately an oppose. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Awaiting responses and doing additional checks. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral for now. On the one hand, the candidate is a good content creator. However, they seem to have little experience in the typical admin areas, and didn't express a clear need for the tools in their statement. I hope the candidate clarifies their stance, as the response to Q1 seems more like a statement of what's possible for them to do, rather than what they intend to do. epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral for now, until the candidate starts answering questions and affirm that they want this to go ahead. Best, — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 21:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) (Moved from "Support".) The fact that Q11 had to be asked is bothersome. I mean, is the nominee aware of WP:BIGDELETE? Steel1943  (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

General comments

 * I dont see a specific need for the tools, but I have no issue supporting as long as they dont accidentally misuse the tools. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't vote, but I will point out that the answer to question one is a direct (or nearly direct) copy-paste from Special:ListGroupRights. That doesn't really inspire confidence. If the candidate cannot state in their own words what admin areas they plan to be involved in, I'd say that's a red flag. 2601:187:4581:7F50:DC90:B0C7:1B11:7C81 (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's highly likely in this case that this isn't a fully written out nomination, and this was notes. I suggest we await responses from the user. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon looking again, the Q1 response is not a direct copy-paste from ListGroupRights as defined on this wiki, but it is clearly a copy-paste from ListGroupRights or a similar page from somewhere, given the wording/style. 2601:187:4581:7F50:DC90:B0C7:1B11:7C81 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:MOPRIGHTS -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I chose some points from that (Special:ListGroupRights) to see what are the roles of admin I am interested in doing. Well, that's how I suppose to do my homework before answering that "admin works which I am interested to do" question, isn't it? It's not about copy+paste, but it's about answering to the question given to be properly. Or is there anyting I'm missing here? .. Or maybe let me re-phrase, is there any example of a good "template of answer" to this question? Maybe you can give me an example, and I can rephrase that giving my idea input. Chongkian (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that you are required to disclose if you've edited for pay (you can add it to your nom statement). -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, me myself I have my full time job. I edit Wikipedia on my own personal time. If you see all of my contribution, it is fairly well distributed among many countries (Asian countries especially - of course some countries are more than the other, because that is my particular area of interest) and across many sectors (e.g. engineering, tourism, politics etc). And even (let's say) you see any of my article about politicians, the content that I write is really almost 100% objectively written (name, native name, date of birth, alma mater, infobox, early career, political career etc), it is just simply adding the full information package about someone (or entity). Of course I will add that statement in my nom statement. Chongkian (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This was created today, and transcluded more than twelve hours later by a different user without, so far as I can find, any sort of request or prompting. Piling on at this point, when the answers to the standard questions are plainly still in an early draft state, seems pretty cruel. —Cryptic 21:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to oppose (with a possible later switch to support it things looked better as the RfA continued) as certain aspects of the self-nomination/answers are causing me concern but I've read Cryptic's note and candidate fundamentally seems an excellent Wikipedian and an early oppose might result in a pile-on. While self-nomination is allowed this candidate would have benefited from nomination by experienced RfA supporters in my opinion, which is not always right. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I did read the rules on this RfA before I nominate myself, and self-nomination is allowed. So is there anything I might have missed out? By all means, I can easily (and willing to) follow those extra steps if I need to if I want to do self-nomination. Chongkian (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I see that you transcluded this, could you expound on why you thought it was ready to go? Were you in contact with Chongkian? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ritchie333, is this statement directed to me or to someone else? If it is were for me, why I thought it was ready to do? The answer is because I have filled in all of the given answers. Or is there any point I am still missing before launching this? Thanks. Chongkian (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ritchie explained on his talk page. I reverted as a courtesy until Chongkian is back online and can give their input. — Wug·a·po·des 22:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Deborah Bull

Sections
Added sections and subsections, removed cleanup tag, i feel there is better organization.TheHappiestCritic (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Baroness Bull
May we not know anything at all about this lovely woman's private life? Legnakelly (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Deborah Bull


text:
Talk:Deborah Rush

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Deborah Rush. 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/20090114103418/http://www.playbill.com:80/news/article/124158.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/124158.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Filmography
She also appeared in the film "10" as a kooky dental nurse.

title: Talk:Deborah Rush


text:
1945 Wichita Shockers football team

The 1945 Wichita Shockers football team represented the Municipal University of Wichita in the 1945 college football season. In their second and final year under head coach Melvin J. Binford, the Shockers compiled a 6–2 record during the season. The Shockers participated in their first year in the Missouri Valley Conference and compiled a 1–1 conference record en route to a third-place finish in conference play.

title: 1945 Wichita Shockers football team


text:
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 July 12

12 July 2012
SCV for 2012-07-12 [ Edit]

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

 * Abrasion scrub tester ([ history] · [ last edit]) from http://www.byk.com/en/instruments/products/download.php?doc=69. Article was originally a copy/paste vio, was tagged for CSD, and the creator converted to close paraphrasing of the same source.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 15:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Poompatta ([ history] · [ last edit]) from https://oldmalayalamcinema.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/poombatta-1971-and-the-promise-of-baby-sridevis-brilliant-career-in-cinema/ and see ticket<PHONE_NUMBER>009353. Morgan Kevin J (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Dpmuk (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 * See Talk:Siege of Oxford. The problem with the article Siege of Oxford is that it seems to be a close paraphrase from a book that can only be viewed in snippets online. It is not possible to ask the original editor for input as they retired from Wikiepdia some time ago. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The Kommandant's Girl ([ history] · [ last edit]) from http://www.amazon.com/review/RIT62JN7R9Q64. Copy paste. DpmukBOT (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Theleftorium (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Legal history of Chinese Americans ([ history] · [ last edit]) with no source given. Copy paste. DpmukBOT (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted at Copyright problems/Older consolidated. Theleftorium (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue, either. Flag removed pending identification of a suspected source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Marisla Seamount ([ history] · [ last edit]) from http://inlapaz.com/dive_sites.html . Copy paste. DpmukBOT (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Theleftorium (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * List of female prime ministers ([ history] · [ last edit]) with no source given. Close paraphrase. DpmukBOT (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Dpmuk (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Visual Basic/Introduction

I just made a whole lot of new content for this page. Good luck sifting through it! :-D

Some places to link to or somehow incorporate knowledge from:
 * http://hashvb.earlsoft.co.uk/Main_Page
 * Anything on this list: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=vb6&go=Go
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/API_use_with_VB6
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Variables_and_Types_in_VB6
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Functions_and_Subroutines_in_VB6

A place to chat with the people involved in this project would be nice so we're not stepping on eachothers' toes. I'm new to wikiversity, et al. I just figured out the basic structure of the courses, so I'm trying to work with that. I think some more brainstorming about course plan structure would be a good idea.

= Removed content... =

I just removed the following content from this page. It's useful information, but highly inappropriate to an introductory article. Let's see if we can't find a better place for it. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Object Types and Naming Scheme
These are very important things to remember in order to make your source code more easily intelligible.

File Types
You will use various file types while using VB6. These are some the most common ones.
 * File type: What people call it
 * Prefix: What people prefix the filename with
 * Extension: What file extension is used
 * Description: What its used for most often

Examples of common file names:
 * OddCalc.vbp
 * frmMain.frm
 * frmAbout.frm
 * frmPrintInvoice.frm
 * modMain.bas
 * modSettings.bas
 * modDeclares.bas
 * modWinsock.bas
 * clsWinsock.cls
 * ucCustomButton.ctl
 * ucTreeView.ctl
 * ucWinsock.ctl

Variables
A variable is a word or letter used to reference data used in a program. At the most basic level: All variables used in a program (Even if its interpreted as text) are held on the computer as a sequence of 1s and 0s (Binary) which represent numbers, which may or may not in turn represent letters or any given ASCII character.

In a sane programmer's code the variable names are easy to understand because they clearly state what the variable is used for inside of the variable name.

The information to be conveyed in a variable name is:
 * 1) Variable data type
 * 2) Functional use in program

This is accomplished by coming up with a unique word between about 3 and 10 letters which explains the functional use of the variable as well as a prefix of usually 3 letters which explains the variable data type.

A few examples of this:
 * intResult -- An integer which is the result of an operation
 * strFirstName -- A string which is used to store the first name of a person
 * dtmWorkDayEnd -- A Date variable which is used to store the time of the end of the work day

Computer Data Storage
All data stored on a computer is based upon binary values associated with them somewhere between 0 and 255. This is the range of values possible with an 8 bit binary value (8 ones and zeroes).

A text character's "ASCII value" is the decimal value of the binary value used to represent that character on the computer. In the case of the uppercase letters A, the ASCII value is 65, which is 01000001 in binary. Uppercase Z has an ASCII value of 90, which is 1011010 in binary. The values for uppercase letters A through Z are between the values 65 and 90.

Anybody notice how similar the uppercase and lower case values are in binary and hex? In binary you toggle the 32's place in order to change case, and in hex you add/subtract 2 from the 16's place. Handy.

Associated example to play with: Option Explicit

Private Sub Form_Load Dim strChar As String ' Declares a variable ' Shows an input box and puts the result in a variable called strChar strChar = InputBox("What would you like the ASCII value of?", "HUH!? PUNK!?", "A") ' Shows a message box containing the ASCII value of the previously input letter '  plus a random ASCII uppercase letter MsgBox "The ASCII value of " & strChar & " is " & Asc(strChar) & vbNewLine & _ "And your random, uppercase ASCII character is: " & _ Chr$(RandomNumInRange(65, 90)) ' Unloads the form (Which cleanly ends the program if no other forms are loaded) Unload Me End Sub

Public Function RandomNumInRange(ByVal Low As Long, ByVal High As Long) As Long Randomize ' Randomizes Rnd (Surprisingly good random number generator) ' Generates a random number between "High" and "Low" and returns it   RandomNumInRange = Int((High - Low + 1) * Rnd) + Low End Function

Variable Names
The following are the requirements when naming the variables in Visual Basic:
 * It must be less than 255 characters
 * No spacing is allowed
 * It must not begin with a number
 * Period is not permitted

For the sake of making sure other people can look at your code and know what the hell you were thinking:
 * Suffix your variable name with the appropriate suffix for your variable's data type
 * Make sure the body of your variable name makes it easy to tell what its used for
 * Don't use an ambiguous name like "intUhhhh" or "strX" unless its use is within a very small scope of the program

Control Types
Examples of common object names:
 * txtName
 * txtAddress
 * cboYear
 * cmdOK
 * cmdCancel

Routine Types
' Description: Makes the window caption a random number between 1 and 100 every time the form is clicked
 * Sub: Returns nothing
 * Example:

Option Explicit

Public intRandom As Integer

Private Sub Form_Click Call GetNewRandom Me.Caption = intRandom End Sub

Public Sub GetNewRandom Randomize intRandom = Int(Rnd * 100) + 1 End Sub

' Description: Makes a message box which displays the current military time at form load. Option Explicit
 * Function: Returns some sort of value
 * Example:

Private Sub Form_Load MsgBox "Current military time is: " & GetMilitaryTime End Sub

Public Function GetMilitaryTime As String GetMilitaryTime = Format$(Time, "hh:mm:ss") End Function

Specific to user controls:
 * Let
 * Get
 * Set

title: Talk:Visual Basic/Introduction


text:
An Enemy of Men

An Enemy Of Men is a 1925 American silent melodrama film directed by Frank R. Strayer from an original script by Douglas Bronston. It stars Dorothy Revier, Cullen Landis, and Caesare Gravina, and was released by Columbia Pictures on July 1, 1925.

Plot
As described in a film magazine review, because of her sister's betrayal and subsequent death, Norma Bennett takes a vow to make all men pay. She becomes a night club favorite and is courted by John Hurd, who is the man who ruined her sister. Dr. Phil Ordway is in love with her, but she refuses his offer of marriage. When she discovers the identity of John as her sister's betrayer, she takes a gun and goes to the cabaret to shoot him, but he dies by another's hand. She then agrees and weds Dr. Ordway.

Cast list

 * Dorothy Revier as Norma Bennett
 * Cullen Landis as Dr. Phil Ordway
 * Caesare Gravina as Tony Caruso
 * Charles Clary as John Hurd
 * Leo White as Roberti
 * Barbara Luddy as Janet
 * Virginia Marshall as Baby Janet
 * Margaret Landis as Miss Ordway

Production
While the American Film Institute's database gives an opening date of July 1, 1925, Motion Picture News gives the world premiere date of July 20, at the Strand Theatre in Providence, Rhode Island.

Reception
The Bridgeport Telegram gave the film a lukewarm review, calling Revier and Landis' work "capable", with the rest of the performers being an "able cast". The Shreveport Times called the script "a powerful drama of woman's bitter life". The Chicago Tribune gave the picture a lukewarm review, stating that "there's nothing new or original about the story, which is, if you get down to brass tacks, far from convincing." However, they felt the acting was good, while the direction and photography were good as well.

Preservation and status
A copy of the film is held at EYE Film Institute Netherlands.

title: An Enemy of Men


text:
Talk:Thawathotsamat

[Untitled]
Creating the talk page.Chrispasuk (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thawathotsamat


text:
User:BoneDigger

I created this alias to do edits (and prods and afd's) that I'm nervous about doing under my own name. I will never participate on the same page via both aliases. That would be sock puppetry.

title: User:BoneDigger


text:
sablon

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) sand

Etymology
, from, , from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  sand

Etymology
From, from , from , from , from.

Noun

 * 1) model, pattern, template
 * 2) commonplace, cliché conventional saying
 * 1) commonplace, cliché conventional saying

Etymology
From, from , from , from , from , from.

Noun

 * 1) screen printing
 * 1) screen printing

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) sand

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) sand

title: sablon


text:
User:Wilki1le

Your sources are generally good, but you need to format them consistently with full information.

You have book reviews of Arthur Bourgeois’s book The Yaka and Suku, but you should get the book itself. Will give you much more information. Bourgeois also has other articles on the Suku you should look at in addition to the one you have listed. Look at everything he’s published on the Suku.

In addition, you may want to repeat your search with the terms: Suku and Congo. There are additional good sources out there you are missing.

Barro1r (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

title: User:Wilki1le


text:
Deh Sang

Deh Sang is a village in Mazul Rural District, in the Central District of Nishapur County, Razavi Khorasan Province, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was 18, in 6 families.

title: Deh Sang


text:
Anush Babajanyan

Anush Babajanyan is an Armenian photojournalist and a founder of the women's photography collective, 4Plus. She is best known for her documentation of lives in the conflict zones of the Caucasus.

Biography
Anush Babajanyan studied at the Caucasus Media institute. In 2005, Babajanyan graduated from a programme of photography courses was offered by World Press Photo organised by Ruben Mangasaryan. She graduated with a degree in mass communications from the American University in Bulgaria in 2006.

Career
After her graduation, Babajanyan worked as a contractor for the BBC Monitoring Service in Armenia, following which she became a freelance photojournalist.

From 2008, Babajanyan began to photograph women on the streets of Yerevan who distinguished themselves with their bright and unrestrained clothing. This developed as a project she called Inlandish, a neologism she used in opposition to the word outlandish, in which she explored how the women's inner lives manifested in their exterior world.

In 2009, Babajanyan began a project documenting the survivors of the Gyumri earthquake. Even twenty years after, nearly 4000 families were living in metal self-built shacks called domiks. These had no electricity or water supplies and were so ramshackle that another temblor would shatter them. Her pictures were exhibited in December 2009, in Yerevan.

Babajanyan co-founded the women's photography collective 4Plus in 2013. A joint exhibition, mOther Armenia, with ten photographers was one of the first projects of 4Plus. Inspired by and in opposition to the Mother Armenia statue in Yerevan's Victory Park that symbolised reverence for women, each of the ten collections exposed different issues faced by women in the country. Babajanyan also began a long-term project documenting the migration of Armenian women to Turkey for work.

In 2016, Babajanyan began a project to document the experiences of Syrian Armenians who fled the Syrian Civil War to Yerevan. While the Armenian government acted speedily to give citizenship to the refugees, their economic situation remained precarious, with both jobs and official housing in short supply. Babajanyan's photographs showed the domestic lives of the refugees. In particular, she showed the artefacts of significance that they brought with them to remember their previous lives. She, along with John Stanmeyer and Serra Akcan, started Bridging Stories, a photography training programme for Turks and Armenians to take and share pictures of their daily life on Instagram, in order to promote understanding between their peoples.

In 2017, Babajanyan travelled in Ivory Coast, where she documented the people's belief in the mystical powers of twins. Identically dressed siblings would mill about near mosques, and passers-by would give them money in return for a blessing. A photo series was exhibited in Abidjan. She also appeared in Levison Wood's television programme From Russia to Iran, where she guided him into Nagorno-Karabakh.

title: Anush Babajanyan


text:
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Knowledge can be represented within the machine environment using several different approaches. The most common approach is with propositional calculus or with first order predicate calculus. This approach is common to mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and conventional computer science. Another approach is through Theory-based Semantics, which states that knowledge is dynamically expressed through associative relationships of concepts, ideas and thought patterns that constrain meaning according to the theory that justifies their relationships. Logic-based representations assumes that meaning is represented through language-based propositions that adhere to universal truth-conditions, whereas theory-based semantics take the quantum relativist view, that meaning exists as a condition under which it can be verified and certified as acceptable without regard to universal truth-conditions. In either case, the test of veracity of any knowledge representation is in its capacity to reduce question uncertainty. Those who adhere to the theory-based semantics approach, accept logic-based representations as valid for mechanical, process oriented behaviors, but question the fidelity of this system of thought when reasoning with behaviors common to the human experience such as beliefs, values, and social behavior. From their perspective, axiological, value-based knowledge representations transcend the limitations of logic.

Logic-based Representations
Propositional calculus deals with the truth or falsehood of logical statements (propositions). Predicate calculus deals with statements involving the properties of objects (these properties and relationships are called predicates like verbs are in grammar).

In propositional calculus variables such as p, q and r, are used to represent truth or falsehood. These variables are modified and joined with operators such as and, or, and not. All of these combine two statements into a single statement except for not, which only modifies one statement. There is a standard way to represent these logical operators in symbolic logic. OR is represented with a sans-serif, capital V (from the Latin vel). AND is represented with the same symbol as OR, but upside-down (resembling the A in and). NOT is represented with a tilde (~), but is also written another way. A statement involving several variables can be called a compound statement. A compound statement's value (true or false) is determined from the values of the variable inside it. A statement that is the negation (the not operation) of another has the opposite truth value. If p is true, ~p is false, and vice versa. A statement formed with the and operation is true only if both of the statements joined are true, it is false otherwise. A statement formed with the or operation is true if at least one the statements joined together are true (one or the other, or both), and false if both statements are false.

Reasoning in propositional calculus consists of determining whether statements are true or false in the presence of incomplete information. This can be done using logical equivalences such as the associativity and commutativity of AND and OR, and the double negative law.

First order predicate calculus allows more expressiveness than propositional calculus. Predicate calculus allows properties of arbitrary objects to be described. Predicate calculus includes two quantifiers. The existential quantifier is used to state that an object with a given property exists and can be read as "there exist". The universal quantifier is used to state that all objects have a property and can be read as "for all". The existential quantifier is written as a backwards capital sans-serif E. The universal quantifier is written as an upside-down sans-serif capital A.  The universal quantifier and the existential quanifier are related to each other; if all objects have a property, then no object exists that doesn't have that property. Peano's axioms define numbers using first order predicate calculus, except for the law of induction which requires second order predicate logic, where properties can have properties (e.g. equality being transitive). Peano's axioms say that 1 is a number, every number has a successor (which is also a number), that no number has 1 as a successor (1 is the first number), that no two numbers have the same successor (the number doesn't have forks), and states the law of induction (if 1 has a property, and any number having that property means the next number has it too, then all numbers have that property). First order predicate calculus is used instead of higher order logics in knowledge representation because it is more difficult to do reasoning in higher order logics, and first order logic usually is expressive enough.

Theory-based Semantics
Theory-based semantics as defined by Dr. Richard L. Ballard, describes knowledge representations that are based on the premise that the binding element of human thought is "theory," and that theory constrains the meaning of concepts, ideas and thought patterns according to their associative relationships. For this reason, knowledge stores of theory-based semantic representations do not just represent meaning, they precisely embody the very knowledge they are intended to represent - they KNOW. Ballard's Knowledge Science says that knowledge (Knowledge = Theory + Information), is any input of theory or facts that reduces question uncertainty. From this perspective, theory represents 85% or more of knowledge with information (data, facts of situations and circumstances), representing 15% or less. The built-in, a`priori intelligence of theory also defines concept values and purpose, which in turn, determines each concepts influence on every other concept, idea or thought pattern with which it is associated. Theory-based semantics holds that this state of intelligence is valid whether a concept is held in the mind, or is represented within the machine environment. Once learned by people or machines, theory endures with great tenacity, changing only when new paradigms of thought subsumes or replaces the well-justified theories that we use to understand our world. The endurance of data and facts, however, are quite different. They are in a constant state of flux as situations and circumstances dynamically change one moment to the next. From the standpoint of theory-based semantics, most appearances of change are not new - they are only new to us. The facts may be different, but most often, the theory that defines situations and circumstances remains the same.

title: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning


text:
Talk:ego

Incorrect breve
The text says ĕgŏ; I think that the last o is long. See the Latin page: ego. --<IP_ADDRESS> 16:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Corrected. En.Wiktionary doesn’t use breves for Latin vowel length marking — only macrons; unmarked vowels are presumed short. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ego from Latin and Greek
The Freudian Ego indeed comes directly from Latin but the philosophical term of Ego was first introduced by Zeno of Citium in alter ego and then passed into Latin which has also ego as cognate for "I" but not the abstractive definition before Aelios 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Your dictionary.com reference states: prob. trans. of Gk állos egṓ, héteros egṓ - another - so it's a translation, not a real borrowing. So what you're basically suggesting is that we split the noun sense in three etymologies, the third one being: "From Latin, from Ancient Greek . However, at the lexical level this is not a borrowing (because the words are "identical"), but the sense of Latin word has been overloaded to support the philosophical meaning. Had the Latin word for 'I' been different, the translation itself would have been a calque, but it's the same and this part bothers me. Your remark might be proper, because the psychological New Latin meaning is itself a calque of German Ich. However, I wonder how would your philosophical meaning of ego look like, and would it coincide with the first definition (the self)? It would be good if you could provide references for such ego. (out of the definition of noun phrase alter ego). --Ivan Štambuk 08:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1.A translation can be also a kind of borrowing in the semantic field 2.alter ego seems to predates ego 3.I am only propose the histoy of the word to be included; that means Zeno,Cicero and Freud to be mentioned. Aelios 13:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Calques are not treated as borrowings around here.
 * Once again, can you please specify this philosophical meaning of 'ego' here on the talk page, out of the context of the definition of 'alter ego', and possibly cite it? --Ivan Štambuk 16:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Philosophical or Abstractive Ego is when the simple pronoun takes a wider meaning than simply "I or me"
 * Apart from calques there is an Ego-phrase directly from Greek into english : Ego eimi Aelios 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 * That kind of figurative meaning of first-person personal pronoun is present in almost all languages. It's silly to trace the Latin overload of 'I' in meaning "self, selfness" to Ancient Greek just because some Greek philosopher seems to be the first to lament about it. You'll have to back up your claims with sources, otherwise they qualify as original research and therefore cannot merit inclusion.
 * "ego eimi" is unfortunately not English, it's Greek. --Ivan Štambuk 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

it's more complicated than just self,selfness Plotinus / The Ego becomes for the first time a philosophical term.  and Plotinus borrowed it from the late Stoics page 16 second link (Zeno was the first Stoic and the first who used "Ego-phrase")

ego eimi just like ego sum is used in english phrases untranslated; thus an english phrase even if borrowing

More terms: egomaniac,egopathy,egocentric Aelios 09:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I suggest than that you formulate this philosophical definition, outside the scope of psychology and the usual meaning of "self", and add it to the article. --Ivan Štambuk 10:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Well that seems to suits in wikipedia Ego than wiktionary
 * I only wanted to show that just like in Gen- some are from Latin (genitive) and some of Greek (genetic)
 * At least a phrase added which is cognate with Greek ego in the etymology section in order to cover the possibility that some ego- came in English through Greek.Aelios 11:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:ego


text:
Zimbabwean cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18

The Zimbabwe cricket team toured South Africa in December 2017 to play a four-day Test match as a day/night fixture which started on Boxing Day. Zimbabwe last played a Test match in South Africa in March 2005. Ahead of the Test match, there was also a three-day day/night match between Zimbabwe and a Cricket South Africa Invitation XI. The Test match finished inside two days, with South Africa winning by an innings and 120 runs.

Despite being a four-day match, Cricket South Africa sought approval from the International Cricket Council (ICC) to grant the fixture Test match status. The ICC approved the request for Test status in October 2017 at their board meeting in Auckland. The trial of the four-day Test format by the ICC will run until the 2019 Cricket World Cup. Per the ICC's playing conditions, a minimum of 98 overs are to be bowled each day, with the follow-on set at a lead of 150 runs, instead of 200 runs in a five-day game. The last time a four-day Test match was played was in 1973, between New Zealand and Pakistan.

Summary
South African cricketers Faf du Plessis and Dean Elgar expressed their concerns about a four-day Test match. Captain du Plessis said that "I believe the great Test matches have gone to the last hour of the last day on day five" and opening batsman Elgar said "I don't think you should tinker with something that's not broken". Zimbabwe's captain Graeme Cremer was more positive saying "everyone is excited to be part of the historical Test match".

A day before the Test match, Faf du Plessis picked up a viral infection, putting him in doubt for the match. On the morning of the Test, he was ruled out of the fixture, with AB de Villiers replacing him as captain. De Villiers also kept wicket during the match, as South Africa's wicket-keeper Quinton de Kock suffered a hamstring injury while batting on day one.

Following their victory in the Test, AB de Villiers said that "the bowlers were exceptional on a very spicy wicket but we still needed to do the basics well". Graeme Cremer said "we knew it was going to be tough, but maybe not this tough" before criticising Zimbabwe's first-class cricket, saying that the standards are nowhere near those of South Africa and Australia. Zimbabwe's coach Heath Streak also criticised the lack of Test cricket played by Zimbabwe saying that they need to play more than three or four matches a year.

The Test match became the second-shortest completed match, in terms of balls bowled, in the last fifty years, with 907 deliveries needed to finish the game. The previous shortest Test in the last fifty years, by balls bowled, was between Pakistan and Australia in October 2002, which was completed in 893 deliveries. The only Test played in South Africa to be completed in fewer deliveries was played in Cape Town in 1899, when England won the match in 796 balls. The last occurrence of a Test match being won in two days also featured South Africa and Zimbabwe, when South Africa won by an innings and 21 runs in Cape Town in March 2005. South Africa took all 20 wickets with 436 deliveries, the fewest balls bowled by them to do this in a Test. Their previous record was 440 deliveries against India in 1996, also a Boxing Day Test match.