text stringlengths 0 473k |
|---|
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_ref-museum-orlando-lostparks_89-1] | [TOKENS: 3908] |
Contents Guinness World Records Page version status This is an accepted version of this page Guinness World Records, known from its inception in 1955 until 1999 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous United States editions as The Guinness Book of World Records, is a British reference book published annually, listing world records both of human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. Sir Hugh Beaver created the concept in order to settle arguments debated in pubs, and twin brothers Norris and Ross McWhirter co-founded the book in London in late August 1955. The first edition topped the bestseller list in the United Kingdom by Christmas 1955. The following year the book was launched internationally, and as of the 2026 edition, it is now in its 71st year of publication, published in 100 countries and 40 languages, and maintains over 53,000 records in its database. The international franchise has extended beyond print to include television series and museums. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international source for cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organization employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. Following a series of owners, the franchise has been owned by the Jim Pattison Group since 2008, with its headquarters moved to South Quay Plaza, Canary Wharf, London, in 2017. Since 2008, Guinness World Records has orientated its business model away from selling books, and towards creating new world records as publicity exercises for individuals and organizations, which has attracted criticism. History On 10 November 1951, Sir Hugh Beaver, then the managing director of the Guinness Breweries, went on a shooting party in the North Slob, by the River Slaney in County Wexford, Ireland. After missing a shot at a golden plover, he became involved in an argument over whether the golden plover or the red grouse was the fastest game bird in Europe (the plover is faster, but neither is the fastest game bird in Europe). That evening at Castlebridge House, he realized that it was impossible to confirm in reference books whether or not the golden plover was Europe's fastest game bird. Beaver knew that there must have been numerous other questions debated nightly among the public, but there was no book in the world with which to settle arguments about records. He realized then that a book supplying the answers to this sort of question might prove successful. Beaver's idea became a reality when Guinness employee Christopher Chataway recommended university friends Norris and Ross McWhirter, who had been running a fact-finding agency in London. The twin brothers were commissioned in August 1954 to compile what became The Guinness Book of (Superlatives and now) Records.[clarification needed] A thousand copies were distributed for free to pubs across Britain and Ireland as a promotional asset for the Guinness brand, and they became immensely popular with customers. After the founding of The Guinness Book of Records office at the top of Ludgate House, 107 Fleet Street, London, the first 198-page edition was bound on 27 August 1955 and went to the top of the British bestseller list by Christmas. The following year, it was introduced into the United States by New York publisher David Boehm and sold 70,000 copies. Since then, Guinness World Records has sold more than 150 million copies in 100 countries and 40 languages. Due to the book's surprise success, many further editions were printed, eventually settling into a pattern of one revision a year, published in September/October, in time for Christmas. The McWhirters continued to compile it for many years. Both brothers had an encyclopedic memory; on the British children's television series Record Breakers (based upon the book), which was broadcast on the BBC from 1972 to 2001, they would take questions posed by children in the audience on various world records and were able to give the correct answer. Ross McWhirter was assassinated by two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1975, in response to offering a £50,000 reward for information that would lead to the capture of members of the organization. Following Ross's assassination, the feature on the show where questions about records posed by children were answered was called Norris on the Spot. Norris carried on as the book's sole editor. Guinness Superlatives, later Guinness World Records Limited, was incorporated in London in 1954 to publish the first book. Sterling Publishing owned the rights to the Guinness book in the US for decades until it was repurchased by Guinness in 1989 after an 18-month long lawsuit. The group was owned by Guinness PLC and subsequently Diageo until 2001, when it was purchased by Gullane Entertainment for £45.5 million ($65 million). Gullane was itself purchased by HIT Entertainment in 2002. In 2006, Apax Partners purchased HIT and subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group, the parent company of Ripley Entertainment, which is licensed to operate Guinness World Records' Attractions. With offices in New York City and Tokyo, Guinness World Records' global headquarters remain in South Quay Plaza in Canary Wharf, London, while its museum attractions are based at Ripley headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Recent editions have focused on record feats by individuals. Competitions range from obvious ones such as Olympic weightlifting to the longest egg tossing distances, or for the longest time spent playing Grand Theft Auto IV or the largest number of hot dogs consumed in three minutes. Besides records about competitions, it contains such facts such as the heaviest tumor, the most poisonous fungus, the longest-running soap opera and the most valuable life-insurance policy, among others. Many records also relate to the youngest people to have achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world, currently held by Maurizio Giuliano. Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year. The latest edition is the 72nd, published in August 2025. The retirement of Norris McWhirter from his consulting role in 1995 and the subsequent decision by Diageo Plc to sell The Guinness Book of Records brand have shifted the focus of the books from text-oriented to illustrated reference. A selection of records are curated for the book from the full archive but all existing Guinness World Records titles can be accessed by creating a login on the company's website. Applications made by individuals for existing record categories are free of charge. There is an administration fee of £5 (or $5) to propose a new record title. A number of spin-off books and television series have also been produced. Guinness World Records bestowed the record of "Person with the most records" on Ashrita Furman of Queens, New York, in April 2009; at that time, he held 100 records. In 2005, Guinness designated 9 November as International Guinness World Records Day to encourage breaking of world records. In 2006, an estimated 100,000 people participated in over 10 countries. Guinness reported 2,244 new records in 12 months, which was a 173% increase over the previous year. In February 2008, NBC aired The Top 100 Guinness World Records of All Time and Guinness World Records made the complete list available on their website. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. Over its history, numerous world record categories have been discontinued. This list may include that the record poses a threat to health or the environment. Defining records For many records, Guinness World Records is the effective authority on the exact requirements for them and with whom records reside, the company providing adjudicators to events to determine the veracity of record attempts. The list of records which the Guinness World Records covers is not fixed, records may be added and also removed for various reasons. The public is invited to submit applications for records, which can be either the bettering of existing records or substantial achievements which could constitute a new record. The company also provides corporate services for companies to "harness the power of record-breaking to deliver tangible success for their businesses." Guinness World Records states several types of records it will not accept for ethical reasons, such as those related to the killing or harming of animals. In the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records, Colombian serial killer Pedro López was listed as the "most prolific serial killer", having murdered at least 110 people (with Lopez himself claiming he murdered over 300 people) in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in the late 1960s to 1980s. This was later removed after complaints that it made a competition out of murder, however the record was reinstated in the 2026 edition. Several world records that were once included in the book have been removed for ethical reasons, including concerns for the well-being of potential record breakers. For example, following publication of the "heaviest pet" record, many owners overfed their pets beyond the bounds of what was healthy, and therefore such entries were removed. The Guinness Book also dropped records within their "eating and drinking records" section of Human Achievements in 1991 over concerns that potential competitors could harm themselves and expose the publisher to potential litigation. These changes included the removal of all spirit, wine and beer drinking records, along with other unusual records for consuming such unlikely things as bicycles and trees. Other records, such as sword swallowing and rally driving (on public roads), were closed from further entry as the current holders had performed beyond what are considered safe human tolerance levels. There have been instances of closed categories being reopened. For example, the sword swallowing category was listed as closed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records, but has since been reopened with Johnny Strange breaking a sword swallowing record on Guinness World Records Live. Similarly, the speed beer drinking records which were dropped from the book in 1991, reappeared 17 years later in the 2008 edition, but were moved from the "Human Achievements" section of the older book to the "Modern Society" section of the newer edition. As of 2011[update], it is required in the guidelines of all "large food" type records that the item be fully edible, and distributed to the public for consumption, to prevent food wastage. Chain letters are also not allowed: "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail." After Roger Guy English set the record for sleeplessness in 1974, the category was discontinued for being too dangerous. At the request of the U.S. Mint, in 1984, the book stopped accepting claims of large hoardings of pennies or other currency. Environmentally unfriendly records (such as the releasing of sky lanterns and party balloons) are no longer accepted or monitored, in addition to records relating to tobacco or cannabis consumption or preparation. In 2024, Guinness World Records was accused of laundering the reputation of the oppressive governments as it set world records for the UAE's police forces and Egypt's military. By 2024, the UAE achieved 526 records, of which 21 were credited to the Emirates' police force. Matthew Hedges, a British academic who was forced to sign a false confession, asked the records body to take down the Abu Dhabi police department's certificate for "most signatures on a scroll", along with other such titles. Concerns were also raised around the activities around Egypt, which moved from 22 records to 110 within a decade until 2024. James Lynch, co-founder of FairSquare, said the records were legitimizing Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's regime. The Guinness World Records stated that its record titles "cannot be purchased". Guinness World Records has been accused of romanticizing diseases, such as Graves' Disease and Pica. For some potential categories, Guinness World Records has declined to list some records that are too difficult or impossible to determine. For example, its website states: "We do not accept any claims for beauty as it is not objectively measurable." On 10 December 2010, Guinness World Records stopped accepting submissions for the "dreadlock" category after an investigation of its first and only female title holder, Asha Mandela, determining it was impossible to judge this record accurately. Change in business model Traditionally, the company made a large amount of its revenue via book sales to interested readers, especially children. The rise of the Internet began to cut into book sales starting in the 2000s, part of a general decline in the book industry. According to a 2017 story by Planet Money of NPR, Guinness began to realize that a lucrative new revenue source to replace falling book sales was the would-be record-holders themselves. While any person can theoretically send in a record to be verified for free, the approval process is slow. Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on. In particular, corporations and celebrities seeking a publicity stunt to launch a new product or draw attention to themselves began to hire Guinness World Records, paying them for finding a record to break or to create a new category just for them. As such, they have been described as a native advertising company, with no clear distinction between content and advertisement. Television talk show host John Oliver criticized Guinness World Records on the programme Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in August 2019, during an episode about President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Oliver said Guinness took money from authoritarian governments for pointless vanity projects such as Berdimuhamedow's. Oliver asked Guinness to work with Last Week Tonight to adjudicate a record for "Largest cake featuring a picture of someone falling off a horse", but according to Oliver, the offer did not work out after Guinness insisted on a non-disparagement clause. Guinness World Records denied the accusations and stated that they declined Oliver's offer to participate because "it was merely an opportunity to mock one of our record-holders," and that Oliver did not specifically request the record for the largest marble cake. As of 2021, the Guinness World Record for "Largest marble cake" remains with Betty Crocker Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Following Oliver's episode, Guinness World Records' ethics were called into question by human rights groups. Museums In 1976, a Guinness Book of World Records museum opened in the Empire State Building. Speed shooter Bob Munden then went on tour promoting The Guinness Book of World Records by performing his record fast draws with a standard weight single-action revolver from a Western movie-type holster. His fastest time for a draw was 0.02 seconds. Among exhibits were life-size statues of the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, and world's largest earthworm, an X-ray photo of a sword swallower, repeated lightning strike victim Roy Sullivan's hat complete with lightning holes and a pair of gem-studded golf shoes on sale for $6,500. The museum closed in 1995. In more recent years, the Guinness company has permitted the franchising of small museums with displays based on the book, all currently (as of 2010[update]) located in towns popular with tourists: Tokyo, Copenhagen, San Antonio. There were once Guinness World Records museums and exhibitions at the London Trocadero, Bangalore, San Francisco, Myrtle Beach, Orlando, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. The Orlando museum, which closed in 2002, was branded The Guinness Records Experience; the Hollywood, Niagara Falls, Copenhagen, and Gatlinburg museums also previously featured this branding. Retail and merchandise Guinness World Records operates an official online shop, the Guinness World Records Store, which offers items related to record-breaking achievements, including certificates of participation, apparel, and the annual Guinness World Records book. The shop provides record-holders and the general public with access to official Guinness World Records materials. Merchandise is part of the organization's broader engagement efforts beyond its publications and events. Television series Guinness World Records has commissioned various television series documenting world record breaking attempts, including: Rhianna Loren (2025) Specials: Gamer's edition In 2008, Guinness World Records released its gamer's edition, a supplement that keeps records for popular video game high scores, codes and feats in association with Twin Galaxies. The Gamer's Edition used to contain 258 pages, over 1,236 video game related world records and four interviews including one with Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day. Editions were published for the years 2008 through 2020, with the 2009 edition in hardcover. The 2025 edition is the first since 2020, returning after a five-year hiatus. Since 2020, the supplement has had 192 pages. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was a music reference book first published in 1977. It was compiled by BBC Radio 1 DJs Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read with brothers Tim Rice and Jonathan Rice. It was the first in a number of music reference books that were to be published by Guinness Publishing with sister publication The Guinness Book of British Hit Albums coming in 1983. After being sold to Hit Entertainment, the data concerning the Official Chart Company's singles and albums charts were combined under the title British Hit Singles & Albums, with Hit Entertainment publishing the book from 2003 to 2006 (under the Guinness World Records brand). After Guinness World Records was sold to The Jim Pattison Group, it was effectively replaced by a series of books published by Ebury Publishing/Random House with the Virgin Book of British Hit Singles first being published in 2007 and with a Hit Albums book following two years later. Other media and products In 1975, Parker Brothers marketed a board game, The Guinness Game of World Records, based on the book. Players compete by setting and breaking records for activities such as the longest streak of rolling dice before rolling doubles, stacking plastic pieces, and bouncing a ball off alternating sides of a card, as well as answering trivia questions based on the listings in the Guinness Book of World Records. A video game, Guinness World Records: The Videogame, was developed by TT Fusion and released for Nintendo DS, Wii and iOS in November 2008. In 2012, Warner Bros. announced the development of a live-action film version of Guinness World Records with Daniel Chun as scriptwriter. The film, however, never entered production. Dr. Sunil Gupta is listed in the Guinness World Records for participating in the largest multi-location diabetic neuropathy screening conducted on World Diabetes Day, 14 November 2013, during which 1,676 screenings were performed across 27 locations in India. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_ref-museum-orlando-lostparks_89-0] | [TOKENS: 3908] |
Contents Guinness World Records Page version status This is an accepted version of this page Guinness World Records, known from its inception in 1955 until 1999 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous United States editions as The Guinness Book of World Records, is a British reference book published annually, listing world records both of human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. Sir Hugh Beaver created the concept in order to settle arguments debated in pubs, and twin brothers Norris and Ross McWhirter co-founded the book in London in late August 1955. The first edition topped the bestseller list in the United Kingdom by Christmas 1955. The following year the book was launched internationally, and as of the 2026 edition, it is now in its 71st year of publication, published in 100 countries and 40 languages, and maintains over 53,000 records in its database. The international franchise has extended beyond print to include television series and museums. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international source for cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organization employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. Following a series of owners, the franchise has been owned by the Jim Pattison Group since 2008, with its headquarters moved to South Quay Plaza, Canary Wharf, London, in 2017. Since 2008, Guinness World Records has orientated its business model away from selling books, and towards creating new world records as publicity exercises for individuals and organizations, which has attracted criticism. History On 10 November 1951, Sir Hugh Beaver, then the managing director of the Guinness Breweries, went on a shooting party in the North Slob, by the River Slaney in County Wexford, Ireland. After missing a shot at a golden plover, he became involved in an argument over whether the golden plover or the red grouse was the fastest game bird in Europe (the plover is faster, but neither is the fastest game bird in Europe). That evening at Castlebridge House, he realized that it was impossible to confirm in reference books whether or not the golden plover was Europe's fastest game bird. Beaver knew that there must have been numerous other questions debated nightly among the public, but there was no book in the world with which to settle arguments about records. He realized then that a book supplying the answers to this sort of question might prove successful. Beaver's idea became a reality when Guinness employee Christopher Chataway recommended university friends Norris and Ross McWhirter, who had been running a fact-finding agency in London. The twin brothers were commissioned in August 1954 to compile what became The Guinness Book of (Superlatives and now) Records.[clarification needed] A thousand copies were distributed for free to pubs across Britain and Ireland as a promotional asset for the Guinness brand, and they became immensely popular with customers. After the founding of The Guinness Book of Records office at the top of Ludgate House, 107 Fleet Street, London, the first 198-page edition was bound on 27 August 1955 and went to the top of the British bestseller list by Christmas. The following year, it was introduced into the United States by New York publisher David Boehm and sold 70,000 copies. Since then, Guinness World Records has sold more than 150 million copies in 100 countries and 40 languages. Due to the book's surprise success, many further editions were printed, eventually settling into a pattern of one revision a year, published in September/October, in time for Christmas. The McWhirters continued to compile it for many years. Both brothers had an encyclopedic memory; on the British children's television series Record Breakers (based upon the book), which was broadcast on the BBC from 1972 to 2001, they would take questions posed by children in the audience on various world records and were able to give the correct answer. Ross McWhirter was assassinated by two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1975, in response to offering a £50,000 reward for information that would lead to the capture of members of the organization. Following Ross's assassination, the feature on the show where questions about records posed by children were answered was called Norris on the Spot. Norris carried on as the book's sole editor. Guinness Superlatives, later Guinness World Records Limited, was incorporated in London in 1954 to publish the first book. Sterling Publishing owned the rights to the Guinness book in the US for decades until it was repurchased by Guinness in 1989 after an 18-month long lawsuit. The group was owned by Guinness PLC and subsequently Diageo until 2001, when it was purchased by Gullane Entertainment for £45.5 million ($65 million). Gullane was itself purchased by HIT Entertainment in 2002. In 2006, Apax Partners purchased HIT and subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group, the parent company of Ripley Entertainment, which is licensed to operate Guinness World Records' Attractions. With offices in New York City and Tokyo, Guinness World Records' global headquarters remain in South Quay Plaza in Canary Wharf, London, while its museum attractions are based at Ripley headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Recent editions have focused on record feats by individuals. Competitions range from obvious ones such as Olympic weightlifting to the longest egg tossing distances, or for the longest time spent playing Grand Theft Auto IV or the largest number of hot dogs consumed in three minutes. Besides records about competitions, it contains such facts such as the heaviest tumor, the most poisonous fungus, the longest-running soap opera and the most valuable life-insurance policy, among others. Many records also relate to the youngest people to have achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world, currently held by Maurizio Giuliano. Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year. The latest edition is the 72nd, published in August 2025. The retirement of Norris McWhirter from his consulting role in 1995 and the subsequent decision by Diageo Plc to sell The Guinness Book of Records brand have shifted the focus of the books from text-oriented to illustrated reference. A selection of records are curated for the book from the full archive but all existing Guinness World Records titles can be accessed by creating a login on the company's website. Applications made by individuals for existing record categories are free of charge. There is an administration fee of £5 (or $5) to propose a new record title. A number of spin-off books and television series have also been produced. Guinness World Records bestowed the record of "Person with the most records" on Ashrita Furman of Queens, New York, in April 2009; at that time, he held 100 records. In 2005, Guinness designated 9 November as International Guinness World Records Day to encourage breaking of world records. In 2006, an estimated 100,000 people participated in over 10 countries. Guinness reported 2,244 new records in 12 months, which was a 173% increase over the previous year. In February 2008, NBC aired The Top 100 Guinness World Records of All Time and Guinness World Records made the complete list available on their website. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. Over its history, numerous world record categories have been discontinued. This list may include that the record poses a threat to health or the environment. Defining records For many records, Guinness World Records is the effective authority on the exact requirements for them and with whom records reside, the company providing adjudicators to events to determine the veracity of record attempts. The list of records which the Guinness World Records covers is not fixed, records may be added and also removed for various reasons. The public is invited to submit applications for records, which can be either the bettering of existing records or substantial achievements which could constitute a new record. The company also provides corporate services for companies to "harness the power of record-breaking to deliver tangible success for their businesses." Guinness World Records states several types of records it will not accept for ethical reasons, such as those related to the killing or harming of animals. In the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records, Colombian serial killer Pedro López was listed as the "most prolific serial killer", having murdered at least 110 people (with Lopez himself claiming he murdered over 300 people) in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in the late 1960s to 1980s. This was later removed after complaints that it made a competition out of murder, however the record was reinstated in the 2026 edition. Several world records that were once included in the book have been removed for ethical reasons, including concerns for the well-being of potential record breakers. For example, following publication of the "heaviest pet" record, many owners overfed their pets beyond the bounds of what was healthy, and therefore such entries were removed. The Guinness Book also dropped records within their "eating and drinking records" section of Human Achievements in 1991 over concerns that potential competitors could harm themselves and expose the publisher to potential litigation. These changes included the removal of all spirit, wine and beer drinking records, along with other unusual records for consuming such unlikely things as bicycles and trees. Other records, such as sword swallowing and rally driving (on public roads), were closed from further entry as the current holders had performed beyond what are considered safe human tolerance levels. There have been instances of closed categories being reopened. For example, the sword swallowing category was listed as closed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records, but has since been reopened with Johnny Strange breaking a sword swallowing record on Guinness World Records Live. Similarly, the speed beer drinking records which were dropped from the book in 1991, reappeared 17 years later in the 2008 edition, but were moved from the "Human Achievements" section of the older book to the "Modern Society" section of the newer edition. As of 2011[update], it is required in the guidelines of all "large food" type records that the item be fully edible, and distributed to the public for consumption, to prevent food wastage. Chain letters are also not allowed: "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail." After Roger Guy English set the record for sleeplessness in 1974, the category was discontinued for being too dangerous. At the request of the U.S. Mint, in 1984, the book stopped accepting claims of large hoardings of pennies or other currency. Environmentally unfriendly records (such as the releasing of sky lanterns and party balloons) are no longer accepted or monitored, in addition to records relating to tobacco or cannabis consumption or preparation. In 2024, Guinness World Records was accused of laundering the reputation of the oppressive governments as it set world records for the UAE's police forces and Egypt's military. By 2024, the UAE achieved 526 records, of which 21 were credited to the Emirates' police force. Matthew Hedges, a British academic who was forced to sign a false confession, asked the records body to take down the Abu Dhabi police department's certificate for "most signatures on a scroll", along with other such titles. Concerns were also raised around the activities around Egypt, which moved from 22 records to 110 within a decade until 2024. James Lynch, co-founder of FairSquare, said the records were legitimizing Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's regime. The Guinness World Records stated that its record titles "cannot be purchased". Guinness World Records has been accused of romanticizing diseases, such as Graves' Disease and Pica. For some potential categories, Guinness World Records has declined to list some records that are too difficult or impossible to determine. For example, its website states: "We do not accept any claims for beauty as it is not objectively measurable." On 10 December 2010, Guinness World Records stopped accepting submissions for the "dreadlock" category after an investigation of its first and only female title holder, Asha Mandela, determining it was impossible to judge this record accurately. Change in business model Traditionally, the company made a large amount of its revenue via book sales to interested readers, especially children. The rise of the Internet began to cut into book sales starting in the 2000s, part of a general decline in the book industry. According to a 2017 story by Planet Money of NPR, Guinness began to realize that a lucrative new revenue source to replace falling book sales was the would-be record-holders themselves. While any person can theoretically send in a record to be verified for free, the approval process is slow. Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on. In particular, corporations and celebrities seeking a publicity stunt to launch a new product or draw attention to themselves began to hire Guinness World Records, paying them for finding a record to break or to create a new category just for them. As such, they have been described as a native advertising company, with no clear distinction between content and advertisement. Television talk show host John Oliver criticized Guinness World Records on the programme Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in August 2019, during an episode about President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Oliver said Guinness took money from authoritarian governments for pointless vanity projects such as Berdimuhamedow's. Oliver asked Guinness to work with Last Week Tonight to adjudicate a record for "Largest cake featuring a picture of someone falling off a horse", but according to Oliver, the offer did not work out after Guinness insisted on a non-disparagement clause. Guinness World Records denied the accusations and stated that they declined Oliver's offer to participate because "it was merely an opportunity to mock one of our record-holders," and that Oliver did not specifically request the record for the largest marble cake. As of 2021, the Guinness World Record for "Largest marble cake" remains with Betty Crocker Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Following Oliver's episode, Guinness World Records' ethics were called into question by human rights groups. Museums In 1976, a Guinness Book of World Records museum opened in the Empire State Building. Speed shooter Bob Munden then went on tour promoting The Guinness Book of World Records by performing his record fast draws with a standard weight single-action revolver from a Western movie-type holster. His fastest time for a draw was 0.02 seconds. Among exhibits were life-size statues of the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, and world's largest earthworm, an X-ray photo of a sword swallower, repeated lightning strike victim Roy Sullivan's hat complete with lightning holes and a pair of gem-studded golf shoes on sale for $6,500. The museum closed in 1995. In more recent years, the Guinness company has permitted the franchising of small museums with displays based on the book, all currently (as of 2010[update]) located in towns popular with tourists: Tokyo, Copenhagen, San Antonio. There were once Guinness World Records museums and exhibitions at the London Trocadero, Bangalore, San Francisco, Myrtle Beach, Orlando, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. The Orlando museum, which closed in 2002, was branded The Guinness Records Experience; the Hollywood, Niagara Falls, Copenhagen, and Gatlinburg museums also previously featured this branding. Retail and merchandise Guinness World Records operates an official online shop, the Guinness World Records Store, which offers items related to record-breaking achievements, including certificates of participation, apparel, and the annual Guinness World Records book. The shop provides record-holders and the general public with access to official Guinness World Records materials. Merchandise is part of the organization's broader engagement efforts beyond its publications and events. Television series Guinness World Records has commissioned various television series documenting world record breaking attempts, including: Rhianna Loren (2025) Specials: Gamer's edition In 2008, Guinness World Records released its gamer's edition, a supplement that keeps records for popular video game high scores, codes and feats in association with Twin Galaxies. The Gamer's Edition used to contain 258 pages, over 1,236 video game related world records and four interviews including one with Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day. Editions were published for the years 2008 through 2020, with the 2009 edition in hardcover. The 2025 edition is the first since 2020, returning after a five-year hiatus. Since 2020, the supplement has had 192 pages. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was a music reference book first published in 1977. It was compiled by BBC Radio 1 DJs Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read with brothers Tim Rice and Jonathan Rice. It was the first in a number of music reference books that were to be published by Guinness Publishing with sister publication The Guinness Book of British Hit Albums coming in 1983. After being sold to Hit Entertainment, the data concerning the Official Chart Company's singles and albums charts were combined under the title British Hit Singles & Albums, with Hit Entertainment publishing the book from 2003 to 2006 (under the Guinness World Records brand). After Guinness World Records was sold to The Jim Pattison Group, it was effectively replaced by a series of books published by Ebury Publishing/Random House with the Virgin Book of British Hit Singles first being published in 2007 and with a Hit Albums book following two years later. Other media and products In 1975, Parker Brothers marketed a board game, The Guinness Game of World Records, based on the book. Players compete by setting and breaking records for activities such as the longest streak of rolling dice before rolling doubles, stacking plastic pieces, and bouncing a ball off alternating sides of a card, as well as answering trivia questions based on the listings in the Guinness Book of World Records. A video game, Guinness World Records: The Videogame, was developed by TT Fusion and released for Nintendo DS, Wii and iOS in November 2008. In 2012, Warner Bros. announced the development of a live-action film version of Guinness World Records with Daniel Chun as scriptwriter. The film, however, never entered production. Dr. Sunil Gupta is listed in the Guinness World Records for participating in the largest multi-location diabetic neuropathy screening conducted on World Diabetes Day, 14 November 2013, during which 1,676 screenings were performed across 27 locations in India. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_ref-museum-locations-archive_91-0] | [TOKENS: 3908] |
Contents Guinness World Records Page version status This is an accepted version of this page Guinness World Records, known from its inception in 1955 until 1999 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous United States editions as The Guinness Book of World Records, is a British reference book published annually, listing world records both of human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. Sir Hugh Beaver created the concept in order to settle arguments debated in pubs, and twin brothers Norris and Ross McWhirter co-founded the book in London in late August 1955. The first edition topped the bestseller list in the United Kingdom by Christmas 1955. The following year the book was launched internationally, and as of the 2026 edition, it is now in its 71st year of publication, published in 100 countries and 40 languages, and maintains over 53,000 records in its database. The international franchise has extended beyond print to include television series and museums. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international source for cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organization employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. Following a series of owners, the franchise has been owned by the Jim Pattison Group since 2008, with its headquarters moved to South Quay Plaza, Canary Wharf, London, in 2017. Since 2008, Guinness World Records has orientated its business model away from selling books, and towards creating new world records as publicity exercises for individuals and organizations, which has attracted criticism. History On 10 November 1951, Sir Hugh Beaver, then the managing director of the Guinness Breweries, went on a shooting party in the North Slob, by the River Slaney in County Wexford, Ireland. After missing a shot at a golden plover, he became involved in an argument over whether the golden plover or the red grouse was the fastest game bird in Europe (the plover is faster, but neither is the fastest game bird in Europe). That evening at Castlebridge House, he realized that it was impossible to confirm in reference books whether or not the golden plover was Europe's fastest game bird. Beaver knew that there must have been numerous other questions debated nightly among the public, but there was no book in the world with which to settle arguments about records. He realized then that a book supplying the answers to this sort of question might prove successful. Beaver's idea became a reality when Guinness employee Christopher Chataway recommended university friends Norris and Ross McWhirter, who had been running a fact-finding agency in London. The twin brothers were commissioned in August 1954 to compile what became The Guinness Book of (Superlatives and now) Records.[clarification needed] A thousand copies were distributed for free to pubs across Britain and Ireland as a promotional asset for the Guinness brand, and they became immensely popular with customers. After the founding of The Guinness Book of Records office at the top of Ludgate House, 107 Fleet Street, London, the first 198-page edition was bound on 27 August 1955 and went to the top of the British bestseller list by Christmas. The following year, it was introduced into the United States by New York publisher David Boehm and sold 70,000 copies. Since then, Guinness World Records has sold more than 150 million copies in 100 countries and 40 languages. Due to the book's surprise success, many further editions were printed, eventually settling into a pattern of one revision a year, published in September/October, in time for Christmas. The McWhirters continued to compile it for many years. Both brothers had an encyclopedic memory; on the British children's television series Record Breakers (based upon the book), which was broadcast on the BBC from 1972 to 2001, they would take questions posed by children in the audience on various world records and were able to give the correct answer. Ross McWhirter was assassinated by two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1975, in response to offering a £50,000 reward for information that would lead to the capture of members of the organization. Following Ross's assassination, the feature on the show where questions about records posed by children were answered was called Norris on the Spot. Norris carried on as the book's sole editor. Guinness Superlatives, later Guinness World Records Limited, was incorporated in London in 1954 to publish the first book. Sterling Publishing owned the rights to the Guinness book in the US for decades until it was repurchased by Guinness in 1989 after an 18-month long lawsuit. The group was owned by Guinness PLC and subsequently Diageo until 2001, when it was purchased by Gullane Entertainment for £45.5 million ($65 million). Gullane was itself purchased by HIT Entertainment in 2002. In 2006, Apax Partners purchased HIT and subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group, the parent company of Ripley Entertainment, which is licensed to operate Guinness World Records' Attractions. With offices in New York City and Tokyo, Guinness World Records' global headquarters remain in South Quay Plaza in Canary Wharf, London, while its museum attractions are based at Ripley headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Recent editions have focused on record feats by individuals. Competitions range from obvious ones such as Olympic weightlifting to the longest egg tossing distances, or for the longest time spent playing Grand Theft Auto IV or the largest number of hot dogs consumed in three minutes. Besides records about competitions, it contains such facts such as the heaviest tumor, the most poisonous fungus, the longest-running soap opera and the most valuable life-insurance policy, among others. Many records also relate to the youngest people to have achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world, currently held by Maurizio Giuliano. Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year. The latest edition is the 72nd, published in August 2025. The retirement of Norris McWhirter from his consulting role in 1995 and the subsequent decision by Diageo Plc to sell The Guinness Book of Records brand have shifted the focus of the books from text-oriented to illustrated reference. A selection of records are curated for the book from the full archive but all existing Guinness World Records titles can be accessed by creating a login on the company's website. Applications made by individuals for existing record categories are free of charge. There is an administration fee of £5 (or $5) to propose a new record title. A number of spin-off books and television series have also been produced. Guinness World Records bestowed the record of "Person with the most records" on Ashrita Furman of Queens, New York, in April 2009; at that time, he held 100 records. In 2005, Guinness designated 9 November as International Guinness World Records Day to encourage breaking of world records. In 2006, an estimated 100,000 people participated in over 10 countries. Guinness reported 2,244 new records in 12 months, which was a 173% increase over the previous year. In February 2008, NBC aired The Top 100 Guinness World Records of All Time and Guinness World Records made the complete list available on their website. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. Over its history, numerous world record categories have been discontinued. This list may include that the record poses a threat to health or the environment. Defining records For many records, Guinness World Records is the effective authority on the exact requirements for them and with whom records reside, the company providing adjudicators to events to determine the veracity of record attempts. The list of records which the Guinness World Records covers is not fixed, records may be added and also removed for various reasons. The public is invited to submit applications for records, which can be either the bettering of existing records or substantial achievements which could constitute a new record. The company also provides corporate services for companies to "harness the power of record-breaking to deliver tangible success for their businesses." Guinness World Records states several types of records it will not accept for ethical reasons, such as those related to the killing or harming of animals. In the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records, Colombian serial killer Pedro López was listed as the "most prolific serial killer", having murdered at least 110 people (with Lopez himself claiming he murdered over 300 people) in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in the late 1960s to 1980s. This was later removed after complaints that it made a competition out of murder, however the record was reinstated in the 2026 edition. Several world records that were once included in the book have been removed for ethical reasons, including concerns for the well-being of potential record breakers. For example, following publication of the "heaviest pet" record, many owners overfed their pets beyond the bounds of what was healthy, and therefore such entries were removed. The Guinness Book also dropped records within their "eating and drinking records" section of Human Achievements in 1991 over concerns that potential competitors could harm themselves and expose the publisher to potential litigation. These changes included the removal of all spirit, wine and beer drinking records, along with other unusual records for consuming such unlikely things as bicycles and trees. Other records, such as sword swallowing and rally driving (on public roads), were closed from further entry as the current holders had performed beyond what are considered safe human tolerance levels. There have been instances of closed categories being reopened. For example, the sword swallowing category was listed as closed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records, but has since been reopened with Johnny Strange breaking a sword swallowing record on Guinness World Records Live. Similarly, the speed beer drinking records which were dropped from the book in 1991, reappeared 17 years later in the 2008 edition, but were moved from the "Human Achievements" section of the older book to the "Modern Society" section of the newer edition. As of 2011[update], it is required in the guidelines of all "large food" type records that the item be fully edible, and distributed to the public for consumption, to prevent food wastage. Chain letters are also not allowed: "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail." After Roger Guy English set the record for sleeplessness in 1974, the category was discontinued for being too dangerous. At the request of the U.S. Mint, in 1984, the book stopped accepting claims of large hoardings of pennies or other currency. Environmentally unfriendly records (such as the releasing of sky lanterns and party balloons) are no longer accepted or monitored, in addition to records relating to tobacco or cannabis consumption or preparation. In 2024, Guinness World Records was accused of laundering the reputation of the oppressive governments as it set world records for the UAE's police forces and Egypt's military. By 2024, the UAE achieved 526 records, of which 21 were credited to the Emirates' police force. Matthew Hedges, a British academic who was forced to sign a false confession, asked the records body to take down the Abu Dhabi police department's certificate for "most signatures on a scroll", along with other such titles. Concerns were also raised around the activities around Egypt, which moved from 22 records to 110 within a decade until 2024. James Lynch, co-founder of FairSquare, said the records were legitimizing Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's regime. The Guinness World Records stated that its record titles "cannot be purchased". Guinness World Records has been accused of romanticizing diseases, such as Graves' Disease and Pica. For some potential categories, Guinness World Records has declined to list some records that are too difficult or impossible to determine. For example, its website states: "We do not accept any claims for beauty as it is not objectively measurable." On 10 December 2010, Guinness World Records stopped accepting submissions for the "dreadlock" category after an investigation of its first and only female title holder, Asha Mandela, determining it was impossible to judge this record accurately. Change in business model Traditionally, the company made a large amount of its revenue via book sales to interested readers, especially children. The rise of the Internet began to cut into book sales starting in the 2000s, part of a general decline in the book industry. According to a 2017 story by Planet Money of NPR, Guinness began to realize that a lucrative new revenue source to replace falling book sales was the would-be record-holders themselves. While any person can theoretically send in a record to be verified for free, the approval process is slow. Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on. In particular, corporations and celebrities seeking a publicity stunt to launch a new product or draw attention to themselves began to hire Guinness World Records, paying them for finding a record to break or to create a new category just for them. As such, they have been described as a native advertising company, with no clear distinction between content and advertisement. Television talk show host John Oliver criticized Guinness World Records on the programme Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in August 2019, during an episode about President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Oliver said Guinness took money from authoritarian governments for pointless vanity projects such as Berdimuhamedow's. Oliver asked Guinness to work with Last Week Tonight to adjudicate a record for "Largest cake featuring a picture of someone falling off a horse", but according to Oliver, the offer did not work out after Guinness insisted on a non-disparagement clause. Guinness World Records denied the accusations and stated that they declined Oliver's offer to participate because "it was merely an opportunity to mock one of our record-holders," and that Oliver did not specifically request the record for the largest marble cake. As of 2021, the Guinness World Record for "Largest marble cake" remains with Betty Crocker Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Following Oliver's episode, Guinness World Records' ethics were called into question by human rights groups. Museums In 1976, a Guinness Book of World Records museum opened in the Empire State Building. Speed shooter Bob Munden then went on tour promoting The Guinness Book of World Records by performing his record fast draws with a standard weight single-action revolver from a Western movie-type holster. His fastest time for a draw was 0.02 seconds. Among exhibits were life-size statues of the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, and world's largest earthworm, an X-ray photo of a sword swallower, repeated lightning strike victim Roy Sullivan's hat complete with lightning holes and a pair of gem-studded golf shoes on sale for $6,500. The museum closed in 1995. In more recent years, the Guinness company has permitted the franchising of small museums with displays based on the book, all currently (as of 2010[update]) located in towns popular with tourists: Tokyo, Copenhagen, San Antonio. There were once Guinness World Records museums and exhibitions at the London Trocadero, Bangalore, San Francisco, Myrtle Beach, Orlando, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. The Orlando museum, which closed in 2002, was branded The Guinness Records Experience; the Hollywood, Niagara Falls, Copenhagen, and Gatlinburg museums also previously featured this branding. Retail and merchandise Guinness World Records operates an official online shop, the Guinness World Records Store, which offers items related to record-breaking achievements, including certificates of participation, apparel, and the annual Guinness World Records book. The shop provides record-holders and the general public with access to official Guinness World Records materials. Merchandise is part of the organization's broader engagement efforts beyond its publications and events. Television series Guinness World Records has commissioned various television series documenting world record breaking attempts, including: Rhianna Loren (2025) Specials: Gamer's edition In 2008, Guinness World Records released its gamer's edition, a supplement that keeps records for popular video game high scores, codes and feats in association with Twin Galaxies. The Gamer's Edition used to contain 258 pages, over 1,236 video game related world records and four interviews including one with Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day. Editions were published for the years 2008 through 2020, with the 2009 edition in hardcover. The 2025 edition is the first since 2020, returning after a five-year hiatus. Since 2020, the supplement has had 192 pages. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was a music reference book first published in 1977. It was compiled by BBC Radio 1 DJs Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read with brothers Tim Rice and Jonathan Rice. It was the first in a number of music reference books that were to be published by Guinness Publishing with sister publication The Guinness Book of British Hit Albums coming in 1983. After being sold to Hit Entertainment, the data concerning the Official Chart Company's singles and albums charts were combined under the title British Hit Singles & Albums, with Hit Entertainment publishing the book from 2003 to 2006 (under the Guinness World Records brand). After Guinness World Records was sold to The Jim Pattison Group, it was effectively replaced by a series of books published by Ebury Publishing/Random House with the Virgin Book of British Hit Singles first being published in 2007 and with a Hit Albums book following two years later. Other media and products In 1975, Parker Brothers marketed a board game, The Guinness Game of World Records, based on the book. Players compete by setting and breaking records for activities such as the longest streak of rolling dice before rolling doubles, stacking plastic pieces, and bouncing a ball off alternating sides of a card, as well as answering trivia questions based on the listings in the Guinness Book of World Records. A video game, Guinness World Records: The Videogame, was developed by TT Fusion and released for Nintendo DS, Wii and iOS in November 2008. In 2012, Warner Bros. announced the development of a live-action film version of Guinness World Records with Daniel Chun as scriptwriter. The film, however, never entered production. Dr. Sunil Gupta is listed in the Guinness World Records for participating in the largest multi-location diabetic neuropathy screening conducted on World Diabetes Day, 14 November 2013, during which 1,676 screenings were performed across 27 locations in India. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#cite_ref-5] | [TOKENS: 5211] |
Contents Wikipedia:Protection policy In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when there is disruption that cannot be prevented through other means, such as blocks. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection, and when each protection should and should not be applied. Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time. The various levels of protection can be applied to the page edit, page move, page create, and file upload actions. Even when a page is protected from editing, the source wikitext of the page can still be viewed and copied by anyone. A protected page is marked at its top right by a padlock icon, usually added by the {{pp-protected}} template. The {{pp-protected}} template is automatically added by the {{documentation}} template used in template space. Overview of page protection Any protection applied to a page involves setting a type, level, and duration as follows: Preemptive protection Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible. Exceptions include the Main Page, along with its templates and images, which are indefinitely fully protected. Additionally, Today's Featured Article is typically semi-protected from the day before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page until the day after it leaves. Finally, pages subject to Arbitration Committee remedies that permit or require preemptive protection may be protected accordingly. Requesting protection Page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and then (if necessary) requested by adding an edit request. From there, if the requested changes are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them, the changes can be carried out by a user who can edit the page. Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary. Users can request unprotection or a reduction in protection level by asking the administrator who applied the protection on the administrator's user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer an administrator, or does not respond, then a request for reduction in protection level may be filed. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first. A log of protections and unprotections is available at Special:Log/protect. Summary table Protection types Edit protection restricts editing of a page, often due to vandalism or disputes, ensuring only experienced users can make changes (see above for more information). Administrators can prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. There are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection. A list of protected titles can be found at Special:ProtectedTitles (see also historical lists). Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, which allows for more flexible protection with support for substrings and regular expressions. Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as "salted". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. Create protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly recreated in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, or full). Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot create pages in mainspace; thus, semi-creation protection should be used only for protection of pages outside of mainspace. While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection can be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable). Move-protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator. Move protection is commonly applied to: Move protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly moved in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (extended-confirmed or full). Non-confirmed editors cannot move pages so semi-move protection has no effect. Fully edit-protected pages are also implicitly move-protected. As with full edit protection, protection because of edit warring should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion, the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started. All files and categories are implicitly move-protected, requiring file movers or administrators to rename files, and page movers or administrators to rename categories. Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator. Upload protection does not protect file pages from editing. It can be applied by an administrator to: Protection levels Pending changes protection allows unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping their edits hidden from unregistered users (who make up the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia articles) until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer or an administrator. An alternative to semi-protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems, while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes is technically implemented as a separate option, with its own duration, and it yields to other edit protection levels in cases of overlap. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an autoconfirmed user, the edit will be immediately visible to Wikipedia readers, unless there are pending edits waiting to be reviewed. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as "pending review". Readers who are not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers. A user who clicks "edit this page" is always, at that point, shown the latest version of the page for editing regardless of whether the user is logged in or not. Pending changes are typically reviewed within several hours. Pending changes can be used to protect articles against: Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, pending changes protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Semi-protection is generally a better option for articles with a high edit rate as well as articles affected by issues difficult for pending changes reviewers to detect, such as non-obvious vandalism, plausible-sounding misinformation, and hard-to-detect copyright violations. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested to any administrator, or at requests for unprotection. The reviewing process is described in detail at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Semi-protected pages may be edited only by registered users who are confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old and with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected, the edit request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: In addition, administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as Wikipedia's biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies). A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time. In exceptional cases, if a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing. Today's featured article is, since 2023, always semi-protected. However, this was historically not the case. Extended confirmed protection, previously known as 30/500 protection, restricts editing to users with the extended confirmed user access level, administrators, and bots. Extended confirmed is automatically granted to users one edit after their account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes (except as general sanction enforcement; see below). When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. (This is distinct from the extended confirmed restriction below.) Community-designated contentious topics grant similar authorizations. Some topic areas are under Arbitration Committee extended confirmed restriction as a general sanction. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required (other enforcement methods are outlined in the policy). As always, review the policy before enforcing it. Community general sanctions, applying a similar extended confirmed restriction, have also been authorized by the community. General sanctions has a list of the active general sanctions that incorporate the extended confirmed restriction. High-risk templates can be extended confirmed–protected at administrator discretion when template protection would be too restrictive and semi-protection would be ineffective to stop widespread disruption. Extended confirmed protection can be applied at the discretion of an administrator when creation-protecting a page. A bot maintains a report of pages recently put under extended confirmed protection. Any protection made as arbitration enforcement will be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. Community-authorized discretionary sanctions must be logged on a page specific to the topic area. A full list of the 14975 pages under extended confirmed protection can be found here. Users can request edits to an extended confirmed–protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules. In cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, this protection level is also valid. This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists—the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower can be applied to high risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly. A full list of the pages under template protection can be found here. Editors may request edits to a template-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit template-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A fully protected page cannot be edited or moved by anyone except administrators. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. While content disputes and edit warring can be addressed with user blocks issued by uninvolved administrators, allowing normal page editing by other editors at the same time, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version. Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked. Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally. If a deleted page is going through deletion review, only administrators are normally capable of viewing the former content of the page. If they feel it would benefit the discussion to allow other users to view the page content, administrators may restore the page, replace the contents with the {{Temporarily undeleted}} template or a similar notice, and fully protect the page to prevent further editing. The previous contents of the page are then accessible to everyone via the page history. Generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg, File:Example.jpg, File:Map.jpg, and File:Sound.wav are fully protected to prevent new versions from being uploaded. Furthermore, File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are salted. The following pages and templates are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time: As with full edit protection, administrators should avoid favoring one version over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. An exception to this rule is when they are protected due to upload vandalism. Pages can be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel as outlined in Foundation:Policy:Office actions § Use of advanced rights by Foundation staff. Such actions override community consensus. Administrators should not edit or unprotect such pages without permission from Wikimedia Foundation staff. Cascading protection fully protects a page, and extends that full protection automatically to any page that is transcluded onto the protected page, whether directly or indirectly. This includes templates, images and other media that are hosted on the English Wikipedia. Files stored on Commons are not protected by any other wiki's cascading protection and, if they are to be protected, must be either temporarily uploaded to the English Wikipedia or explicitly protected at Commons (whether manually or through cascading protection there). When operational, KrinkleBot cascade-protects Commons files transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and Main Page. As the bot's response time varies, media should not be transcluded on the main page (or its constituent templates) until after it has been protected. (This is particularly relevant to Template:In the news, for which upcoming images are not queued at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow.) Cascading protection: The list of cascading-protected pages can be found at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Requests to add or remove cascading protection on a page should be made at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items as an edit request. Operational pages principally used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes configuration pages, data pages, log pages, status pages, and other pages specific to the operation of software. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are automatically protected and should not be protected for this reason. Some pages on Wikipedia are subject to software-enforced protection that administrators cannot change or remove. This is called permanent or indefinite protection, and interface protection in the case of CSS and JavaScript pages. Specifically, this applies to: Protection by namespace Modifications to a protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected. However, protection can be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from. A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests can be considered if a reason is provided. Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user with talk page access removed should be preferred over applying protection to the page. If the user has been blocked and with the ability to edit their user talk page disabled, they should be informed of this in a block notice, subsequent notice, or message, and it should include information and instructions for appealing their block off-wiki, such as through the UTRS tool interface or, as a last recourse, the Arbitration Committee. When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected. Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/Lipsum or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous temporary account users. An exception is that unconfirmed registered users are allowed to create or edit their own user page. Temporary account editors and unconfirmed accounts are also unable to create or edit user pages that do not belong to a currently registered account. This protection is enforced by an edit filter. Users may opt-out of this protection by placing {{unlocked userpage}} anywhere on their own user page. User pages and subpages within their own user space can be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or preemptively protected without good reason or cause. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) can be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism, a user may choose to create a ".css" subpage (e.g., User:Example/monobook.css), copy all the contents of their user page onto the subpage, transclude the subpage by putting {{User:Example/monobook.css}} on their user page, and then ask an administrator to fully protect their user page. Because user space pages that end in ".css" and ".js" are editable only by the user to which that user space belongs and interface administrators, this will protect one's user page from further vandalism. In the event of the confirmed death of an editor, their user page (but not the user talk page) should be fully protected. Highly visible templates – those used on a large number of pages or frequently substituted – are often protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other considerations. Protected templates should normally have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, categories and interwiki links. It also automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the top right corner and categorizes the template as protected. Only manually add {{pp-template}} to protected templates that do not use {{documentation}} (mostly the flag templates). Cascading protection should generally not be applied directly to templates, as it will not protect transclusions inside <includeonly> tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the template's documentation subpage. Instead, consider either of the following: Note: All editnotice templates (except those in userspace) are already protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They can be edited by admins, template editors and page movers only. Sandboxes should not ordinarily be protected since their purpose is to let new users test and experiment with wiki syntax. Most sandboxes are automatically cleaned every 12 hours, although they are frequently overwritten by other testing users. The Wikipedia:Sandbox is cleaned every hour. Those who use sandboxes for malicious purposes, or to violate policies such as no personal attacks, civility, or copyrights, should instead be warned and/or blocked. Available templates The following templates can be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected: On redirect pages, use the {{Redirect category shell}} template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will serve only to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed. Retired protections Superprotect was a level of protection, allowing editing only by Wikimedia Foundation employees who were in the Staff global group. It was implemented on August 10, 2014 and removed on November 5, 2015. It was never used on the English Wikipedia. For several years, the Gadget namespace (which no longer exists) could only be edited by WMF staff, which has sometimes been referred to as superprotection even though it is unrelated to the above use. Cascading semi-protection was formerly possible, but it was disabled in 2007 after users noticed that non-administrators could fully protect any page by transcluding it onto the page to which cascading semi-protection had been applied by an administrator. Originally, two levels of pending changes protection existed, where level 2 required edits by all users who were not pending changes reviewers to be reviewed. Following a community discussion, level 2 was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017. Since that change, "pending changes level 1" is generally referred to as just "pending changes". See also Notes |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_ref-museum-locations-archive_91-1] | [TOKENS: 3908] |
Contents Guinness World Records Page version status This is an accepted version of this page Guinness World Records, known from its inception in 1955 until 1999 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous United States editions as The Guinness Book of World Records, is a British reference book published annually, listing world records both of human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. Sir Hugh Beaver created the concept in order to settle arguments debated in pubs, and twin brothers Norris and Ross McWhirter co-founded the book in London in late August 1955. The first edition topped the bestseller list in the United Kingdom by Christmas 1955. The following year the book was launched internationally, and as of the 2026 edition, it is now in its 71st year of publication, published in 100 countries and 40 languages, and maintains over 53,000 records in its database. The international franchise has extended beyond print to include television series and museums. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international source for cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organization employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. Following a series of owners, the franchise has been owned by the Jim Pattison Group since 2008, with its headquarters moved to South Quay Plaza, Canary Wharf, London, in 2017. Since 2008, Guinness World Records has orientated its business model away from selling books, and towards creating new world records as publicity exercises for individuals and organizations, which has attracted criticism. History On 10 November 1951, Sir Hugh Beaver, then the managing director of the Guinness Breweries, went on a shooting party in the North Slob, by the River Slaney in County Wexford, Ireland. After missing a shot at a golden plover, he became involved in an argument over whether the golden plover or the red grouse was the fastest game bird in Europe (the plover is faster, but neither is the fastest game bird in Europe). That evening at Castlebridge House, he realized that it was impossible to confirm in reference books whether or not the golden plover was Europe's fastest game bird. Beaver knew that there must have been numerous other questions debated nightly among the public, but there was no book in the world with which to settle arguments about records. He realized then that a book supplying the answers to this sort of question might prove successful. Beaver's idea became a reality when Guinness employee Christopher Chataway recommended university friends Norris and Ross McWhirter, who had been running a fact-finding agency in London. The twin brothers were commissioned in August 1954 to compile what became The Guinness Book of (Superlatives and now) Records.[clarification needed] A thousand copies were distributed for free to pubs across Britain and Ireland as a promotional asset for the Guinness brand, and they became immensely popular with customers. After the founding of The Guinness Book of Records office at the top of Ludgate House, 107 Fleet Street, London, the first 198-page edition was bound on 27 August 1955 and went to the top of the British bestseller list by Christmas. The following year, it was introduced into the United States by New York publisher David Boehm and sold 70,000 copies. Since then, Guinness World Records has sold more than 150 million copies in 100 countries and 40 languages. Due to the book's surprise success, many further editions were printed, eventually settling into a pattern of one revision a year, published in September/October, in time for Christmas. The McWhirters continued to compile it for many years. Both brothers had an encyclopedic memory; on the British children's television series Record Breakers (based upon the book), which was broadcast on the BBC from 1972 to 2001, they would take questions posed by children in the audience on various world records and were able to give the correct answer. Ross McWhirter was assassinated by two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1975, in response to offering a £50,000 reward for information that would lead to the capture of members of the organization. Following Ross's assassination, the feature on the show where questions about records posed by children were answered was called Norris on the Spot. Norris carried on as the book's sole editor. Guinness Superlatives, later Guinness World Records Limited, was incorporated in London in 1954 to publish the first book. Sterling Publishing owned the rights to the Guinness book in the US for decades until it was repurchased by Guinness in 1989 after an 18-month long lawsuit. The group was owned by Guinness PLC and subsequently Diageo until 2001, when it was purchased by Gullane Entertainment for £45.5 million ($65 million). Gullane was itself purchased by HIT Entertainment in 2002. In 2006, Apax Partners purchased HIT and subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group, the parent company of Ripley Entertainment, which is licensed to operate Guinness World Records' Attractions. With offices in New York City and Tokyo, Guinness World Records' global headquarters remain in South Quay Plaza in Canary Wharf, London, while its museum attractions are based at Ripley headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Recent editions have focused on record feats by individuals. Competitions range from obvious ones such as Olympic weightlifting to the longest egg tossing distances, or for the longest time spent playing Grand Theft Auto IV or the largest number of hot dogs consumed in three minutes. Besides records about competitions, it contains such facts such as the heaviest tumor, the most poisonous fungus, the longest-running soap opera and the most valuable life-insurance policy, among others. Many records also relate to the youngest people to have achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world, currently held by Maurizio Giuliano. Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year. The latest edition is the 72nd, published in August 2025. The retirement of Norris McWhirter from his consulting role in 1995 and the subsequent decision by Diageo Plc to sell The Guinness Book of Records brand have shifted the focus of the books from text-oriented to illustrated reference. A selection of records are curated for the book from the full archive but all existing Guinness World Records titles can be accessed by creating a login on the company's website. Applications made by individuals for existing record categories are free of charge. There is an administration fee of £5 (or $5) to propose a new record title. A number of spin-off books and television series have also been produced. Guinness World Records bestowed the record of "Person with the most records" on Ashrita Furman of Queens, New York, in April 2009; at that time, he held 100 records. In 2005, Guinness designated 9 November as International Guinness World Records Day to encourage breaking of world records. In 2006, an estimated 100,000 people participated in over 10 countries. Guinness reported 2,244 new records in 12 months, which was a 173% increase over the previous year. In February 2008, NBC aired The Top 100 Guinness World Records of All Time and Guinness World Records made the complete list available on their website. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. Over its history, numerous world record categories have been discontinued. This list may include that the record poses a threat to health or the environment. Defining records For many records, Guinness World Records is the effective authority on the exact requirements for them and with whom records reside, the company providing adjudicators to events to determine the veracity of record attempts. The list of records which the Guinness World Records covers is not fixed, records may be added and also removed for various reasons. The public is invited to submit applications for records, which can be either the bettering of existing records or substantial achievements which could constitute a new record. The company also provides corporate services for companies to "harness the power of record-breaking to deliver tangible success for their businesses." Guinness World Records states several types of records it will not accept for ethical reasons, such as those related to the killing or harming of animals. In the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records, Colombian serial killer Pedro López was listed as the "most prolific serial killer", having murdered at least 110 people (with Lopez himself claiming he murdered over 300 people) in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in the late 1960s to 1980s. This was later removed after complaints that it made a competition out of murder, however the record was reinstated in the 2026 edition. Several world records that were once included in the book have been removed for ethical reasons, including concerns for the well-being of potential record breakers. For example, following publication of the "heaviest pet" record, many owners overfed their pets beyond the bounds of what was healthy, and therefore such entries were removed. The Guinness Book also dropped records within their "eating and drinking records" section of Human Achievements in 1991 over concerns that potential competitors could harm themselves and expose the publisher to potential litigation. These changes included the removal of all spirit, wine and beer drinking records, along with other unusual records for consuming such unlikely things as bicycles and trees. Other records, such as sword swallowing and rally driving (on public roads), were closed from further entry as the current holders had performed beyond what are considered safe human tolerance levels. There have been instances of closed categories being reopened. For example, the sword swallowing category was listed as closed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records, but has since been reopened with Johnny Strange breaking a sword swallowing record on Guinness World Records Live. Similarly, the speed beer drinking records which were dropped from the book in 1991, reappeared 17 years later in the 2008 edition, but were moved from the "Human Achievements" section of the older book to the "Modern Society" section of the newer edition. As of 2011[update], it is required in the guidelines of all "large food" type records that the item be fully edible, and distributed to the public for consumption, to prevent food wastage. Chain letters are also not allowed: "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail." After Roger Guy English set the record for sleeplessness in 1974, the category was discontinued for being too dangerous. At the request of the U.S. Mint, in 1984, the book stopped accepting claims of large hoardings of pennies or other currency. Environmentally unfriendly records (such as the releasing of sky lanterns and party balloons) are no longer accepted or monitored, in addition to records relating to tobacco or cannabis consumption or preparation. In 2024, Guinness World Records was accused of laundering the reputation of the oppressive governments as it set world records for the UAE's police forces and Egypt's military. By 2024, the UAE achieved 526 records, of which 21 were credited to the Emirates' police force. Matthew Hedges, a British academic who was forced to sign a false confession, asked the records body to take down the Abu Dhabi police department's certificate for "most signatures on a scroll", along with other such titles. Concerns were also raised around the activities around Egypt, which moved from 22 records to 110 within a decade until 2024. James Lynch, co-founder of FairSquare, said the records were legitimizing Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's regime. The Guinness World Records stated that its record titles "cannot be purchased". Guinness World Records has been accused of romanticizing diseases, such as Graves' Disease and Pica. For some potential categories, Guinness World Records has declined to list some records that are too difficult or impossible to determine. For example, its website states: "We do not accept any claims for beauty as it is not objectively measurable." On 10 December 2010, Guinness World Records stopped accepting submissions for the "dreadlock" category after an investigation of its first and only female title holder, Asha Mandela, determining it was impossible to judge this record accurately. Change in business model Traditionally, the company made a large amount of its revenue via book sales to interested readers, especially children. The rise of the Internet began to cut into book sales starting in the 2000s, part of a general decline in the book industry. According to a 2017 story by Planet Money of NPR, Guinness began to realize that a lucrative new revenue source to replace falling book sales was the would-be record-holders themselves. While any person can theoretically send in a record to be verified for free, the approval process is slow. Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on. In particular, corporations and celebrities seeking a publicity stunt to launch a new product or draw attention to themselves began to hire Guinness World Records, paying them for finding a record to break or to create a new category just for them. As such, they have been described as a native advertising company, with no clear distinction between content and advertisement. Television talk show host John Oliver criticized Guinness World Records on the programme Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in August 2019, during an episode about President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Oliver said Guinness took money from authoritarian governments for pointless vanity projects such as Berdimuhamedow's. Oliver asked Guinness to work with Last Week Tonight to adjudicate a record for "Largest cake featuring a picture of someone falling off a horse", but according to Oliver, the offer did not work out after Guinness insisted on a non-disparagement clause. Guinness World Records denied the accusations and stated that they declined Oliver's offer to participate because "it was merely an opportunity to mock one of our record-holders," and that Oliver did not specifically request the record for the largest marble cake. As of 2021, the Guinness World Record for "Largest marble cake" remains with Betty Crocker Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Following Oliver's episode, Guinness World Records' ethics were called into question by human rights groups. Museums In 1976, a Guinness Book of World Records museum opened in the Empire State Building. Speed shooter Bob Munden then went on tour promoting The Guinness Book of World Records by performing his record fast draws with a standard weight single-action revolver from a Western movie-type holster. His fastest time for a draw was 0.02 seconds. Among exhibits were life-size statues of the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, and world's largest earthworm, an X-ray photo of a sword swallower, repeated lightning strike victim Roy Sullivan's hat complete with lightning holes and a pair of gem-studded golf shoes on sale for $6,500. The museum closed in 1995. In more recent years, the Guinness company has permitted the franchising of small museums with displays based on the book, all currently (as of 2010[update]) located in towns popular with tourists: Tokyo, Copenhagen, San Antonio. There were once Guinness World Records museums and exhibitions at the London Trocadero, Bangalore, San Francisco, Myrtle Beach, Orlando, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. The Orlando museum, which closed in 2002, was branded The Guinness Records Experience; the Hollywood, Niagara Falls, Copenhagen, and Gatlinburg museums also previously featured this branding. Retail and merchandise Guinness World Records operates an official online shop, the Guinness World Records Store, which offers items related to record-breaking achievements, including certificates of participation, apparel, and the annual Guinness World Records book. The shop provides record-holders and the general public with access to official Guinness World Records materials. Merchandise is part of the organization's broader engagement efforts beyond its publications and events. Television series Guinness World Records has commissioned various television series documenting world record breaking attempts, including: Rhianna Loren (2025) Specials: Gamer's edition In 2008, Guinness World Records released its gamer's edition, a supplement that keeps records for popular video game high scores, codes and feats in association with Twin Galaxies. The Gamer's Edition used to contain 258 pages, over 1,236 video game related world records and four interviews including one with Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day. Editions were published for the years 2008 through 2020, with the 2009 edition in hardcover. The 2025 edition is the first since 2020, returning after a five-year hiatus. Since 2020, the supplement has had 192 pages. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was a music reference book first published in 1977. It was compiled by BBC Radio 1 DJs Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read with brothers Tim Rice and Jonathan Rice. It was the first in a number of music reference books that were to be published by Guinness Publishing with sister publication The Guinness Book of British Hit Albums coming in 1983. After being sold to Hit Entertainment, the data concerning the Official Chart Company's singles and albums charts were combined under the title British Hit Singles & Albums, with Hit Entertainment publishing the book from 2003 to 2006 (under the Guinness World Records brand). After Guinness World Records was sold to The Jim Pattison Group, it was effectively replaced by a series of books published by Ebury Publishing/Random House with the Virgin Book of British Hit Singles first being published in 2007 and with a Hit Albums book following two years later. Other media and products In 1975, Parker Brothers marketed a board game, The Guinness Game of World Records, based on the book. Players compete by setting and breaking records for activities such as the longest streak of rolling dice before rolling doubles, stacking plastic pieces, and bouncing a ball off alternating sides of a card, as well as answering trivia questions based on the listings in the Guinness Book of World Records. A video game, Guinness World Records: The Videogame, was developed by TT Fusion and released for Nintendo DS, Wii and iOS in November 2008. In 2012, Warner Bros. announced the development of a live-action film version of Guinness World Records with Daniel Chun as scriptwriter. The film, however, never entered production. Dr. Sunil Gupta is listed in the Guinness World Records for participating in the largest multi-location diabetic neuropathy screening conducted on World Diabetes Day, 14 November 2013, during which 1,676 screenings were performed across 27 locations in India. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Extended_confirmed_protection_policy] | [TOKENS: 5130] |
Contents Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy This was a lengthy RfC and took quite some reading. Thank you for your patience in awaiting a close. First of all, thanks are due to the initiators for getting the discussion underway; it was a discussion that needed to be had at some point and starting with a properly structured RfC gives us the best chance of establishing a consensus and making the best use of the time that the hundreds of participants have invested. I should also thank all the participants, especially those who provide insightful rationales and those who do not yet meet the criteria for 'extend confirmed', who brought a different perspective that would otherwise have been easy to overlook. To business. Let me fist state the obvious. Of the three options presented here, option C is by far and away the most popular. While closing discussions is not merely a matter of counting heads, administrators are not entitled to a supervote and cannot ignore such a large groundswell of opinion. Therefore, I find that there is a consensus for option C: Option C: Allow use to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. This is borne out not just by the number of participants supporting option C (though it is worth noting that almost twice as many people supported option C as supported option A and B combined), but by the detailed rationales that many of the participants left, and it was these—rather than drive-by or "pile-on" votes—to which I paid particular attention. The obvious aside, the job of a discussion closer is to sum up the discussion, to pick out common themes, and to help provide recommendations based on those for further refinement or to bring the issue to a final conclusion. So, first, there was a common feeling—or perhaps more an acknowledgement in some cases—among most participants that there are certain situations in which semi-protection is simply inadequate to protect the encyclopaedia from harm from anybody sufficiently determined, and that full protection is too blunt an instrument, and therefore we (the community, through our elected administrators) need to be able to use the new "extended confirmed protection" in at least some circumstances. I acknowledge that there is a principled minority who would rather this new level of protection did not exist or was not used at all; they have conducted themselves honourably, but as I understand it such discussion is outwith the scope of this RfC: the deed is done and we are here to decide under what circumstances admins should be using the new protection level. Despite the overwhelming support for option C, many editors expressed reservations about it being used flippantly and tempered their comments with caveats like "extremely rare", "sparingly", "truly necessary", "clear-cut criteria", and "only when all lesser options have been exhausted" (to pick out a few); clearly many feel that the mandatory notification to the administrators' noticeboard (for protections not related to arbitration enforcement) will serve an important purpose in allowing the community to monitor and review its use, and expect that these protections will be rare (possibly excepting an initial wave as admins make use of an option that was not available before). Therefore I believe it is reasonable to say that there is a consensus that extended-confirmed protection should not be used as a first resort, and possibly only where full protection would be necessary were it not for the new protection level. Other recurring themes worth picking out include: I recommend that the Protection Policy be updated with the wording from option C, with guidance related to over- or mis-use, but that this not come fully into force until the mass message to administrators has been sent out. I further recommend that a review of extended-confirmed protection (excluding arbitration enforcement) be done in three months' time to establish whether its use is living up to expectations. —HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Background Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of article protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibit editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion that established expectations for use of the protection within the scope of arbitration enforcement. The protection policy currently states that extended confirmed protection may only be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or as a result of community consensus (per this discussion). However, it also states that Criteria for community use have not been established. This request for comment seeks to establish such a community process for the use of extended confirmed protection. A discussion at the village pump ideas lab produced the following options. Options Regarding the duration of the protection, extended confirmed protection does not differ from semi or other forms of protection in that the duration is proportional to the disruption observed. The one exception is topics authorized by the Arbitration Committee, which are often protected indefinitely. For clarity, please support only one option. Supporters of option C may inherently support option B unless stated otherwise. Katietalk 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Discussion Option C question. Need clarification on "Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee." What does this mean? Will this be a general notification permanently posted at AN, or is this to be posted every time it's used? Wording is open to interpretation. — Maile (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Will probably cast a vote soon... I hope that EC-P can effectively counter the sockpuppet accounts that are used to counter semiprotection i.e. accounts making 10 dummy edits and waiting 4 days to disrupt. (ex. see Special:Contributions/Rack3515, Special:Contributions/Rah2882, possibly (!AGF) Special:Contributions/South Morang. as far as I'm aware this is happening quite a bit) If they start to create sleeper accounts and make 500 dummy edits on their userpage or sandbox, that would be detrimental to this project. EC-P will likely make User:AnomieBOT/EPERTable more active and worthy of monitoring. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] This proposal is being voted on by the people it would affect the least: we are approaching this RfC through an enormous blind spot. Who among us has fewer than 500 edits or can remember what it was like to be a newcomer? This proposal will drive away new users, and here's why: 500 edits seems like an insurmountable barrier to the average good-faith new user or IP (whereas making 10 edits for autoconfirm is quite achievable). To seasoned editors like us, 500 edits is nothing, but keep in mind new users are unsure of how to edit and may have been bitten by unnecessary warning templates on their talk page. The more frequently a newcomer encounters ECP-locked pages, the more they will conclude that Wikipedia does not want them. Now, I see many users have asked that ECP be used only rarely, or when semi-protection fails. But besides the AN notification, nothing in this proposal would actually discourage admins from excessively applying ECP. Although this RfC sells ECP as an alternative to full-protection, ECP could easily become as widespread as semi-protection: with full vs. semi-protection, many active non-admins will argue against full protection. This is not the case when choosing between ECP and semi-protection, since the newcomers ECP restricts are unlikely to speak out against it. Wikipedia is failing to attract as many new editors as in the past; ECP will only exacerbate the decline. TL;DR: ECP will be used excessively and drive away good-faith newcomers. Altamel (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] There is a reason why these all have Arbcom cases. What has come out of the Gamergate is that the admin corps needs a new tool to deal with disruption. Autoconfirmed is easily gamed and protection might be too strong. There's not been an intermediate protection level that lets newbies who have picked up some experience continue while telling complete newbies "this article has seen some issues, we'd like you to test the waters in less conflict prone articles before diving in here" as opposed to Semi protection or protection which basically prevents all newbies from contributing altogether. Blackmane (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Can the multitude of people who support Option C, give a few examples of how the current none-semi-full protection system falls short on some articles? In practice, 500/30 has only been used so far as an "indefinite" (or very long duration) measure. I am concerned that this might become the new default "semi-protection" measure which is often used for an indefinite duration. This has resulted, in some cases, an indef semi-protection on an article for years after the original vandalism/sockpuppetry, simply because nobody switched it off. See the history of Imaginary number for an example. If Option C passes, then may I suggest an explicit time limit on the protection, with indef 500/30 only allowed via ArbCom directives. I see many people saying that it is "a good alternative to full-protection": but full-protection is typically only used for a short duration, till the dispute cools down. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Proposal - Is there any possibility of creating a suitable method for non-extended-confirmed users to suggest changes to a 30/500-protected article? For semi-protected pages, users can place {{Edit semi-protected}} on the article's talk page to request edits, but many 30/500 article talk pages (such as Talk:Gamergate controversy) are also 30/500 protected. Creating Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/30/500-protection edit requests or similar might work, but there would be a lot or disruption on that page, too. –Gladamastalk 01:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Many of the option C supporters have either mentioned 500/30 ECP as intermediate between semi- and full protection. Both of those protections usually have a short duration. Some have even stated using ECP only for a short period to stop disruption. This is not the current experience. ECP is generally applied as a permanent page restriction. Is option C only attractive if there is a commitment to expirations similar to full and semi expirations? --DHeyward (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] The current wording for the time limit clarification is "protection does not differ from semi or other forms of protection." But the semi and full protection are applied very differently, that is, semi protection tends to be longer while full protection is much shorter. I would ask the ECP to be treated exactly as the full protection, and given the cautious tone of most people who voted the option C, I think that it could be the consensus. I should also like the wording to be clearly state when it's appropriate and when is not. For example, if there is a conflict with two sides, one EC the other not, ECP should not be used as a means to silence the non-EC editors. Because that will in effect topic ban the one side of the discussion regardless of the behaviors of the individuals. Currently admins have to assess the situation to see exactly which editors are being disruptive, they don't ban all inexperienced editors indiscriminately. Using this protection, in effect bans every good faith non-EC editor working on that area even if they are not disruptive, while allowing any EC editor who is disruptive but not enough to warrant a ban yet. Darwinian Ape talk 22:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] This may have been answered above but could someone clarify how extended protections are removed? Do they require a consensus at AN or can it be done at the discretion of an administrator? Or is it cannot be removed until it's time limit has expired and what about in the case whereby it has been applied indefinitely? Thanks, Mkdwtalk 15:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Option C would allow 30/500 limitation, "given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective". As written, this is a general finding that semi-protection is not effective. Is that the intended meaning, or does the proponent mean for it to be a proviso, so that if semi-protection has been tried in a particular case, and is found to be ineffective, then 30/500 limitation may be imposed? The present language grants unlimited and arbitrary power to impose 30/500 limitation wherever semi-protection might otherwise apply. Is this what the proponent and supporters want? If not, and the language is intended as a proviso, then it should be rewritten, substituting "if" or "where" for "given that". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I would hope this would be incredibly obvious to all admins, but can we include text in Option C indicating that extended confirmed protection is never appropriate in response to a content dispute where one side is extended confirmed and the other is not? Full protection "works" in response to edit warring because it forces discussion. It would be horribly inappropriate to lock one side out of the page as a substitute for discussion. I'm not talking about abuse from an involved admin. I'm talking about an admin who responds to an RFPP request or AN3 report and may be tempted to try the new lower protection level before full protection without considering the ramifications. This is the main reason I'm not supporting Option C as written. ~ Rob13Talk 03:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Someone above (Dps04) made a good point: Why is it that editors are overwhelmingly approving unrestricted use for this "intermediate" protection level, but yet rejected the also intermediate PC2 for reasons of "bureaucracy and hierarchy"? Even more remarkably, PC2 was weaker, to a certain extent. With PC, changes are simply reviewed and not blocked outright. But ECP is hard protection—editing is completely disallowed for those who have less than 500/30. What is the reason for this conflict? Could it be that people voting here are not concerned because they know that ECP will not affect them due to their long tenures and high edit counts? Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 20:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] (c.f. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#My_bot_can.27t_edit_extended_protected_pages ) If we expand this permission for more general use, it may also be appropriate to bundle the access permission to the existing bot usergroup. Bots may already be manually flagged if their operator qualifies, but do not autopromote. Any thoughts? — xaosflux Talk 21:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] If anybody opposes extended confirmed protection policy, comment here. I mentioned this before, but I think it should be discussed more thoroughly. The environment which the extended confirmed policy creates is highly toxic. It assumes bad faith for all potential editors and locks them out, not for lack of merit, but for an arbitrary edit count and a tenure, in turn the editors who are participating in an ECP area are much more willing to throw the AGF away. In part because of the most likely correct assumption that anyone willing to fulfill the requirements for ECP just to edit an article must have at the very least very passionate opinions about the article subject. I've already given an example for this exact attitude of assuming bad faith. People are already discussing the ineffectiveness of 500/30 at the AE talk page with some editors assuming very bad faith. But you created this environment.Yes the autoconfirmed is easily gamed, and this protection is not, but who do you think you are barring more? Dispassionate new contributors, or the disruptive POV warriors who are willing to work their way to ECP? And by chance someone who is a good faith editor edits after becoming an ECP, he or she will be met with extreme failure to AGF because of this environment you are creating here. I ask all the Wikipedians who care about this experiment to reconsider. I am, humbly yours, Darwinian Ape talk 01:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] This is a good example of the flaw inherent to the 30/500 system: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HistoryWrite&oldid=702887766 It was posted at the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Shabazz. The full conversation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WP:ARBPIA3.23500.2F30_2 BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I hate the generalization that ECP makes. Editors are always going on about how "edit count doesn't matter", then come on RFCs and say another thing entirely. Compared to other editors, I've done rather poorly on the edit count basis, and a third of my edits are in user space. But my point is that if I decided to start inflating my edit count legitimately right now, I might be at 1500 edits at the end of the month. But I don't want to. And the Option C supporters are making the generalization that edit count shows how useful you are on Wikipedia. Yesterday I encountered an editor with more than 3,000 edits, with only around 200 in mainspace. His only interest seemed to be to get people to sign his guestbook to earn the {{User X}} Guestbook Barnstar. (Not to embarrass the editor, he has already been warned and has promised to change.) Is this what we want to encourage new editors to do to inflate their edit counts? Secondly, I think this will just serve to perpetrate a society where the elites only get more elite, and the rest sink into oblivion. When a non-EC editor spots an error on a blue-locked article, who's going to have to edit it? An EC editor. Which is going to inflate his/her edit count even more. In the future, should the community decide they want a 1-year 1000-edit restriction, the EC editor will benefit while the non-EC editor is locked out once again while he could have edited and overcome this restriction. MediaKill13 (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I took a random sample of 20 (out of ~120) users who voted for Option C. The result: most accounts were several years old, about 30-40% claimed to have made several thousand edits, and a few were administrators. I'm afraid that the people who are voting for C are not representative of Wikipedia editors in general, especially since most people would be unlikely to vote on this page, let alone know about its existence. It has been found that, although the majority of edits are performed by experienced users, the majority of bytes are written by inexperienced users. These editors lacking extended confirmation should not be penalized for the small minority of vandals. It is easier to revert vandalism than it is to write new content. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] On July 1, a discussion at ANI was closed with consensus to deploy 30/500 in response to the sockpuppetry of Никита-Родин-2002. Now that it's been "in action" for two weeks, we can start to take a look at whether it appears to be working. In response to the initial use of this protection level, Talk:The Who discography shows various IPs used by Nikita requesting the addition of false information to the article (which is his typical MO). All of them have been declined, preventing active disruption to the article. Further, you can see him asking when the 30/500 protection will expire, which suggests he doesn't feel himself capable of vandalizing the article until it's gone. Having dealt with this sockmaster quite a bit before, I can never recall him making edit requests or requesting information about the expiry time on semi-protected articles; he just used sleeper accounts to get around the semi-protection without comment. Nikita attempted to make a sleeper account to get around extended confirmed protection (Soundblack). His usual preferred method of getting around semi is to make 10 edits to his user page and then jump into vandalizing without warning, so that his sleeper isn't found before he can get to the semi-protected articles. Here, he made 115 edits to his userpage (which have now been deleted), apparently got bored, and made a single vandalizing edit to an unprotected page () which got him blocked. No similar account has been found since then. I've been monitoring new user pages to check for any that have an unusual number of edits, and nothing has popped up. Multiple CU checks have been run on Nikita since 30/500 was deployed. None of them have uncovered accounts that appear to be successfully making their way toward extended confirmed status. All of this seems to indicate that 30/500 is capable of working against sockpuppetry. Since this is the first time (to my knowledge) the community has authorized 30/500 outside of arbitration enforcement, this might be a useful case study to inform the positions of editors on how we should use 30/500 going forward. ~ Rob13Talk 18:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] May I also add that this "per community consensus" case study ECP's duration is set to indefinite, much like any other ECP'ed article we have.(which we all know likely to be infinite.) Gives confidence that it will be used with serious discretion and for short periods of time... Darwinian Ape talk 09:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] For the hell of it I want to point out that as an admin I have no interest whatsoever in using a new level of protection, so this is going to go right along side pending changes and super-protect as a new tool I neither wanted nor plan to use. Keep that in mind: you can role it out all you want, but if I won't use it then it is essentially no more effective towards improve the encyclopedia as new coke was for improving Coca-Cola's profit. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Option C, which is (unfortunately) the option being approved overwhelmingly, actually requires that a notice be posted to AN for review every time an article is protected with EPC. We must keep to this requirement and set up a mechanism to post these notifications—it is necessary that at least some degree of accountability be maintained here. Could we have a bot (such as Cyberbot) take on this function? Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 20:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] We should specify that users who meet the 30/500 criteria can have any page in their userspace except their talkpage placed under extended confirmed protection upon request as an anti-vandalism/sockpuppetry/defamation measure. The value in allowing new users to edit another editor's userpage is extremely low. Even if otherwise required, AN posting should not be necessary in this situation. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplayer#cite_note-113] | [TOKENS: 6859] |
Contents Cosplay Cosplay, a blend word of "costume play", is an activity and performance art in which participants called cosplayers wear costumes and fashion accessories to represent a specific character. Cosplayers often interact to create a subculture, and a broader use of the term "cosplay" applies to any costumed role-playing in venues apart from the stage. Any entity that lends itself to dramatic interpretation may be taken up as a subject. Favorite sources include anime, cartoons, manga, comic books, television series, musical artists, video games, memes, and in some cases, original characters. The term has been adopted as slang, often in politics, to mean someone pretending to play a role or take on a personality disingenuously. Cosplay grew out of the practice of fan costuming at science fiction conventions, beginning with Morojo's "futuristicostumes" created for the 1st World Science Fiction Convention held in New York City, United States, in 1939. The Japanese term "cosplay" (コスプレ, kosupure) was coined in 1983. A rapid growth in the number of people cosplaying as a hobby since the 1990s has made the phenomenon a significant aspect of popular culture in Japan, as well as in other parts of East Asia and in the Western world. Cosplay events are common features of fan conventions, and today there are many dedicated conventions and competitions, as well as social networks, websites, and other forms of media centered on cosplay activities. Cosplay is very popular among all genders, and it is not unusual to see crossplay, also referred to as gender-bending. Etymology The term "cosplay" is a Japanese blend word of the English terms costume and play. The term was coined by Nobuyuki Takahashi [ja] of Studio Hard in an article for the Japanese magazine My Anime [ja] in June 1983. Takahashi decided to coin a new word rather than use the existing translation of the English term "masquerade" because it implied nobility and was old-fashioned. The coinage reflects a common Japanese method of abbreviation in which the first two moras of a pair of words are used to form an independent compound: 'costume' becomes kosu (コス) and 'play' becomes pure (プレ). History Masquerade balls were a feature of the Carnival season in the 15th century, and involved increasingly elaborate allegorical Royal Entries, pageants, and triumphal processions celebrating marriages and other dynastic events of late medieval court life. They were extended into costumed public festivities in Italy during the 16th century Renaissance, generally elaborate dances held for members of the upper classes, which were particularly popular in Venice. In April 1877, French novelist Jules Verne sent out almost 700 invitations for an elaborate costume ball, where several of the guests showed up dressed as characters from Verne's novels. Costume parties (American English) or fancy dress parties (British English) were popular from the 19th century onwards. Costuming guides of the period, such as Samuel Miller's Male Character Costumes (1884) or Ardern Holt's Fancy Dresses Described (1887), feature mostly generic costumes, whether that be period costumes, national costumes, objects or abstract concepts such as "Autumn" or "Night". Most specific costumes described therein are for historical figures although some are sourced from fiction, like Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers or William Shakespeare's characters. By March 1891, a literal call by one Herbert Tibbits for what would today be described as "cosplayers" was advertised for an event held from 5–10 March that year at the Royal Albert Hall in London, for the so-named Vril-Ya Bazaar and Fete based on a science fiction novel and its characters, published two decades earlier. A.D. Condo's science fiction comic strip character Mr. Skygack, from Mars (a Martian ethnographer who comically misunderstands many Earthly affairs) is arguably the first fictional character that people emulated by wearing costumes, as in 1908 Mr. and Mrs. William Fell of Cincinnati, Ohio, are reported to have attended a masquerade at a skating rink wearing Mr. Skygack and Miss Dillpickles costumes. Later, in 1910, an unnamed woman won first prize at masquerade ball in Tacoma, Washington, wearing another Skygack costume. The first people to wear costumes to attend a convention were science fiction fans Forrest J Ackerman and Myrtle R. Douglas, known in fandom as Morojo. They attended the 1939 1st World Science Fiction Convention (Nycon or 1st Worldcon) in the Caravan Hall, New York, US dressed in "futuristicostumes", including green cape and breeches, based on the pulp magazine artwork of Frank R. Paul and the 1936 film Things to Come, designed and created by Douglas. Ackerman later stated that he thought everyone was supposed to wear a costume at a science fiction convention, although only he and Douglas did. Fan costuming caught on, however, and the 2nd Worldcon (1940) had both an unofficial masquerade held in Douglas' room and an official masquerade as part of the programme. David Kyle won the masquerade wearing a Ming the Merciless costume created by Leslie Perri, while Robert A. W. Lowndes received second place with a Bar Senestro costume (from the novel The Blind Spot by Austin Hall and Homer Eon Flint). Other costumed attendees included guest of honor E. E. Smith as Northwest Smith (from C. L. Moore's series of short stories) and both Ackerman and Douglas wearing their futuristicostumes again. Masquerades and costume balls continued to be part of World Science Fiction Convention tradition thereafter. Early Worldcon masquerade balls featured a band, dancing, food and drinks. Contestants either walked across a stage or a cleared area of the dance floor. Ackerman wore a "Hunchbackerman of Notre Dame" costume to the 3rd Worldcon (1941), which included a mask designed and created by Ray Harryhausen, but soon stopped wearing costumes to conventions. Douglas wore an Akka costume (from A. Merritt's novel The Moon Pool), the mask again made by Harryhausen, to the 3rd Worldcon and a Snake Mother costume (another Merritt costume, from The Snake Mother) to the 4th Worldcon (1946). Terminology was yet unsettled; the 1944 edition of Jack Speer's Fancyclopedia used the term costume party. Rules governing costumes became established in response to specific costumes and costuming trends. The first nude contestant at a Worldcon masquerade was in 1952; but the height of this trend was in the 1970s and early 1980s, with a few every year. This eventually led to "No Costume is No Costume" rule, which banned full nudity, although partial nudity was still allowed as long as it was a legitimate representation of the character. Mike Resnick describes the best of the nude costumes as Kris Lundi wearing a harpy costume to the 32nd Worldcon (1974) (she received an honorable mention in the competition). Another costume that instigated a rule change was an attendee at the 20th Worldcon (1962) whose blaster prop fired a jet of real flame; which led to fire being banned. At the 30th WorldCon (1972), artist Scott Shaw wore a costume composed largely of peanut butter to represent his own underground comix character called "The Turd". The peanut butter rubbed off, doing damage to soft furnishings and other peoples' costumes, and then began to go rancid under the heat of the lighting. Food, odious, and messy substances were banned as costume elements after that event. Costuming spread with the science fiction conventions and the interaction of fandom. The earliest known instance of costuming at a convention in the United Kingdom was at the London Science Fiction Convention (1953) but this was only as part of a play. However, members of the Liverpool Science Fantasy Society attended the 1st Cytricon (1955), in Kettering, wearing costumes and continued to do so in subsequent years. The 15th Worldcon (1957) brought the first official convention masquerade to the UK. The 1960 Eastercon in London may have been the first British-based convention to hold an official fancy dress party as part of its programme. The joint winners were Ethel Lindsay and Ina Shorrock as two of the titular witches from the novel The Witches of Karres by James H. Schmitz. Star Trek conventions began in 1969 and major conventions began in 1972 and they have featured cosplay throughout. In Japan, costuming at conventions was a fan activity from at least the 1970s, especially after the launch of the Comiket convention in December 1975. Costuming at this time was known as kasō (仮装). The first documented case of costuming at a fan event in Japan was at Ashinocon (1978), in Hakone, at which future science fiction critic Mari Kotani wore a costume based on the cover art for Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel A Fighting Man of Mars.[Notes 1] In an interview Kotani states that there were about twenty costumed attendees at the convention's costume party—made up of members of her Triton of the Sea fan club and Kansai Entertainers (関西芸人, Kansai Geinin), antecedent of the Gainax anime studio—with most attendees in ordinary clothing. One of the Kansai group, an unnamed friend of Yasuhiro Takeda, wore an impromptu Tusken Raider costume (from the film Star Wars) made from one of the host-hotel's rolls of toilet paper. Costume contests became a permanent part of the Nihon SF Taikai conventions from Tokon VII in 1980. Possibly the first costume contest held at a comic book convention was at the 1st Academy Con held at Broadway Central Hotel in New York in August 1965. Roy Thomas, future editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics but then just transitioning from a fanzine editor to a professional comic book writer, attended in a Plastic Man costume. The first Masquerade Ball held at San Diego Comic-Con was in 1974 during the convention's 6th event. Voice actress June Foray was the master of ceremonies. Future scream queen Brinke Stevens won first place wearing a Vampirella costume. Ackerman (who was the creator of Vampirella) was in attendance and posed with Stevens for photographs. They became friends and, according to Stevens "Forry and his wife, Wendayne, soon became like my god parents." Photographer Dan Golden saw a photograph of Stevens in the Vampirella costume while visiting Ackerman's house, leading to him hiring her for a non-speaking role in her first student film, Zyzak is King (1980), and later photographing her for the cover of the first issue of Femme Fatales (1992). Stevens attributes these events to launching her acting career. As early as a year after the 1975 release of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, audience members began dressing as characters from the movie and role-playing (although the initial incentive for dressing-up was free admission) in often highly accurate costumes. Costume-Con, a conference dedicated to costuming, was first held in January 1983. The International Costumers Guild, Inc., originally known as the Greater Columbia Fantasy Costumer's Guild, was launched after the 3rd Costume-Con (1985) as a parent organization and to support costuming. Costuming had been a fan activity in Japan from the 1970s, and it became much more popular in the wake of Takahashi's report. The new term did not catch on immediately, however. It was a year or two after the article was published before it was in common use among fans at conventions. It was in the 1990s, after exposure on television and in magazines, that the term and practice of cosplaying became common knowledge in Japan. The first cosplay cafés appeared in the Akihabara area of Tokyo in the late 1990s. A temporary maid café was set up at the Tokyo Character Collection event in August 1998 to promote the video game Welcome to Pia Carrot 2 (1997). An occasional Pia Carrot Restaurant was held at the shop Gamers in Akihabara in the years up to 2000. Being linked to specific intellectual properties limited the lifespan of these cafés, which was solved by using generic maids, leading to the first permanent establishment, Cure Maid Café, which opened in March 2001. The first World Cosplay Summit was held on 12 October 2003 at the Rose Court Hotel in Nagoya, Japan, with five cosplayers invited from Germany, France and Italy. There was no contest until 2005, when the World Cosplay Championship began. The first winners were the Italian team of Giorgia Vecchini [it], Francesca Dani and Emilia Fata Livia. Worldcon masquerade attendance peaked in the 1980s and started to fall thereafter. This trend was reversed when the concept of cosplay was re-imported from Japan. Practice of cosplay Cosplay costumes vary greatly and can range from simple themed clothing to highly detailed costumes. It is generally considered different from Halloween and Mardi Gras costume wear, as the intention is to replicate a specific character, rather than to reflect the culture and symbolism of a holiday event. As such, when in costume, some cosplayers often seek to adopt the affect, mannerisms, and body language of the characters they portray (with "out of character" breaks). The characters chosen to be cosplayed may be sourced from any movie, TV series, book, comic book, video game, musical artist, anime, or manga. Some cosplayers even choose to cosplay an original character of their own design or a fusion of different genres (e.g., a steampunk version of a character), and it is a part of the ethos of cosplay that anybody can be anything, as with genderbending, crossplay, or drag, a cosplayer playing a character of another ethnicity, or a hijabi portraying Captain America. Cosplayers obtain their apparel through many different methods. Manufacturers produce and sell packaged outfits for use in cosplay, with varying levels of quality. These costumes are often sold online, but also can be purchased from dealers at conventions. Japanese manufacturers of cosplay costumes reported a profit of 35 billion yen in 2008. A number of individuals also work on commission, creating custom costumes, props, or wigs designed and fitted to the individual. Other cosplayers, who prefer to create their own costumes, still provide a market for individual elements, and various raw materials, such as unstyled wigs, hair dye, cloth and sewing notions, liquid latex, body paint, costume jewelry, and prop weapons. Cosplay represents an act of embodiment. Cosplay has been closely linked to the presentation of self, yet cosplayers' ability to perform is limited by their physical features. The accuracy of a cosplay is judged based on the ability to accurately represent a character through the body, and individual cosplayers frequently are faced by their own "bodily limits" such as level of attractiveness, body size, and disability that often restrict and confine how accurate the cosplay is perceived to be. Authenticity is measured by a cosplayer's individual ability to translate on-screen manifestation to the cosplay itself. Some have argued that cosplay can never be a true representation of the character; instead, it can only be read through the body, and that true embodiment of a character is judged based on nearness to the original character form. Cosplaying can also help some of those with self-esteem problems. Many cosplayers create their own outfits, referencing images of the characters in the process. In the creation of the outfits, much time is given to detail and qualities, thus the skill of a cosplayer may be measured by how difficult the details of the outfit are and how well they have been replicated. Because of the difficulty of replicating some details and materials, cosplayers often educate themselves in crafting specialties such as textiles, sculpture, face paint, fiberglass, fashion design, woodworking, and other uses of materials in the effort to render the look and texture of a costume accurately. Cosplayers often wear wigs in conjunction with their outfit to further improve the resemblance to the character. This is especially necessary for anime and manga or video-game characters who often have unnaturally colored and uniquely styled hair. Simpler outfits may be compensated for their lack of complexity by paying attention to material choice and overall high quality. To look more like the characters they are portraying, cosplayers might also engage in various forms of body modification. Cosplayers may opt to change their skin color utilizing make-up to more simulate the race of the character they are adopting. Contact lenses that match the color of their character's eyes are a common form of this, especially in the case of characters with particularly unique eyes as part of their trademark look. Contact lenses that make the pupil look enlarged to visually echo the large eyes of anime and manga characters are also used. Another form of body modification in which cosplayers engage is to copy any tattoos or special markings their character might have. Temporary tattoos, permanent marker, body paint, and in rare cases, permanent tattoos, are all methods used by cosplayers to achieve the desired look. Permanent and temporary hair dye, spray-in hair coloring, and specialized extreme styling products are all used by some cosplayers whose natural hair can achieve the desired hairstyle. It is also commonplace for them to shave off their eyebrows to gain a more accurate look. Some anime and video game characters have weapons or other accessories that are hard to replicate, and conventions have strict rules regarding those weapons, but most cosplayers engage in some combination of methods to obtain all the items necessary for their costumes; for example, they may commission a prop weapon, sew their own clothing, buy character jewelry from a cosplay accessory manufacturer, or buy a pair of off-the-rack shoes, and modify them to match the desired look. Cosplay may be presented in a number of ways and places. A subset of cosplay culture is centered on sex appeal, with cosplayers specifically choosing characters known for their attractiveness or revealing costumes. However, wearing a revealing costume can be a sensitive issue while appearing in public. People appearing naked at American science fiction fandom conventions during the 1970s were so common, a "no costume is no costume" rule was introduced. Some conventions throughout the United States, such as Phoenix Comicon (now known as Phoenix Fan Fusion) and Penny Arcade Expo, have also issued rules upon which they reserve the right to ask attendees to leave or change their costumes if deemed to be inappropriate to a family-friendly environment or something of a similar nature. The most popular form of presenting a cosplay publicly is by wearing it to a fan convention. Multiple conventions dedicated to anime and manga, comics, TV shows, video games, science fiction, and fantasy may be found all around the world. Cosplay-centered conventions include Cosplay Mania in the Philippines and EOY Cosplay Festival in Singapore. The single largest event featuring cosplay is the semiannual doujinshi market, Comic Market (Comiket), held in Japan during summer and winter. Comiket attracts hundreds of thousands of manga and anime fans, where thousands of cosplayers congregate on the roof of the exhibition center. In North America, the highest-attended fan conventions featuring cosplayers are San Diego Comic-Con and New York Comic Con held in the United States, and the anime-specific Anime North in Toronto, Otakon held in Washington, D.C. and Anime Expo held in Los Angeles. Europe's largest event is Japan Expo held in Paris, while the London MCM Expo and the London Super Comic Convention are the most notable in the UK. Supanova Pop Culture Expo is Australia's biggest event. Star Trek conventions have featured cosplay for many decades. These include Destination Star Trek, a UK convention, and Star Trek Las Vegas, a US convention. In different comic fairs, "Thematic Areas" are set up where cosplayers can take photos in an environment that follows that of the game or animation product from which they are taken. Sometimes the cosplayers are part of the area, playing the role of staff with the task of entertaining the other visitors. Some examples are the thematic areas dedicated to Star Wars or to Fallout. The areas are set up by not for profit associations of fans, but in some major fairs it is possible to visit areas set up directly by the developers of the video games or the producers of the anime. The appearance of cosplayers at public events makes them a popular draw for photographers. As this became apparent in the late 1980s, a new variant of cosplay developed in which cosplayers attended events mainly for the purpose of modeling their characters for still photography rather than engaging in continuous role play. Rules of etiquette were developed to minimize awkward situations involving boundaries. Cosplayers pose for photographers and photographers do not press them for personal contact information or private sessions, follow them out of the area, or take photos without permission. The rules allow the collaborative relationship between photographers and cosplayers to continue with the least inconvenience to each other. Some cosplayers choose to have a professional photographer take high quality images of them in their costumes posing as the character. Cosplayers and photographers frequently exhibit their work online and sometimes sell their images. As the popularity of cosplay has grown, many conventions have come to feature a contest surrounding cosplay that may be the main feature of the convention. Contestants present their cosplay, and often to be judged for an award, the cosplay must be self-made. The contestants may choose to perform a skit, which may consist of a short performed script or dance with optional accompanying audio, video, or images shown on a screen overhead. Other contestants may simply choose to pose as their characters. Often, contestants are briefly interviewed on stage by a master of ceremonies. The audience is given a chance to take photos of the cosplayers. Cosplayers may compete solo or in a group. Awards are presented, and these awards may vary greatly. Generally, a best cosplayer award, a best group award, and runner-up prizes are given. Awards may also go to the best skit and a number of cosplay skill subcategories, such as master tailor, master weapon-maker, master armorer, and so forth. The most well-known cosplay contest event is the World Cosplay Summit, selecting cosplayers from 40 countries to compete in the final round in Nagoya, Japan. Some other international events include European Cosplay Gathering (finals taking place at Japan Expo in Paris), EuroCosplay (finals taking place at London MCM Comic Con), and the Nordic Cosplay Championship (finals taking place at NärCon in Linköping, Sweden). This table contains a list of the most common cosplay competition judging criteria, as seen from World Cosplay Summit, Cyprus Comic Con, and ReplayFX. Portraying a character of the opposite sex is called crossplay. The practicality of crossplay and cross-dress stems in part from the abundance in manga of male characters with delicate and somewhat androgynous features. Such characters, known as bishōnen (lit. 'pretty boy'), are Asian equivalent of the elfin boy archetype represented in Western tradition by figures such as Peter Pan and Ariel. Male to female cosplayers may experience issues when trying to portray a female character because it is hard to maintain the sexualized femininity of a character. Male cosplayers may also be subjected to discrimination, including homophobic comments and being touched without permission. This affects men possibly even more often than it affects women, despite inappropriate contact already being a problem for women who cosplay, as is "slut-shaming". Animegao kigurumi players, a niche group in the realm of cosplay, are often male cosplayers who use zentai and stylized masks to represent female anime characters. These cosplayers completely hide their real features so the original appearance of their characters may be reproduced as literally as possible, and to display all the abstractions and stylizations such as oversized eyes and tiny mouths often seen in Japanese cartoon art. This does not mean that only males perform animegao or that masks are only female. "Cosplay Is Not Consent", a movement started in 2013 by Rochelle Keyhan, Erin Filson, and Anna Kegler, brought attention to the issue of sexual harassment in the convention attending cosplay community. Harassment of cosplayers include photography without permission, verbal abuse, touching, and groping. Harassment is not limited to women in provocative outfits as male cosplayers talked about being bullied for not fitting certain costume and characters. Starting in 2014, New York Comic Con placed large signs at the entrance stating that "Cosplay is Not Consent". Attendees were reminded to ask permission for photos and respect the person's right to say no. The movement against sexual harassment against cosplayers has continued to gain momentum and awareness since being publicized. Traditional mainstream news media like The Mercury News and Los Angeles Times have reported on the topic, bringing awareness of sexual harassment to those outside of the cosplay community. As cosplay has entered more mainstream media, ethnicity becomes a controversial point. Cosplayers of different skin color than the character are often ridiculed for not being 'accurate' or 'faithful'. Many cosplayers feel as if anyone can cosplay any character, but it becomes complicated when cosplayers are not respectful of the character's ethnicity. These views against non-white cosplayers within the community have been attributed to the lack of representation in the industry and in media. Issues such as blackface, brownface, and yellowface are still controversial since a large part of the cosplay community see these as separate problems, or simply an acceptable part of cosplay.[citation needed] Cosplay has influenced the advertising industry, in which cosplayers are often used for event work previously assigned to agency models. Some cosplayers have thus transformed their hobby into profitable, professional careers. Japan's entertainment industry has been home to the professional cosplayers since the rise of Comiket and Tokyo Game Show. The phenomenon is most apparent in Japan but exists to some degree in other countries as well. Professional cosplayers who profit from their art may experience problems related to copyright infringement. A cosplay model, also known as a cosplay idol, cosplays costumes for anime and manga or video game companies. Good cosplayers are viewed as fictional characters in the flesh, in much the same way that film actors come to be identified in the public mind with specific roles. Cosplayers have modeled for print magazines like Cosmode and a successful cosplay model can become the brand ambassador for companies like Cospa. Some cosplay models can achieve significant recognition. While there are many significant cosplay models, Yaya Han was described as having emerged "as a well-recognized figure both within and outside cosplay circuits". Jessica Nigri, used her recognition in cosplay to gain other opportunities such as voice acting and her own documentary on Rooster Teeth. Liz Katz used her fanbase to take her cosplay from a hobby to a successful business venture, sparking debate through the cosplay community whether cosplayers should be allowed to fund and profit from their work. In the 2000s, cosplayers started to push the boundaries of cosplay into eroticism paving the way to "erocosplay". The advent of social media coupled with crowdfunding platforms like Patreon and OnlyFans have allowed cosplay models to turn cosplay into profitable full-time careers. During protests During various protests, cosplaying as a satirization of important people and political events. In Myanmar various protests after the 2021 coup d'état various protests occurred with cosplayers. Youth groups protested on the roads by wearing cosplay costumes, skirts, wedding dresses, and other unusual clothing for daily life while holding signboards and vinyl banners that break with the country's more traditional protest messages for the purpose of grabbing attention from both domestic and international press media. Other times fictional characters are used to convey a message such as women dressing like characters from The Handmaid's Tale to protest bodily restrictions in the United States. Cosplay by country or region Cosplayers in Japan formerly referred to themselves as reiyā (レイヤー), pronounced "layer". In contemporary Japan, however, cosplayers are more commonly referred to as kosupure (コスプレ), pronounced "ko-su-pray", as the term reiyā is now more frequently used to describe literal layers (for example, hair or clothing). Words such as kawaii (可愛い) (lit. 'cute') and kakko ī (かっこいい) (lit. 'cool') were often used to describe these changes, expressions that were closely tied to notions of femininity and masculinity. Those who photograph players are known as cameko (カメコ), a shortened form of camera kozō (カメラ小僧) (lit. 'camera boy'). Originally, cameko would give printed photographs to players as gifts. Growing interest in cosplay events—both among photographers and cosplayers willing to model—has led to the formalization of procedures at events such as Comiket. Photography is conducted in designated areas separate from the exhibit halls. In Japan, wearing costumes outside of conventions or other designated areas is generally discouraged. Since 1998, Tokyo's Akihabara district has contained a number of cosplay restaurants catering to devoted anime and manga fans, in which waitresses dress as characters from video games, anime, or manga; maid cafés are particularly popular. In Japan, Tokyo's Harajuku district serves as a favored informal gathering place for engaging in cosplay in public. Events held in Akihabara also attract large numbers of cosplayers. Ishoku-hada (異色肌) is a form of Japanese cosplay in which players use body paint to alter their skin color to match that of the character they portray. This practice allows for the representation of anime or manga characters, as well as video game characters, with non-human skin tones. A 2014 survey conducted for the Comiket convention in Japan reported that approximately 75% of cosplayers attending the event were female. Cosplay is common in many East Asian countries. For example, it is a major part of the Comic World conventions taking place regularly in South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Historically, the practice of dressing up as characters from works of fiction can be traced as far as the 17th century late Ming dynasty China. Western cosplay developed primarily from science fiction and fantasy fandoms. Compared with Japan, Western cosplayers are more likely to portray characters originating from live-action television series and films. Western costuming traditions also encompass a variety of related hobbyist subcultures, including participants in Renaissance faires, live action role-playing games, and historical reenactments. Costume competitions at science fiction conventions commonly feature masquerades, in which costumes are formally judged during stage presentations, as well as hall costumes that are evaluated informally throughout the event. The growing international popularity of Japanese cartoon during the late 2000s contributed to a rise in American and other Western cosplayers portraying characters from manga and anime. Over the following decade, anime conventions became increasingly common across Western countries, often rivaling long-established science fiction, comic book, and historical conventions in terms of attendance. At these events, cosplayers—much like their Japanese counterparts—gather to display their costumes, be photographed, and participate in competitive costume events. Convention attendees also frequently choose to dress as characters from Western comic books, animated works, films, and video games. Despite increasing global exchange, cultural differences in taste remain evident. Certain costume styles that may be worn without hesitation by Japanese cosplayers are often avoided in Western contexts, particularly those that resemble Nazi uniforms. Western cosplayers may also encounter debates regarding legitimacy when portraying characters whose canonical racial backgrounds differ from their own, and instances of insensitivity toward cosplayers depicting characters of different skin tones have been documented. Western cosplayers who portray anime characters may likewise experience targeted ridicule or misunderstanding. In comparison with Japan, wearing costumes in public spaces is generally more socially accepted in countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, and Canada. These regions possess longer-standing traditions of Halloween costuming, fan dress, and related practices. Consequently, it is not uncommon for convention attendees in costume to be seen in nearby restaurants and public venues outside the immediate boundaries of the event itself. Media Japan is home to two especially popular cosplay magazines, Cosmode (コスモード) and ASCII Media Works' Dengeki Layers (電撃Layers). Cosmode has the largest share in the market and an English-language digital edition. Another magazine, aimed at a broader, worldwide audience is CosplayGen. In the United States, Cosplay Culture began publication in February 2015. Other magazines include CosplayZine featuring cosplayers from all over the world since October 2015, and Cosplay Realm Magazine which was started in April 2017. There are many books on the subject of cosplay as well. Cosplay groups and organizations See also Notes References Bibliography External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%27s_Log] | [TOKENS: 661] |
Contents B's Log B's LOG (sometimes stylized as B's-LOG) is a Japanese gaming magazine, published in both print and digital formats, by Kadokawa Game Linkage (via Enterbrain), aimed at the female market. Games covered in this publication typically fall into the otome and BL genres. According to parent company Kadokawa, it has a circulation of 90,000; its readerbase is 99% female with an average age of 22. A renewal issue was published on July 20, 2020, with a focus on idols that appear in games. B's LOG COMIC B's LOG COMIC is a manga spinoff magazine which ran in print from December 2005 (when it launched as monthly magazine Comic B's LOG, before changing to a bimonthly format as Comic B's-Log Kyun! in 2009 and later in 2013 returning to a monthly format with its current title) until Spring 2018. As of 2021, it still remains active in a digital format. Some of its titles have been based on otome and BL games, including Dramatical Murder, Hiiro no Kakera, Hakuoki, Starry Sky, Togainu no Chi, Uta no Prince-sama, and VitaminZ, as well as other games including Valkyria Chronicles; other titles from this publication include Black Gate and Shōnen Maid. The magazine collaborated with konbini chain Lawson to create Convenience Store Boy Friends. B's LOG Bunko and Bunko Alice B's LOG Bunko is a subdivision that releases paperback light novels. One title published by this imprint is Ririka Yoshimura's Jyuniya — Migawari Koshou to Fukigenna Koushaku (十二夜 ―身代わり小姓と不機嫌な公爵―; 'Twelfth Night: The Substitute Page and the Grumpy Duke', ISBN 9784047280090), an adaptation of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. On April 15, 2015, the further imprint B's LOG Bunko Alice was launched. Collaborations In 2014, the magazine released a series of voice cards in collaboration with Konami series Tokimeki Memorial Girl's Side, featuring four characters from the various titles in the series acting in the role of a husband. In July 2015, B's LOG ran a design contest for clothing to appear on characters in the then-upcoming release of Kiniro no Corda 4. On April 27, 2018, then-parent company GzBrain opened cafe GzCafe in Ikebukuro, showcasing brands B's LOG and sister publication Famitsu and holding events such as talks with creators. Other releases B's LOG Party for PlayStation Portable (released on May 20, 2010) is a board game-style title featuring characters from Hakuoki, Hanayoi Romanesque, Hiiro no Kakera, and Otometeki Koi Kakumei Love Revo!!. Two songs from this game were included on the compilation album Otomate Vocal Best Vol. 2. References External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_ref-95] | [TOKENS: 3908] |
Contents Guinness World Records Page version status This is an accepted version of this page Guinness World Records, known from its inception in 1955 until 1999 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous United States editions as The Guinness Book of World Records, is a British reference book published annually, listing world records both of human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. Sir Hugh Beaver created the concept in order to settle arguments debated in pubs, and twin brothers Norris and Ross McWhirter co-founded the book in London in late August 1955. The first edition topped the bestseller list in the United Kingdom by Christmas 1955. The following year the book was launched internationally, and as of the 2026 edition, it is now in its 71st year of publication, published in 100 countries and 40 languages, and maintains over 53,000 records in its database. The international franchise has extended beyond print to include television series and museums. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international source for cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organization employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. Following a series of owners, the franchise has been owned by the Jim Pattison Group since 2008, with its headquarters moved to South Quay Plaza, Canary Wharf, London, in 2017. Since 2008, Guinness World Records has orientated its business model away from selling books, and towards creating new world records as publicity exercises for individuals and organizations, which has attracted criticism. History On 10 November 1951, Sir Hugh Beaver, then the managing director of the Guinness Breweries, went on a shooting party in the North Slob, by the River Slaney in County Wexford, Ireland. After missing a shot at a golden plover, he became involved in an argument over whether the golden plover or the red grouse was the fastest game bird in Europe (the plover is faster, but neither is the fastest game bird in Europe). That evening at Castlebridge House, he realized that it was impossible to confirm in reference books whether or not the golden plover was Europe's fastest game bird. Beaver knew that there must have been numerous other questions debated nightly among the public, but there was no book in the world with which to settle arguments about records. He realized then that a book supplying the answers to this sort of question might prove successful. Beaver's idea became a reality when Guinness employee Christopher Chataway recommended university friends Norris and Ross McWhirter, who had been running a fact-finding agency in London. The twin brothers were commissioned in August 1954 to compile what became The Guinness Book of (Superlatives and now) Records.[clarification needed] A thousand copies were distributed for free to pubs across Britain and Ireland as a promotional asset for the Guinness brand, and they became immensely popular with customers. After the founding of The Guinness Book of Records office at the top of Ludgate House, 107 Fleet Street, London, the first 198-page edition was bound on 27 August 1955 and went to the top of the British bestseller list by Christmas. The following year, it was introduced into the United States by New York publisher David Boehm and sold 70,000 copies. Since then, Guinness World Records has sold more than 150 million copies in 100 countries and 40 languages. Due to the book's surprise success, many further editions were printed, eventually settling into a pattern of one revision a year, published in September/October, in time for Christmas. The McWhirters continued to compile it for many years. Both brothers had an encyclopedic memory; on the British children's television series Record Breakers (based upon the book), which was broadcast on the BBC from 1972 to 2001, they would take questions posed by children in the audience on various world records and were able to give the correct answer. Ross McWhirter was assassinated by two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1975, in response to offering a £50,000 reward for information that would lead to the capture of members of the organization. Following Ross's assassination, the feature on the show where questions about records posed by children were answered was called Norris on the Spot. Norris carried on as the book's sole editor. Guinness Superlatives, later Guinness World Records Limited, was incorporated in London in 1954 to publish the first book. Sterling Publishing owned the rights to the Guinness book in the US for decades until it was repurchased by Guinness in 1989 after an 18-month long lawsuit. The group was owned by Guinness PLC and subsequently Diageo until 2001, when it was purchased by Gullane Entertainment for £45.5 million ($65 million). Gullane was itself purchased by HIT Entertainment in 2002. In 2006, Apax Partners purchased HIT and subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group, the parent company of Ripley Entertainment, which is licensed to operate Guinness World Records' Attractions. With offices in New York City and Tokyo, Guinness World Records' global headquarters remain in South Quay Plaza in Canary Wharf, London, while its museum attractions are based at Ripley headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Recent editions have focused on record feats by individuals. Competitions range from obvious ones such as Olympic weightlifting to the longest egg tossing distances, or for the longest time spent playing Grand Theft Auto IV or the largest number of hot dogs consumed in three minutes. Besides records about competitions, it contains such facts such as the heaviest tumor, the most poisonous fungus, the longest-running soap opera and the most valuable life-insurance policy, among others. Many records also relate to the youngest people to have achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world, currently held by Maurizio Giuliano. Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year. The latest edition is the 72nd, published in August 2025. The retirement of Norris McWhirter from his consulting role in 1995 and the subsequent decision by Diageo Plc to sell The Guinness Book of Records brand have shifted the focus of the books from text-oriented to illustrated reference. A selection of records are curated for the book from the full archive but all existing Guinness World Records titles can be accessed by creating a login on the company's website. Applications made by individuals for existing record categories are free of charge. There is an administration fee of £5 (or $5) to propose a new record title. A number of spin-off books and television series have also been produced. Guinness World Records bestowed the record of "Person with the most records" on Ashrita Furman of Queens, New York, in April 2009; at that time, he held 100 records. In 2005, Guinness designated 9 November as International Guinness World Records Day to encourage breaking of world records. In 2006, an estimated 100,000 people participated in over 10 countries. Guinness reported 2,244 new records in 12 months, which was a 173% increase over the previous year. In February 2008, NBC aired The Top 100 Guinness World Records of All Time and Guinness World Records made the complete list available on their website. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. Over its history, numerous world record categories have been discontinued. This list may include that the record poses a threat to health or the environment. Defining records For many records, Guinness World Records is the effective authority on the exact requirements for them and with whom records reside, the company providing adjudicators to events to determine the veracity of record attempts. The list of records which the Guinness World Records covers is not fixed, records may be added and also removed for various reasons. The public is invited to submit applications for records, which can be either the bettering of existing records or substantial achievements which could constitute a new record. The company also provides corporate services for companies to "harness the power of record-breaking to deliver tangible success for their businesses." Guinness World Records states several types of records it will not accept for ethical reasons, such as those related to the killing or harming of animals. In the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records, Colombian serial killer Pedro López was listed as the "most prolific serial killer", having murdered at least 110 people (with Lopez himself claiming he murdered over 300 people) in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in the late 1960s to 1980s. This was later removed after complaints that it made a competition out of murder, however the record was reinstated in the 2026 edition. Several world records that were once included in the book have been removed for ethical reasons, including concerns for the well-being of potential record breakers. For example, following publication of the "heaviest pet" record, many owners overfed their pets beyond the bounds of what was healthy, and therefore such entries were removed. The Guinness Book also dropped records within their "eating and drinking records" section of Human Achievements in 1991 over concerns that potential competitors could harm themselves and expose the publisher to potential litigation. These changes included the removal of all spirit, wine and beer drinking records, along with other unusual records for consuming such unlikely things as bicycles and trees. Other records, such as sword swallowing and rally driving (on public roads), were closed from further entry as the current holders had performed beyond what are considered safe human tolerance levels. There have been instances of closed categories being reopened. For example, the sword swallowing category was listed as closed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records, but has since been reopened with Johnny Strange breaking a sword swallowing record on Guinness World Records Live. Similarly, the speed beer drinking records which were dropped from the book in 1991, reappeared 17 years later in the 2008 edition, but were moved from the "Human Achievements" section of the older book to the "Modern Society" section of the newer edition. As of 2011[update], it is required in the guidelines of all "large food" type records that the item be fully edible, and distributed to the public for consumption, to prevent food wastage. Chain letters are also not allowed: "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail." After Roger Guy English set the record for sleeplessness in 1974, the category was discontinued for being too dangerous. At the request of the U.S. Mint, in 1984, the book stopped accepting claims of large hoardings of pennies or other currency. Environmentally unfriendly records (such as the releasing of sky lanterns and party balloons) are no longer accepted or monitored, in addition to records relating to tobacco or cannabis consumption or preparation. In 2024, Guinness World Records was accused of laundering the reputation of the oppressive governments as it set world records for the UAE's police forces and Egypt's military. By 2024, the UAE achieved 526 records, of which 21 were credited to the Emirates' police force. Matthew Hedges, a British academic who was forced to sign a false confession, asked the records body to take down the Abu Dhabi police department's certificate for "most signatures on a scroll", along with other such titles. Concerns were also raised around the activities around Egypt, which moved from 22 records to 110 within a decade until 2024. James Lynch, co-founder of FairSquare, said the records were legitimizing Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's regime. The Guinness World Records stated that its record titles "cannot be purchased". Guinness World Records has been accused of romanticizing diseases, such as Graves' Disease and Pica. For some potential categories, Guinness World Records has declined to list some records that are too difficult or impossible to determine. For example, its website states: "We do not accept any claims for beauty as it is not objectively measurable." On 10 December 2010, Guinness World Records stopped accepting submissions for the "dreadlock" category after an investigation of its first and only female title holder, Asha Mandela, determining it was impossible to judge this record accurately. Change in business model Traditionally, the company made a large amount of its revenue via book sales to interested readers, especially children. The rise of the Internet began to cut into book sales starting in the 2000s, part of a general decline in the book industry. According to a 2017 story by Planet Money of NPR, Guinness began to realize that a lucrative new revenue source to replace falling book sales was the would-be record-holders themselves. While any person can theoretically send in a record to be verified for free, the approval process is slow. Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on. In particular, corporations and celebrities seeking a publicity stunt to launch a new product or draw attention to themselves began to hire Guinness World Records, paying them for finding a record to break or to create a new category just for them. As such, they have been described as a native advertising company, with no clear distinction between content and advertisement. Television talk show host John Oliver criticized Guinness World Records on the programme Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in August 2019, during an episode about President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Oliver said Guinness took money from authoritarian governments for pointless vanity projects such as Berdimuhamedow's. Oliver asked Guinness to work with Last Week Tonight to adjudicate a record for "Largest cake featuring a picture of someone falling off a horse", but according to Oliver, the offer did not work out after Guinness insisted on a non-disparagement clause. Guinness World Records denied the accusations and stated that they declined Oliver's offer to participate because "it was merely an opportunity to mock one of our record-holders," and that Oliver did not specifically request the record for the largest marble cake. As of 2021, the Guinness World Record for "Largest marble cake" remains with Betty Crocker Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Following Oliver's episode, Guinness World Records' ethics were called into question by human rights groups. Museums In 1976, a Guinness Book of World Records museum opened in the Empire State Building. Speed shooter Bob Munden then went on tour promoting The Guinness Book of World Records by performing his record fast draws with a standard weight single-action revolver from a Western movie-type holster. His fastest time for a draw was 0.02 seconds. Among exhibits were life-size statues of the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, and world's largest earthworm, an X-ray photo of a sword swallower, repeated lightning strike victim Roy Sullivan's hat complete with lightning holes and a pair of gem-studded golf shoes on sale for $6,500. The museum closed in 1995. In more recent years, the Guinness company has permitted the franchising of small museums with displays based on the book, all currently (as of 2010[update]) located in towns popular with tourists: Tokyo, Copenhagen, San Antonio. There were once Guinness World Records museums and exhibitions at the London Trocadero, Bangalore, San Francisco, Myrtle Beach, Orlando, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. The Orlando museum, which closed in 2002, was branded The Guinness Records Experience; the Hollywood, Niagara Falls, Copenhagen, and Gatlinburg museums also previously featured this branding. Retail and merchandise Guinness World Records operates an official online shop, the Guinness World Records Store, which offers items related to record-breaking achievements, including certificates of participation, apparel, and the annual Guinness World Records book. The shop provides record-holders and the general public with access to official Guinness World Records materials. Merchandise is part of the organization's broader engagement efforts beyond its publications and events. Television series Guinness World Records has commissioned various television series documenting world record breaking attempts, including: Rhianna Loren (2025) Specials: Gamer's edition In 2008, Guinness World Records released its gamer's edition, a supplement that keeps records for popular video game high scores, codes and feats in association with Twin Galaxies. The Gamer's Edition used to contain 258 pages, over 1,236 video game related world records and four interviews including one with Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day. Editions were published for the years 2008 through 2020, with the 2009 edition in hardcover. The 2025 edition is the first since 2020, returning after a five-year hiatus. Since 2020, the supplement has had 192 pages. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was a music reference book first published in 1977. It was compiled by BBC Radio 1 DJs Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read with brothers Tim Rice and Jonathan Rice. It was the first in a number of music reference books that were to be published by Guinness Publishing with sister publication The Guinness Book of British Hit Albums coming in 1983. After being sold to Hit Entertainment, the data concerning the Official Chart Company's singles and albums charts were combined under the title British Hit Singles & Albums, with Hit Entertainment publishing the book from 2003 to 2006 (under the Guinness World Records brand). After Guinness World Records was sold to The Jim Pattison Group, it was effectively replaced by a series of books published by Ebury Publishing/Random House with the Virgin Book of British Hit Singles first being published in 2007 and with a Hit Albums book following two years later. Other media and products In 1975, Parker Brothers marketed a board game, The Guinness Game of World Records, based on the book. Players compete by setting and breaking records for activities such as the longest streak of rolling dice before rolling doubles, stacking plastic pieces, and bouncing a ball off alternating sides of a card, as well as answering trivia questions based on the listings in the Guinness Book of World Records. A video game, Guinness World Records: The Videogame, was developed by TT Fusion and released for Nintendo DS, Wii and iOS in November 2008. In 2012, Warner Bros. announced the development of a live-action film version of Guinness World Records with Daniel Chun as scriptwriter. The film, however, never entered production. Dr. Sunil Gupta is listed in the Guinness World Records for participating in the largest multi-location diabetic neuropathy screening conducted on World Diabetes Day, 14 November 2013, during which 1,676 screenings were performed across 27 locations in India. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#cite_ref-unless_6-2] | [TOKENS: 5211] |
Contents Wikipedia:Protection policy In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when there is disruption that cannot be prevented through other means, such as blocks. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection, and when each protection should and should not be applied. Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time. The various levels of protection can be applied to the page edit, page move, page create, and file upload actions. Even when a page is protected from editing, the source wikitext of the page can still be viewed and copied by anyone. A protected page is marked at its top right by a padlock icon, usually added by the {{pp-protected}} template. The {{pp-protected}} template is automatically added by the {{documentation}} template used in template space. Overview of page protection Any protection applied to a page involves setting a type, level, and duration as follows: Preemptive protection Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible. Exceptions include the Main Page, along with its templates and images, which are indefinitely fully protected. Additionally, Today's Featured Article is typically semi-protected from the day before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page until the day after it leaves. Finally, pages subject to Arbitration Committee remedies that permit or require preemptive protection may be protected accordingly. Requesting protection Page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and then (if necessary) requested by adding an edit request. From there, if the requested changes are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them, the changes can be carried out by a user who can edit the page. Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary. Users can request unprotection or a reduction in protection level by asking the administrator who applied the protection on the administrator's user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer an administrator, or does not respond, then a request for reduction in protection level may be filed. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first. A log of protections and unprotections is available at Special:Log/protect. Summary table Protection types Edit protection restricts editing of a page, often due to vandalism or disputes, ensuring only experienced users can make changes (see above for more information). Administrators can prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. There are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection. A list of protected titles can be found at Special:ProtectedTitles (see also historical lists). Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, which allows for more flexible protection with support for substrings and regular expressions. Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as "salted". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. Create protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly recreated in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, or full). Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot create pages in mainspace; thus, semi-creation protection should be used only for protection of pages outside of mainspace. While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection can be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable). Move-protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator. Move protection is commonly applied to: Move protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly moved in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (extended-confirmed or full). Non-confirmed editors cannot move pages so semi-move protection has no effect. Fully edit-protected pages are also implicitly move-protected. As with full edit protection, protection because of edit warring should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion, the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started. All files and categories are implicitly move-protected, requiring file movers or administrators to rename files, and page movers or administrators to rename categories. Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator. Upload protection does not protect file pages from editing. It can be applied by an administrator to: Protection levels Pending changes protection allows unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping their edits hidden from unregistered users (who make up the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia articles) until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer or an administrator. An alternative to semi-protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems, while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes is technically implemented as a separate option, with its own duration, and it yields to other edit protection levels in cases of overlap. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an autoconfirmed user, the edit will be immediately visible to Wikipedia readers, unless there are pending edits waiting to be reviewed. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as "pending review". Readers who are not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers. A user who clicks "edit this page" is always, at that point, shown the latest version of the page for editing regardless of whether the user is logged in or not. Pending changes are typically reviewed within several hours. Pending changes can be used to protect articles against: Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, pending changes protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Semi-protection is generally a better option for articles with a high edit rate as well as articles affected by issues difficult for pending changes reviewers to detect, such as non-obvious vandalism, plausible-sounding misinformation, and hard-to-detect copyright violations. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested to any administrator, or at requests for unprotection. The reviewing process is described in detail at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Semi-protected pages may be edited only by registered users who are confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old and with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected, the edit request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: In addition, administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as Wikipedia's biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies). A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time. In exceptional cases, if a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing. Today's featured article is, since 2023, always semi-protected. However, this was historically not the case. Extended confirmed protection, previously known as 30/500 protection, restricts editing to users with the extended confirmed user access level, administrators, and bots. Extended confirmed is automatically granted to users one edit after their account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes (except as general sanction enforcement; see below). When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. (This is distinct from the extended confirmed restriction below.) Community-designated contentious topics grant similar authorizations. Some topic areas are under Arbitration Committee extended confirmed restriction as a general sanction. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required (other enforcement methods are outlined in the policy). As always, review the policy before enforcing it. Community general sanctions, applying a similar extended confirmed restriction, have also been authorized by the community. General sanctions has a list of the active general sanctions that incorporate the extended confirmed restriction. High-risk templates can be extended confirmed–protected at administrator discretion when template protection would be too restrictive and semi-protection would be ineffective to stop widespread disruption. Extended confirmed protection can be applied at the discretion of an administrator when creation-protecting a page. A bot maintains a report of pages recently put under extended confirmed protection. Any protection made as arbitration enforcement will be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. Community-authorized discretionary sanctions must be logged on a page specific to the topic area. A full list of the 14975 pages under extended confirmed protection can be found here. Users can request edits to an extended confirmed–protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules. In cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, this protection level is also valid. This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists—the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower can be applied to high risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly. A full list of the pages under template protection can be found here. Editors may request edits to a template-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit template-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A fully protected page cannot be edited or moved by anyone except administrators. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. While content disputes and edit warring can be addressed with user blocks issued by uninvolved administrators, allowing normal page editing by other editors at the same time, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version. Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked. Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally. If a deleted page is going through deletion review, only administrators are normally capable of viewing the former content of the page. If they feel it would benefit the discussion to allow other users to view the page content, administrators may restore the page, replace the contents with the {{Temporarily undeleted}} template or a similar notice, and fully protect the page to prevent further editing. The previous contents of the page are then accessible to everyone via the page history. Generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg, File:Example.jpg, File:Map.jpg, and File:Sound.wav are fully protected to prevent new versions from being uploaded. Furthermore, File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are salted. The following pages and templates are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time: As with full edit protection, administrators should avoid favoring one version over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. An exception to this rule is when they are protected due to upload vandalism. Pages can be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel as outlined in Foundation:Policy:Office actions § Use of advanced rights by Foundation staff. Such actions override community consensus. Administrators should not edit or unprotect such pages without permission from Wikimedia Foundation staff. Cascading protection fully protects a page, and extends that full protection automatically to any page that is transcluded onto the protected page, whether directly or indirectly. This includes templates, images and other media that are hosted on the English Wikipedia. Files stored on Commons are not protected by any other wiki's cascading protection and, if they are to be protected, must be either temporarily uploaded to the English Wikipedia or explicitly protected at Commons (whether manually or through cascading protection there). When operational, KrinkleBot cascade-protects Commons files transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and Main Page. As the bot's response time varies, media should not be transcluded on the main page (or its constituent templates) until after it has been protected. (This is particularly relevant to Template:In the news, for which upcoming images are not queued at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow.) Cascading protection: The list of cascading-protected pages can be found at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Requests to add or remove cascading protection on a page should be made at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items as an edit request. Operational pages principally used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes configuration pages, data pages, log pages, status pages, and other pages specific to the operation of software. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are automatically protected and should not be protected for this reason. Some pages on Wikipedia are subject to software-enforced protection that administrators cannot change or remove. This is called permanent or indefinite protection, and interface protection in the case of CSS and JavaScript pages. Specifically, this applies to: Protection by namespace Modifications to a protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected. However, protection can be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from. A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests can be considered if a reason is provided. Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user with talk page access removed should be preferred over applying protection to the page. If the user has been blocked and with the ability to edit their user talk page disabled, they should be informed of this in a block notice, subsequent notice, or message, and it should include information and instructions for appealing their block off-wiki, such as through the UTRS tool interface or, as a last recourse, the Arbitration Committee. When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected. Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/Lipsum or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous temporary account users. An exception is that unconfirmed registered users are allowed to create or edit their own user page. Temporary account editors and unconfirmed accounts are also unable to create or edit user pages that do not belong to a currently registered account. This protection is enforced by an edit filter. Users may opt-out of this protection by placing {{unlocked userpage}} anywhere on their own user page. User pages and subpages within their own user space can be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or preemptively protected without good reason or cause. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) can be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism, a user may choose to create a ".css" subpage (e.g., User:Example/monobook.css), copy all the contents of their user page onto the subpage, transclude the subpage by putting {{User:Example/monobook.css}} on their user page, and then ask an administrator to fully protect their user page. Because user space pages that end in ".css" and ".js" are editable only by the user to which that user space belongs and interface administrators, this will protect one's user page from further vandalism. In the event of the confirmed death of an editor, their user page (but not the user talk page) should be fully protected. Highly visible templates – those used on a large number of pages or frequently substituted – are often protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other considerations. Protected templates should normally have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, categories and interwiki links. It also automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the top right corner and categorizes the template as protected. Only manually add {{pp-template}} to protected templates that do not use {{documentation}} (mostly the flag templates). Cascading protection should generally not be applied directly to templates, as it will not protect transclusions inside <includeonly> tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the template's documentation subpage. Instead, consider either of the following: Note: All editnotice templates (except those in userspace) are already protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They can be edited by admins, template editors and page movers only. Sandboxes should not ordinarily be protected since their purpose is to let new users test and experiment with wiki syntax. Most sandboxes are automatically cleaned every 12 hours, although they are frequently overwritten by other testing users. The Wikipedia:Sandbox is cleaned every hour. Those who use sandboxes for malicious purposes, or to violate policies such as no personal attacks, civility, or copyrights, should instead be warned and/or blocked. Available templates The following templates can be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected: On redirect pages, use the {{Redirect category shell}} template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will serve only to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed. Retired protections Superprotect was a level of protection, allowing editing only by Wikimedia Foundation employees who were in the Staff global group. It was implemented on August 10, 2014 and removed on November 5, 2015. It was never used on the English Wikipedia. For several years, the Gadget namespace (which no longer exists) could only be edited by WMF staff, which has sometimes been referred to as superprotection even though it is unrelated to the above use. Cascading semi-protection was formerly possible, but it was disabled in 2007 after users noticed that non-administrators could fully protect any page by transcluding it onto the page to which cascading semi-protection had been applied by an administrator. Originally, two levels of pending changes protection existed, where level 2 required edits by all users who were not pending changes reviewers to be reviewed. Following a community discussion, level 2 was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017. Since that change, "pending changes level 1" is generally referred to as just "pending changes". See also Notes |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#cite_ref-unless_6-0] | [TOKENS: 5211] |
Contents Wikipedia:Protection policy In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when there is disruption that cannot be prevented through other means, such as blocks. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection, and when each protection should and should not be applied. Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time. The various levels of protection can be applied to the page edit, page move, page create, and file upload actions. Even when a page is protected from editing, the source wikitext of the page can still be viewed and copied by anyone. A protected page is marked at its top right by a padlock icon, usually added by the {{pp-protected}} template. The {{pp-protected}} template is automatically added by the {{documentation}} template used in template space. Overview of page protection Any protection applied to a page involves setting a type, level, and duration as follows: Preemptive protection Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible. Exceptions include the Main Page, along with its templates and images, which are indefinitely fully protected. Additionally, Today's Featured Article is typically semi-protected from the day before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page until the day after it leaves. Finally, pages subject to Arbitration Committee remedies that permit or require preemptive protection may be protected accordingly. Requesting protection Page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and then (if necessary) requested by adding an edit request. From there, if the requested changes are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them, the changes can be carried out by a user who can edit the page. Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary. Users can request unprotection or a reduction in protection level by asking the administrator who applied the protection on the administrator's user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer an administrator, or does not respond, then a request for reduction in protection level may be filed. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first. A log of protections and unprotections is available at Special:Log/protect. Summary table Protection types Edit protection restricts editing of a page, often due to vandalism or disputes, ensuring only experienced users can make changes (see above for more information). Administrators can prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. There are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection. A list of protected titles can be found at Special:ProtectedTitles (see also historical lists). Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, which allows for more flexible protection with support for substrings and regular expressions. Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as "salted". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. Create protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly recreated in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, or full). Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot create pages in mainspace; thus, semi-creation protection should be used only for protection of pages outside of mainspace. While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection can be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable). Move-protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator. Move protection is commonly applied to: Move protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly moved in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (extended-confirmed or full). Non-confirmed editors cannot move pages so semi-move protection has no effect. Fully edit-protected pages are also implicitly move-protected. As with full edit protection, protection because of edit warring should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion, the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started. All files and categories are implicitly move-protected, requiring file movers or administrators to rename files, and page movers or administrators to rename categories. Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator. Upload protection does not protect file pages from editing. It can be applied by an administrator to: Protection levels Pending changes protection allows unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping their edits hidden from unregistered users (who make up the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia articles) until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer or an administrator. An alternative to semi-protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems, while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes is technically implemented as a separate option, with its own duration, and it yields to other edit protection levels in cases of overlap. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an autoconfirmed user, the edit will be immediately visible to Wikipedia readers, unless there are pending edits waiting to be reviewed. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as "pending review". Readers who are not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers. A user who clicks "edit this page" is always, at that point, shown the latest version of the page for editing regardless of whether the user is logged in or not. Pending changes are typically reviewed within several hours. Pending changes can be used to protect articles against: Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, pending changes protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Semi-protection is generally a better option for articles with a high edit rate as well as articles affected by issues difficult for pending changes reviewers to detect, such as non-obvious vandalism, plausible-sounding misinformation, and hard-to-detect copyright violations. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested to any administrator, or at requests for unprotection. The reviewing process is described in detail at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Semi-protected pages may be edited only by registered users who are confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old and with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected, the edit request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: In addition, administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as Wikipedia's biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies). A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time. In exceptional cases, if a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing. Today's featured article is, since 2023, always semi-protected. However, this was historically not the case. Extended confirmed protection, previously known as 30/500 protection, restricts editing to users with the extended confirmed user access level, administrators, and bots. Extended confirmed is automatically granted to users one edit after their account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes (except as general sanction enforcement; see below). When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. (This is distinct from the extended confirmed restriction below.) Community-designated contentious topics grant similar authorizations. Some topic areas are under Arbitration Committee extended confirmed restriction as a general sanction. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required (other enforcement methods are outlined in the policy). As always, review the policy before enforcing it. Community general sanctions, applying a similar extended confirmed restriction, have also been authorized by the community. General sanctions has a list of the active general sanctions that incorporate the extended confirmed restriction. High-risk templates can be extended confirmed–protected at administrator discretion when template protection would be too restrictive and semi-protection would be ineffective to stop widespread disruption. Extended confirmed protection can be applied at the discretion of an administrator when creation-protecting a page. A bot maintains a report of pages recently put under extended confirmed protection. Any protection made as arbitration enforcement will be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. Community-authorized discretionary sanctions must be logged on a page specific to the topic area. A full list of the 14975 pages under extended confirmed protection can be found here. Users can request edits to an extended confirmed–protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules. In cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, this protection level is also valid. This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists—the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower can be applied to high risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly. A full list of the pages under template protection can be found here. Editors may request edits to a template-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit template-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A fully protected page cannot be edited or moved by anyone except administrators. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. While content disputes and edit warring can be addressed with user blocks issued by uninvolved administrators, allowing normal page editing by other editors at the same time, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version. Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked. Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally. If a deleted page is going through deletion review, only administrators are normally capable of viewing the former content of the page. If they feel it would benefit the discussion to allow other users to view the page content, administrators may restore the page, replace the contents with the {{Temporarily undeleted}} template or a similar notice, and fully protect the page to prevent further editing. The previous contents of the page are then accessible to everyone via the page history. Generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg, File:Example.jpg, File:Map.jpg, and File:Sound.wav are fully protected to prevent new versions from being uploaded. Furthermore, File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are salted. The following pages and templates are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time: As with full edit protection, administrators should avoid favoring one version over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. An exception to this rule is when they are protected due to upload vandalism. Pages can be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel as outlined in Foundation:Policy:Office actions § Use of advanced rights by Foundation staff. Such actions override community consensus. Administrators should not edit or unprotect such pages without permission from Wikimedia Foundation staff. Cascading protection fully protects a page, and extends that full protection automatically to any page that is transcluded onto the protected page, whether directly or indirectly. This includes templates, images and other media that are hosted on the English Wikipedia. Files stored on Commons are not protected by any other wiki's cascading protection and, if they are to be protected, must be either temporarily uploaded to the English Wikipedia or explicitly protected at Commons (whether manually or through cascading protection there). When operational, KrinkleBot cascade-protects Commons files transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and Main Page. As the bot's response time varies, media should not be transcluded on the main page (or its constituent templates) until after it has been protected. (This is particularly relevant to Template:In the news, for which upcoming images are not queued at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow.) Cascading protection: The list of cascading-protected pages can be found at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Requests to add or remove cascading protection on a page should be made at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items as an edit request. Operational pages principally used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes configuration pages, data pages, log pages, status pages, and other pages specific to the operation of software. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are automatically protected and should not be protected for this reason. Some pages on Wikipedia are subject to software-enforced protection that administrators cannot change or remove. This is called permanent or indefinite protection, and interface protection in the case of CSS and JavaScript pages. Specifically, this applies to: Protection by namespace Modifications to a protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected. However, protection can be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from. A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests can be considered if a reason is provided. Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user with talk page access removed should be preferred over applying protection to the page. If the user has been blocked and with the ability to edit their user talk page disabled, they should be informed of this in a block notice, subsequent notice, or message, and it should include information and instructions for appealing their block off-wiki, such as through the UTRS tool interface or, as a last recourse, the Arbitration Committee. When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected. Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/Lipsum or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous temporary account users. An exception is that unconfirmed registered users are allowed to create or edit their own user page. Temporary account editors and unconfirmed accounts are also unable to create or edit user pages that do not belong to a currently registered account. This protection is enforced by an edit filter. Users may opt-out of this protection by placing {{unlocked userpage}} anywhere on their own user page. User pages and subpages within their own user space can be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or preemptively protected without good reason or cause. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) can be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism, a user may choose to create a ".css" subpage (e.g., User:Example/monobook.css), copy all the contents of their user page onto the subpage, transclude the subpage by putting {{User:Example/monobook.css}} on their user page, and then ask an administrator to fully protect their user page. Because user space pages that end in ".css" and ".js" are editable only by the user to which that user space belongs and interface administrators, this will protect one's user page from further vandalism. In the event of the confirmed death of an editor, their user page (but not the user talk page) should be fully protected. Highly visible templates – those used on a large number of pages or frequently substituted – are often protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other considerations. Protected templates should normally have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, categories and interwiki links. It also automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the top right corner and categorizes the template as protected. Only manually add {{pp-template}} to protected templates that do not use {{documentation}} (mostly the flag templates). Cascading protection should generally not be applied directly to templates, as it will not protect transclusions inside <includeonly> tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the template's documentation subpage. Instead, consider either of the following: Note: All editnotice templates (except those in userspace) are already protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They can be edited by admins, template editors and page movers only. Sandboxes should not ordinarily be protected since their purpose is to let new users test and experiment with wiki syntax. Most sandboxes are automatically cleaned every 12 hours, although they are frequently overwritten by other testing users. The Wikipedia:Sandbox is cleaned every hour. Those who use sandboxes for malicious purposes, or to violate policies such as no personal attacks, civility, or copyrights, should instead be warned and/or blocked. Available templates The following templates can be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected: On redirect pages, use the {{Redirect category shell}} template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will serve only to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed. Retired protections Superprotect was a level of protection, allowing editing only by Wikimedia Foundation employees who were in the Staff global group. It was implemented on August 10, 2014 and removed on November 5, 2015. It was never used on the English Wikipedia. For several years, the Gadget namespace (which no longer exists) could only be edited by WMF staff, which has sometimes been referred to as superprotection even though it is unrelated to the above use. Cascading semi-protection was formerly possible, but it was disabled in 2007 after users noticed that non-administrators could fully protect any page by transcluding it onto the page to which cascading semi-protection had been applied by an administrator. Originally, two levels of pending changes protection existed, where level 2 required edits by all users who were not pending changes reviewers to be reviewed. Following a community discussion, level 2 was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017. Since that change, "pending changes level 1" is generally referred to as just "pending changes". See also Notes |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#cite_ref-7] | [TOKENS: 5211] |
Contents Wikipedia:Protection policy In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when there is disruption that cannot be prevented through other means, such as blocks. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection, and when each protection should and should not be applied. Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time. The various levels of protection can be applied to the page edit, page move, page create, and file upload actions. Even when a page is protected from editing, the source wikitext of the page can still be viewed and copied by anyone. A protected page is marked at its top right by a padlock icon, usually added by the {{pp-protected}} template. The {{pp-protected}} template is automatically added by the {{documentation}} template used in template space. Overview of page protection Any protection applied to a page involves setting a type, level, and duration as follows: Preemptive protection Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible. Exceptions include the Main Page, along with its templates and images, which are indefinitely fully protected. Additionally, Today's Featured Article is typically semi-protected from the day before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page until the day after it leaves. Finally, pages subject to Arbitration Committee remedies that permit or require preemptive protection may be protected accordingly. Requesting protection Page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and then (if necessary) requested by adding an edit request. From there, if the requested changes are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them, the changes can be carried out by a user who can edit the page. Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary. Users can request unprotection or a reduction in protection level by asking the administrator who applied the protection on the administrator's user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer an administrator, or does not respond, then a request for reduction in protection level may be filed. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first. A log of protections and unprotections is available at Special:Log/protect. Summary table Protection types Edit protection restricts editing of a page, often due to vandalism or disputes, ensuring only experienced users can make changes (see above for more information). Administrators can prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. There are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection. A list of protected titles can be found at Special:ProtectedTitles (see also historical lists). Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, which allows for more flexible protection with support for substrings and regular expressions. Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as "salted". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. Create protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly recreated in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, or full). Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot create pages in mainspace; thus, semi-creation protection should be used only for protection of pages outside of mainspace. While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection can be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable). Move-protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator. Move protection is commonly applied to: Move protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly moved in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (extended-confirmed or full). Non-confirmed editors cannot move pages so semi-move protection has no effect. Fully edit-protected pages are also implicitly move-protected. As with full edit protection, protection because of edit warring should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion, the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started. All files and categories are implicitly move-protected, requiring file movers or administrators to rename files, and page movers or administrators to rename categories. Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator. Upload protection does not protect file pages from editing. It can be applied by an administrator to: Protection levels Pending changes protection allows unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping their edits hidden from unregistered users (who make up the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia articles) until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer or an administrator. An alternative to semi-protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems, while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes is technically implemented as a separate option, with its own duration, and it yields to other edit protection levels in cases of overlap. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an autoconfirmed user, the edit will be immediately visible to Wikipedia readers, unless there are pending edits waiting to be reviewed. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as "pending review". Readers who are not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers. A user who clicks "edit this page" is always, at that point, shown the latest version of the page for editing regardless of whether the user is logged in or not. Pending changes are typically reviewed within several hours. Pending changes can be used to protect articles against: Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, pending changes protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Semi-protection is generally a better option for articles with a high edit rate as well as articles affected by issues difficult for pending changes reviewers to detect, such as non-obvious vandalism, plausible-sounding misinformation, and hard-to-detect copyright violations. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested to any administrator, or at requests for unprotection. The reviewing process is described in detail at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Semi-protected pages may be edited only by registered users who are confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old and with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected, the edit request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: In addition, administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as Wikipedia's biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies). A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time. In exceptional cases, if a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing. Today's featured article is, since 2023, always semi-protected. However, this was historically not the case. Extended confirmed protection, previously known as 30/500 protection, restricts editing to users with the extended confirmed user access level, administrators, and bots. Extended confirmed is automatically granted to users one edit after their account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes (except as general sanction enforcement; see below). When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. (This is distinct from the extended confirmed restriction below.) Community-designated contentious topics grant similar authorizations. Some topic areas are under Arbitration Committee extended confirmed restriction as a general sanction. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required (other enforcement methods are outlined in the policy). As always, review the policy before enforcing it. Community general sanctions, applying a similar extended confirmed restriction, have also been authorized by the community. General sanctions has a list of the active general sanctions that incorporate the extended confirmed restriction. High-risk templates can be extended confirmed–protected at administrator discretion when template protection would be too restrictive and semi-protection would be ineffective to stop widespread disruption. Extended confirmed protection can be applied at the discretion of an administrator when creation-protecting a page. A bot maintains a report of pages recently put under extended confirmed protection. Any protection made as arbitration enforcement will be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. Community-authorized discretionary sanctions must be logged on a page specific to the topic area. A full list of the 14975 pages under extended confirmed protection can be found here. Users can request edits to an extended confirmed–protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules. In cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, this protection level is also valid. This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists—the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower can be applied to high risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly. A full list of the pages under template protection can be found here. Editors may request edits to a template-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit template-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A fully protected page cannot be edited or moved by anyone except administrators. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. While content disputes and edit warring can be addressed with user blocks issued by uninvolved administrators, allowing normal page editing by other editors at the same time, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version. Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked. Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally. If a deleted page is going through deletion review, only administrators are normally capable of viewing the former content of the page. If they feel it would benefit the discussion to allow other users to view the page content, administrators may restore the page, replace the contents with the {{Temporarily undeleted}} template or a similar notice, and fully protect the page to prevent further editing. The previous contents of the page are then accessible to everyone via the page history. Generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg, File:Example.jpg, File:Map.jpg, and File:Sound.wav are fully protected to prevent new versions from being uploaded. Furthermore, File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are salted. The following pages and templates are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time: As with full edit protection, administrators should avoid favoring one version over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. An exception to this rule is when they are protected due to upload vandalism. Pages can be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel as outlined in Foundation:Policy:Office actions § Use of advanced rights by Foundation staff. Such actions override community consensus. Administrators should not edit or unprotect such pages without permission from Wikimedia Foundation staff. Cascading protection fully protects a page, and extends that full protection automatically to any page that is transcluded onto the protected page, whether directly or indirectly. This includes templates, images and other media that are hosted on the English Wikipedia. Files stored on Commons are not protected by any other wiki's cascading protection and, if they are to be protected, must be either temporarily uploaded to the English Wikipedia or explicitly protected at Commons (whether manually or through cascading protection there). When operational, KrinkleBot cascade-protects Commons files transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and Main Page. As the bot's response time varies, media should not be transcluded on the main page (or its constituent templates) until after it has been protected. (This is particularly relevant to Template:In the news, for which upcoming images are not queued at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow.) Cascading protection: The list of cascading-protected pages can be found at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Requests to add or remove cascading protection on a page should be made at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items as an edit request. Operational pages principally used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes configuration pages, data pages, log pages, status pages, and other pages specific to the operation of software. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are automatically protected and should not be protected for this reason. Some pages on Wikipedia are subject to software-enforced protection that administrators cannot change or remove. This is called permanent or indefinite protection, and interface protection in the case of CSS and JavaScript pages. Specifically, this applies to: Protection by namespace Modifications to a protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected. However, protection can be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from. A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests can be considered if a reason is provided. Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user with talk page access removed should be preferred over applying protection to the page. If the user has been blocked and with the ability to edit their user talk page disabled, they should be informed of this in a block notice, subsequent notice, or message, and it should include information and instructions for appealing their block off-wiki, such as through the UTRS tool interface or, as a last recourse, the Arbitration Committee. When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected. Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/Lipsum or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous temporary account users. An exception is that unconfirmed registered users are allowed to create or edit their own user page. Temporary account editors and unconfirmed accounts are also unable to create or edit user pages that do not belong to a currently registered account. This protection is enforced by an edit filter. Users may opt-out of this protection by placing {{unlocked userpage}} anywhere on their own user page. User pages and subpages within their own user space can be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or preemptively protected without good reason or cause. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) can be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism, a user may choose to create a ".css" subpage (e.g., User:Example/monobook.css), copy all the contents of their user page onto the subpage, transclude the subpage by putting {{User:Example/monobook.css}} on their user page, and then ask an administrator to fully protect their user page. Because user space pages that end in ".css" and ".js" are editable only by the user to which that user space belongs and interface administrators, this will protect one's user page from further vandalism. In the event of the confirmed death of an editor, their user page (but not the user talk page) should be fully protected. Highly visible templates – those used on a large number of pages or frequently substituted – are often protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other considerations. Protected templates should normally have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, categories and interwiki links. It also automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the top right corner and categorizes the template as protected. Only manually add {{pp-template}} to protected templates that do not use {{documentation}} (mostly the flag templates). Cascading protection should generally not be applied directly to templates, as it will not protect transclusions inside <includeonly> tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the template's documentation subpage. Instead, consider either of the following: Note: All editnotice templates (except those in userspace) are already protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They can be edited by admins, template editors and page movers only. Sandboxes should not ordinarily be protected since their purpose is to let new users test and experiment with wiki syntax. Most sandboxes are automatically cleaned every 12 hours, although they are frequently overwritten by other testing users. The Wikipedia:Sandbox is cleaned every hour. Those who use sandboxes for malicious purposes, or to violate policies such as no personal attacks, civility, or copyrights, should instead be warned and/or blocked. Available templates The following templates can be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected: On redirect pages, use the {{Redirect category shell}} template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will serve only to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed. Retired protections Superprotect was a level of protection, allowing editing only by Wikimedia Foundation employees who were in the Staff global group. It was implemented on August 10, 2014 and removed on November 5, 2015. It was never used on the English Wikipedia. For several years, the Gadget namespace (which no longer exists) could only be edited by WMF staff, which has sometimes been referred to as superprotection even though it is unrelated to the above use. Cascading semi-protection was formerly possible, but it was disabled in 2007 after users noticed that non-administrators could fully protect any page by transcluding it onto the page to which cascading semi-protection had been applied by an administrator. Originally, two levels of pending changes protection existed, where level 2 required edits by all users who were not pending changes reviewers to be reviewed. Following a community discussion, level 2 was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017. Since that change, "pending changes level 1" is generally referred to as just "pending changes". See also Notes |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_ref-93] | [TOKENS: 3908] |
Contents Guinness World Records Page version status This is an accepted version of this page Guinness World Records, known from its inception in 1955 until 1999 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous United States editions as The Guinness Book of World Records, is a British reference book published annually, listing world records both of human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. Sir Hugh Beaver created the concept in order to settle arguments debated in pubs, and twin brothers Norris and Ross McWhirter co-founded the book in London in late August 1955. The first edition topped the bestseller list in the United Kingdom by Christmas 1955. The following year the book was launched internationally, and as of the 2026 edition, it is now in its 71st year of publication, published in 100 countries and 40 languages, and maintains over 53,000 records in its database. The international franchise has extended beyond print to include television series and museums. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international source for cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organization employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. Following a series of owners, the franchise has been owned by the Jim Pattison Group since 2008, with its headquarters moved to South Quay Plaza, Canary Wharf, London, in 2017. Since 2008, Guinness World Records has orientated its business model away from selling books, and towards creating new world records as publicity exercises for individuals and organizations, which has attracted criticism. History On 10 November 1951, Sir Hugh Beaver, then the managing director of the Guinness Breweries, went on a shooting party in the North Slob, by the River Slaney in County Wexford, Ireland. After missing a shot at a golden plover, he became involved in an argument over whether the golden plover or the red grouse was the fastest game bird in Europe (the plover is faster, but neither is the fastest game bird in Europe). That evening at Castlebridge House, he realized that it was impossible to confirm in reference books whether or not the golden plover was Europe's fastest game bird. Beaver knew that there must have been numerous other questions debated nightly among the public, but there was no book in the world with which to settle arguments about records. He realized then that a book supplying the answers to this sort of question might prove successful. Beaver's idea became a reality when Guinness employee Christopher Chataway recommended university friends Norris and Ross McWhirter, who had been running a fact-finding agency in London. The twin brothers were commissioned in August 1954 to compile what became The Guinness Book of (Superlatives and now) Records.[clarification needed] A thousand copies were distributed for free to pubs across Britain and Ireland as a promotional asset for the Guinness brand, and they became immensely popular with customers. After the founding of The Guinness Book of Records office at the top of Ludgate House, 107 Fleet Street, London, the first 198-page edition was bound on 27 August 1955 and went to the top of the British bestseller list by Christmas. The following year, it was introduced into the United States by New York publisher David Boehm and sold 70,000 copies. Since then, Guinness World Records has sold more than 150 million copies in 100 countries and 40 languages. Due to the book's surprise success, many further editions were printed, eventually settling into a pattern of one revision a year, published in September/October, in time for Christmas. The McWhirters continued to compile it for many years. Both brothers had an encyclopedic memory; on the British children's television series Record Breakers (based upon the book), which was broadcast on the BBC from 1972 to 2001, they would take questions posed by children in the audience on various world records and were able to give the correct answer. Ross McWhirter was assassinated by two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1975, in response to offering a £50,000 reward for information that would lead to the capture of members of the organization. Following Ross's assassination, the feature on the show where questions about records posed by children were answered was called Norris on the Spot. Norris carried on as the book's sole editor. Guinness Superlatives, later Guinness World Records Limited, was incorporated in London in 1954 to publish the first book. Sterling Publishing owned the rights to the Guinness book in the US for decades until it was repurchased by Guinness in 1989 after an 18-month long lawsuit. The group was owned by Guinness PLC and subsequently Diageo until 2001, when it was purchased by Gullane Entertainment for £45.5 million ($65 million). Gullane was itself purchased by HIT Entertainment in 2002. In 2006, Apax Partners purchased HIT and subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group, the parent company of Ripley Entertainment, which is licensed to operate Guinness World Records' Attractions. With offices in New York City and Tokyo, Guinness World Records' global headquarters remain in South Quay Plaza in Canary Wharf, London, while its museum attractions are based at Ripley headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Recent editions have focused on record feats by individuals. Competitions range from obvious ones such as Olympic weightlifting to the longest egg tossing distances, or for the longest time spent playing Grand Theft Auto IV or the largest number of hot dogs consumed in three minutes. Besides records about competitions, it contains such facts such as the heaviest tumor, the most poisonous fungus, the longest-running soap opera and the most valuable life-insurance policy, among others. Many records also relate to the youngest people to have achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world, currently held by Maurizio Giuliano. Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year. The latest edition is the 72nd, published in August 2025. The retirement of Norris McWhirter from his consulting role in 1995 and the subsequent decision by Diageo Plc to sell The Guinness Book of Records brand have shifted the focus of the books from text-oriented to illustrated reference. A selection of records are curated for the book from the full archive but all existing Guinness World Records titles can be accessed by creating a login on the company's website. Applications made by individuals for existing record categories are free of charge. There is an administration fee of £5 (or $5) to propose a new record title. A number of spin-off books and television series have also been produced. Guinness World Records bestowed the record of "Person with the most records" on Ashrita Furman of Queens, New York, in April 2009; at that time, he held 100 records. In 2005, Guinness designated 9 November as International Guinness World Records Day to encourage breaking of world records. In 2006, an estimated 100,000 people participated in over 10 countries. Guinness reported 2,244 new records in 12 months, which was a 173% increase over the previous year. In February 2008, NBC aired The Top 100 Guinness World Records of All Time and Guinness World Records made the complete list available on their website. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. Over its history, numerous world record categories have been discontinued. This list may include that the record poses a threat to health or the environment. Defining records For many records, Guinness World Records is the effective authority on the exact requirements for them and with whom records reside, the company providing adjudicators to events to determine the veracity of record attempts. The list of records which the Guinness World Records covers is not fixed, records may be added and also removed for various reasons. The public is invited to submit applications for records, which can be either the bettering of existing records or substantial achievements which could constitute a new record. The company also provides corporate services for companies to "harness the power of record-breaking to deliver tangible success for their businesses." Guinness World Records states several types of records it will not accept for ethical reasons, such as those related to the killing or harming of animals. In the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records, Colombian serial killer Pedro López was listed as the "most prolific serial killer", having murdered at least 110 people (with Lopez himself claiming he murdered over 300 people) in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in the late 1960s to 1980s. This was later removed after complaints that it made a competition out of murder, however the record was reinstated in the 2026 edition. Several world records that were once included in the book have been removed for ethical reasons, including concerns for the well-being of potential record breakers. For example, following publication of the "heaviest pet" record, many owners overfed their pets beyond the bounds of what was healthy, and therefore such entries were removed. The Guinness Book also dropped records within their "eating and drinking records" section of Human Achievements in 1991 over concerns that potential competitors could harm themselves and expose the publisher to potential litigation. These changes included the removal of all spirit, wine and beer drinking records, along with other unusual records for consuming such unlikely things as bicycles and trees. Other records, such as sword swallowing and rally driving (on public roads), were closed from further entry as the current holders had performed beyond what are considered safe human tolerance levels. There have been instances of closed categories being reopened. For example, the sword swallowing category was listed as closed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records, but has since been reopened with Johnny Strange breaking a sword swallowing record on Guinness World Records Live. Similarly, the speed beer drinking records which were dropped from the book in 1991, reappeared 17 years later in the 2008 edition, but were moved from the "Human Achievements" section of the older book to the "Modern Society" section of the newer edition. As of 2011[update], it is required in the guidelines of all "large food" type records that the item be fully edible, and distributed to the public for consumption, to prevent food wastage. Chain letters are also not allowed: "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail." After Roger Guy English set the record for sleeplessness in 1974, the category was discontinued for being too dangerous. At the request of the U.S. Mint, in 1984, the book stopped accepting claims of large hoardings of pennies or other currency. Environmentally unfriendly records (such as the releasing of sky lanterns and party balloons) are no longer accepted or monitored, in addition to records relating to tobacco or cannabis consumption or preparation. In 2024, Guinness World Records was accused of laundering the reputation of the oppressive governments as it set world records for the UAE's police forces and Egypt's military. By 2024, the UAE achieved 526 records, of which 21 were credited to the Emirates' police force. Matthew Hedges, a British academic who was forced to sign a false confession, asked the records body to take down the Abu Dhabi police department's certificate for "most signatures on a scroll", along with other such titles. Concerns were also raised around the activities around Egypt, which moved from 22 records to 110 within a decade until 2024. James Lynch, co-founder of FairSquare, said the records were legitimizing Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's regime. The Guinness World Records stated that its record titles "cannot be purchased". Guinness World Records has been accused of romanticizing diseases, such as Graves' Disease and Pica. For some potential categories, Guinness World Records has declined to list some records that are too difficult or impossible to determine. For example, its website states: "We do not accept any claims for beauty as it is not objectively measurable." On 10 December 2010, Guinness World Records stopped accepting submissions for the "dreadlock" category after an investigation of its first and only female title holder, Asha Mandela, determining it was impossible to judge this record accurately. Change in business model Traditionally, the company made a large amount of its revenue via book sales to interested readers, especially children. The rise of the Internet began to cut into book sales starting in the 2000s, part of a general decline in the book industry. According to a 2017 story by Planet Money of NPR, Guinness began to realize that a lucrative new revenue source to replace falling book sales was the would-be record-holders themselves. While any person can theoretically send in a record to be verified for free, the approval process is slow. Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on. In particular, corporations and celebrities seeking a publicity stunt to launch a new product or draw attention to themselves began to hire Guinness World Records, paying them for finding a record to break or to create a new category just for them. As such, they have been described as a native advertising company, with no clear distinction between content and advertisement. Television talk show host John Oliver criticized Guinness World Records on the programme Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in August 2019, during an episode about President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Oliver said Guinness took money from authoritarian governments for pointless vanity projects such as Berdimuhamedow's. Oliver asked Guinness to work with Last Week Tonight to adjudicate a record for "Largest cake featuring a picture of someone falling off a horse", but according to Oliver, the offer did not work out after Guinness insisted on a non-disparagement clause. Guinness World Records denied the accusations and stated that they declined Oliver's offer to participate because "it was merely an opportunity to mock one of our record-holders," and that Oliver did not specifically request the record for the largest marble cake. As of 2021, the Guinness World Record for "Largest marble cake" remains with Betty Crocker Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Following Oliver's episode, Guinness World Records' ethics were called into question by human rights groups. Museums In 1976, a Guinness Book of World Records museum opened in the Empire State Building. Speed shooter Bob Munden then went on tour promoting The Guinness Book of World Records by performing his record fast draws with a standard weight single-action revolver from a Western movie-type holster. His fastest time for a draw was 0.02 seconds. Among exhibits were life-size statues of the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, and world's largest earthworm, an X-ray photo of a sword swallower, repeated lightning strike victim Roy Sullivan's hat complete with lightning holes and a pair of gem-studded golf shoes on sale for $6,500. The museum closed in 1995. In more recent years, the Guinness company has permitted the franchising of small museums with displays based on the book, all currently (as of 2010[update]) located in towns popular with tourists: Tokyo, Copenhagen, San Antonio. There were once Guinness World Records museums and exhibitions at the London Trocadero, Bangalore, San Francisco, Myrtle Beach, Orlando, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. The Orlando museum, which closed in 2002, was branded The Guinness Records Experience; the Hollywood, Niagara Falls, Copenhagen, and Gatlinburg museums also previously featured this branding. Retail and merchandise Guinness World Records operates an official online shop, the Guinness World Records Store, which offers items related to record-breaking achievements, including certificates of participation, apparel, and the annual Guinness World Records book. The shop provides record-holders and the general public with access to official Guinness World Records materials. Merchandise is part of the organization's broader engagement efforts beyond its publications and events. Television series Guinness World Records has commissioned various television series documenting world record breaking attempts, including: Rhianna Loren (2025) Specials: Gamer's edition In 2008, Guinness World Records released its gamer's edition, a supplement that keeps records for popular video game high scores, codes and feats in association with Twin Galaxies. The Gamer's Edition used to contain 258 pages, over 1,236 video game related world records and four interviews including one with Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day. Editions were published for the years 2008 through 2020, with the 2009 edition in hardcover. The 2025 edition is the first since 2020, returning after a five-year hiatus. Since 2020, the supplement has had 192 pages. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was a music reference book first published in 1977. It was compiled by BBC Radio 1 DJs Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read with brothers Tim Rice and Jonathan Rice. It was the first in a number of music reference books that were to be published by Guinness Publishing with sister publication The Guinness Book of British Hit Albums coming in 1983. After being sold to Hit Entertainment, the data concerning the Official Chart Company's singles and albums charts were combined under the title British Hit Singles & Albums, with Hit Entertainment publishing the book from 2003 to 2006 (under the Guinness World Records brand). After Guinness World Records was sold to The Jim Pattison Group, it was effectively replaced by a series of books published by Ebury Publishing/Random House with the Virgin Book of British Hit Singles first being published in 2007 and with a Hit Albums book following two years later. Other media and products In 1975, Parker Brothers marketed a board game, The Guinness Game of World Records, based on the book. Players compete by setting and breaking records for activities such as the longest streak of rolling dice before rolling doubles, stacking plastic pieces, and bouncing a ball off alternating sides of a card, as well as answering trivia questions based on the listings in the Guinness Book of World Records. A video game, Guinness World Records: The Videogame, was developed by TT Fusion and released for Nintendo DS, Wii and iOS in November 2008. In 2012, Warner Bros. announced the development of a live-action film version of Guinness World Records with Daniel Chun as scriptwriter. The film, however, never entered production. Dr. Sunil Gupta is listed in the Guinness World Records for participating in the largest multi-location diabetic neuropathy screening conducted on World Diabetes Day, 14 November 2013, during which 1,676 screenings were performed across 27 locations in India. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_ref-94] | [TOKENS: 3908] |
Contents Guinness World Records Page version status This is an accepted version of this page Guinness World Records, known from its inception in 1955 until 1999 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous United States editions as The Guinness Book of World Records, is a British reference book published annually, listing world records both of human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. Sir Hugh Beaver created the concept in order to settle arguments debated in pubs, and twin brothers Norris and Ross McWhirter co-founded the book in London in late August 1955. The first edition topped the bestseller list in the United Kingdom by Christmas 1955. The following year the book was launched internationally, and as of the 2026 edition, it is now in its 71st year of publication, published in 100 countries and 40 languages, and maintains over 53,000 records in its database. The international franchise has extended beyond print to include television series and museums. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international source for cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organization employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. Following a series of owners, the franchise has been owned by the Jim Pattison Group since 2008, with its headquarters moved to South Quay Plaza, Canary Wharf, London, in 2017. Since 2008, Guinness World Records has orientated its business model away from selling books, and towards creating new world records as publicity exercises for individuals and organizations, which has attracted criticism. History On 10 November 1951, Sir Hugh Beaver, then the managing director of the Guinness Breweries, went on a shooting party in the North Slob, by the River Slaney in County Wexford, Ireland. After missing a shot at a golden plover, he became involved in an argument over whether the golden plover or the red grouse was the fastest game bird in Europe (the plover is faster, but neither is the fastest game bird in Europe). That evening at Castlebridge House, he realized that it was impossible to confirm in reference books whether or not the golden plover was Europe's fastest game bird. Beaver knew that there must have been numerous other questions debated nightly among the public, but there was no book in the world with which to settle arguments about records. He realized then that a book supplying the answers to this sort of question might prove successful. Beaver's idea became a reality when Guinness employee Christopher Chataway recommended university friends Norris and Ross McWhirter, who had been running a fact-finding agency in London. The twin brothers were commissioned in August 1954 to compile what became The Guinness Book of (Superlatives and now) Records.[clarification needed] A thousand copies were distributed for free to pubs across Britain and Ireland as a promotional asset for the Guinness brand, and they became immensely popular with customers. After the founding of The Guinness Book of Records office at the top of Ludgate House, 107 Fleet Street, London, the first 198-page edition was bound on 27 August 1955 and went to the top of the British bestseller list by Christmas. The following year, it was introduced into the United States by New York publisher David Boehm and sold 70,000 copies. Since then, Guinness World Records has sold more than 150 million copies in 100 countries and 40 languages. Due to the book's surprise success, many further editions were printed, eventually settling into a pattern of one revision a year, published in September/October, in time for Christmas. The McWhirters continued to compile it for many years. Both brothers had an encyclopedic memory; on the British children's television series Record Breakers (based upon the book), which was broadcast on the BBC from 1972 to 2001, they would take questions posed by children in the audience on various world records and were able to give the correct answer. Ross McWhirter was assassinated by two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1975, in response to offering a £50,000 reward for information that would lead to the capture of members of the organization. Following Ross's assassination, the feature on the show where questions about records posed by children were answered was called Norris on the Spot. Norris carried on as the book's sole editor. Guinness Superlatives, later Guinness World Records Limited, was incorporated in London in 1954 to publish the first book. Sterling Publishing owned the rights to the Guinness book in the US for decades until it was repurchased by Guinness in 1989 after an 18-month long lawsuit. The group was owned by Guinness PLC and subsequently Diageo until 2001, when it was purchased by Gullane Entertainment for £45.5 million ($65 million). Gullane was itself purchased by HIT Entertainment in 2002. In 2006, Apax Partners purchased HIT and subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group, the parent company of Ripley Entertainment, which is licensed to operate Guinness World Records' Attractions. With offices in New York City and Tokyo, Guinness World Records' global headquarters remain in South Quay Plaza in Canary Wharf, London, while its museum attractions are based at Ripley headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Recent editions have focused on record feats by individuals. Competitions range from obvious ones such as Olympic weightlifting to the longest egg tossing distances, or for the longest time spent playing Grand Theft Auto IV or the largest number of hot dogs consumed in three minutes. Besides records about competitions, it contains such facts such as the heaviest tumor, the most poisonous fungus, the longest-running soap opera and the most valuable life-insurance policy, among others. Many records also relate to the youngest people to have achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world, currently held by Maurizio Giuliano. Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year. The latest edition is the 72nd, published in August 2025. The retirement of Norris McWhirter from his consulting role in 1995 and the subsequent decision by Diageo Plc to sell The Guinness Book of Records brand have shifted the focus of the books from text-oriented to illustrated reference. A selection of records are curated for the book from the full archive but all existing Guinness World Records titles can be accessed by creating a login on the company's website. Applications made by individuals for existing record categories are free of charge. There is an administration fee of £5 (or $5) to propose a new record title. A number of spin-off books and television series have also been produced. Guinness World Records bestowed the record of "Person with the most records" on Ashrita Furman of Queens, New York, in April 2009; at that time, he held 100 records. In 2005, Guinness designated 9 November as International Guinness World Records Day to encourage breaking of world records. In 2006, an estimated 100,000 people participated in over 10 countries. Guinness reported 2,244 new records in 12 months, which was a 173% increase over the previous year. In February 2008, NBC aired The Top 100 Guinness World Records of All Time and Guinness World Records made the complete list available on their website. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. Over its history, numerous world record categories have been discontinued. This list may include that the record poses a threat to health or the environment. Defining records For many records, Guinness World Records is the effective authority on the exact requirements for them and with whom records reside, the company providing adjudicators to events to determine the veracity of record attempts. The list of records which the Guinness World Records covers is not fixed, records may be added and also removed for various reasons. The public is invited to submit applications for records, which can be either the bettering of existing records or substantial achievements which could constitute a new record. The company also provides corporate services for companies to "harness the power of record-breaking to deliver tangible success for their businesses." Guinness World Records states several types of records it will not accept for ethical reasons, such as those related to the killing or harming of animals. In the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records, Colombian serial killer Pedro López was listed as the "most prolific serial killer", having murdered at least 110 people (with Lopez himself claiming he murdered over 300 people) in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in the late 1960s to 1980s. This was later removed after complaints that it made a competition out of murder, however the record was reinstated in the 2026 edition. Several world records that were once included in the book have been removed for ethical reasons, including concerns for the well-being of potential record breakers. For example, following publication of the "heaviest pet" record, many owners overfed their pets beyond the bounds of what was healthy, and therefore such entries were removed. The Guinness Book also dropped records within their "eating and drinking records" section of Human Achievements in 1991 over concerns that potential competitors could harm themselves and expose the publisher to potential litigation. These changes included the removal of all spirit, wine and beer drinking records, along with other unusual records for consuming such unlikely things as bicycles and trees. Other records, such as sword swallowing and rally driving (on public roads), were closed from further entry as the current holders had performed beyond what are considered safe human tolerance levels. There have been instances of closed categories being reopened. For example, the sword swallowing category was listed as closed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records, but has since been reopened with Johnny Strange breaking a sword swallowing record on Guinness World Records Live. Similarly, the speed beer drinking records which were dropped from the book in 1991, reappeared 17 years later in the 2008 edition, but were moved from the "Human Achievements" section of the older book to the "Modern Society" section of the newer edition. As of 2011[update], it is required in the guidelines of all "large food" type records that the item be fully edible, and distributed to the public for consumption, to prevent food wastage. Chain letters are also not allowed: "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail." After Roger Guy English set the record for sleeplessness in 1974, the category was discontinued for being too dangerous. At the request of the U.S. Mint, in 1984, the book stopped accepting claims of large hoardings of pennies or other currency. Environmentally unfriendly records (such as the releasing of sky lanterns and party balloons) are no longer accepted or monitored, in addition to records relating to tobacco or cannabis consumption or preparation. In 2024, Guinness World Records was accused of laundering the reputation of the oppressive governments as it set world records for the UAE's police forces and Egypt's military. By 2024, the UAE achieved 526 records, of which 21 were credited to the Emirates' police force. Matthew Hedges, a British academic who was forced to sign a false confession, asked the records body to take down the Abu Dhabi police department's certificate for "most signatures on a scroll", along with other such titles. Concerns were also raised around the activities around Egypt, which moved from 22 records to 110 within a decade until 2024. James Lynch, co-founder of FairSquare, said the records were legitimizing Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's regime. The Guinness World Records stated that its record titles "cannot be purchased". Guinness World Records has been accused of romanticizing diseases, such as Graves' Disease and Pica. For some potential categories, Guinness World Records has declined to list some records that are too difficult or impossible to determine. For example, its website states: "We do not accept any claims for beauty as it is not objectively measurable." On 10 December 2010, Guinness World Records stopped accepting submissions for the "dreadlock" category after an investigation of its first and only female title holder, Asha Mandela, determining it was impossible to judge this record accurately. Change in business model Traditionally, the company made a large amount of its revenue via book sales to interested readers, especially children. The rise of the Internet began to cut into book sales starting in the 2000s, part of a general decline in the book industry. According to a 2017 story by Planet Money of NPR, Guinness began to realize that a lucrative new revenue source to replace falling book sales was the would-be record-holders themselves. While any person can theoretically send in a record to be verified for free, the approval process is slow. Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on. In particular, corporations and celebrities seeking a publicity stunt to launch a new product or draw attention to themselves began to hire Guinness World Records, paying them for finding a record to break or to create a new category just for them. As such, they have been described as a native advertising company, with no clear distinction between content and advertisement. Television talk show host John Oliver criticized Guinness World Records on the programme Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in August 2019, during an episode about President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Oliver said Guinness took money from authoritarian governments for pointless vanity projects such as Berdimuhamedow's. Oliver asked Guinness to work with Last Week Tonight to adjudicate a record for "Largest cake featuring a picture of someone falling off a horse", but according to Oliver, the offer did not work out after Guinness insisted on a non-disparagement clause. Guinness World Records denied the accusations and stated that they declined Oliver's offer to participate because "it was merely an opportunity to mock one of our record-holders," and that Oliver did not specifically request the record for the largest marble cake. As of 2021, the Guinness World Record for "Largest marble cake" remains with Betty Crocker Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Following Oliver's episode, Guinness World Records' ethics were called into question by human rights groups. Museums In 1976, a Guinness Book of World Records museum opened in the Empire State Building. Speed shooter Bob Munden then went on tour promoting The Guinness Book of World Records by performing his record fast draws with a standard weight single-action revolver from a Western movie-type holster. His fastest time for a draw was 0.02 seconds. Among exhibits were life-size statues of the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, and world's largest earthworm, an X-ray photo of a sword swallower, repeated lightning strike victim Roy Sullivan's hat complete with lightning holes and a pair of gem-studded golf shoes on sale for $6,500. The museum closed in 1995. In more recent years, the Guinness company has permitted the franchising of small museums with displays based on the book, all currently (as of 2010[update]) located in towns popular with tourists: Tokyo, Copenhagen, San Antonio. There were once Guinness World Records museums and exhibitions at the London Trocadero, Bangalore, San Francisco, Myrtle Beach, Orlando, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. The Orlando museum, which closed in 2002, was branded The Guinness Records Experience; the Hollywood, Niagara Falls, Copenhagen, and Gatlinburg museums also previously featured this branding. Retail and merchandise Guinness World Records operates an official online shop, the Guinness World Records Store, which offers items related to record-breaking achievements, including certificates of participation, apparel, and the annual Guinness World Records book. The shop provides record-holders and the general public with access to official Guinness World Records materials. Merchandise is part of the organization's broader engagement efforts beyond its publications and events. Television series Guinness World Records has commissioned various television series documenting world record breaking attempts, including: Rhianna Loren (2025) Specials: Gamer's edition In 2008, Guinness World Records released its gamer's edition, a supplement that keeps records for popular video game high scores, codes and feats in association with Twin Galaxies. The Gamer's Edition used to contain 258 pages, over 1,236 video game related world records and four interviews including one with Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day. Editions were published for the years 2008 through 2020, with the 2009 edition in hardcover. The 2025 edition is the first since 2020, returning after a five-year hiatus. Since 2020, the supplement has had 192 pages. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was a music reference book first published in 1977. It was compiled by BBC Radio 1 DJs Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read with brothers Tim Rice and Jonathan Rice. It was the first in a number of music reference books that were to be published by Guinness Publishing with sister publication The Guinness Book of British Hit Albums coming in 1983. After being sold to Hit Entertainment, the data concerning the Official Chart Company's singles and albums charts were combined under the title British Hit Singles & Albums, with Hit Entertainment publishing the book from 2003 to 2006 (under the Guinness World Records brand). After Guinness World Records was sold to The Jim Pattison Group, it was effectively replaced by a series of books published by Ebury Publishing/Random House with the Virgin Book of British Hit Singles first being published in 2007 and with a Hit Albums book following two years later. Other media and products In 1975, Parker Brothers marketed a board game, The Guinness Game of World Records, based on the book. Players compete by setting and breaking records for activities such as the longest streak of rolling dice before rolling doubles, stacking plastic pieces, and bouncing a ball off alternating sides of a card, as well as answering trivia questions based on the listings in the Guinness Book of World Records. A video game, Guinness World Records: The Videogame, was developed by TT Fusion and released for Nintendo DS, Wii and iOS in November 2008. In 2012, Warner Bros. announced the development of a live-action film version of Guinness World Records with Daniel Chun as scriptwriter. The film, however, never entered production. Dr. Sunil Gupta is listed in the Guinness World Records for participating in the largest multi-location diabetic neuropathy screening conducted on World Diabetes Day, 14 November 2013, during which 1,676 screenings were performed across 27 locations in India. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HobbyConsolas] | [TOKENS: 172] |
Contents HobbyConsolas HobbyConsolas is a Spanish video game magazine founded in 1991 by Hobby Press and published by Axel Springer SE. The first issue appeared in October 1991. The monthly magazine offers information about games for all consoles, and since 2012 has also covered video games for PC and mobile devices. In March 2014 it had a circulation of 32,129 copies, and had approximately 330,000 readers. Their official website is the fifth most visited Spanish video game website. Listeners of the Spanish radio program Game 40 named HobbyConsolas the best game magazine of 1997. See also References External links This video game magazine or journal-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information. See tips for writing articles about magazines. Further suggestions might be found on the article's talk page. |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive314#Protecting_an_editor's_user_page_or_user_space_per_their_request] | [TOKENS: 28032] |
Contents Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314 Problems with AFD nominations and with copyright issues Hi all. I am concerned that there is a problem with a massive amount of articles (50?) brought to AFD by User:Softlavender without any responsible investigation into whether or not the individual articles are actually notable. All of the articles were created by User:Niggle1892, and are of recordings by the opera singer Frederica von Stade. Softlavendar brought the issue to a discussion at WP:WikiProject Opera where another editor expressed concerns about copyright problems on those articles. However, the consensus there seems to be, aside from the issue of copyright, that the articles in question are notable. Softlavendar went ahead and nominated all of them. I'm familiar with many of these recordings, some of them are actually Grammy Award winners, so notability through a quick cursory search would have been quickly established. Some help with copyright issues, and stopping an unnecessary flood of articles into AFD would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC) In fact, the user was warned on their talkpage several months ago by Richard3120 to stop creating these articles , but they went right on doing so. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Misguided AfD page Could a willing admin address please address the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L Richards? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Hello, Thank you for your posts. First, a reminder that "This guy...once again up in arms..." is a person, just like you. You don't know him and there may be dynamics in his life of which you are unaware. I gave up trying to get this page deleted because of the inordinate frustration a technically-incompetent person encounters when trying to do anything --no matter how earnestly-- in Wikipedia, because someone will come along and delete it for an innocent error. In response to the posts: 1. I am indeed the page subject. I forgot my old login and created a new one. 2. I followed the multi-step Wikipedia instructions on how to nominate a page for deletion to the maximum of my ability to understand the directions. I can't do any better. 3. I added a rationale to the page the instructions said to, but the rationale was deleted. My rationale is that I am a private, non-notable person who doesn't deserve a page. There are other security reasons not able to be discussed here that have lead even my employer to wash me from their webpages. You can observe for yourself at the following pages that my photo is gone and I'm reduced to a single line bio: https://polisci.uconn.edu/people/faculty/ https://polisci.uconn.edu/person/david-richards/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/our-team-all/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/joint-faculty/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/person/david-richards/ I sincerely thank anyone for their help.Mrdavid1729 (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC) I very much appreciate that help! I'm OK with the decision process --it will be what it will be-- it's just terribly frustrating for a novice to navigate Wiki. Thank you. -David Mrdavid1729 (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Unreviewed AfC-acceptances in New Pages Feed Few AfC acceptances listed in New Pages Feed are in Un-reviewed status, even if they are accepted by AfC reviewers who are Autopatrolled and New Page Reviewers (not as like the articles supposed to be in 'Autopatrolled' status). Any solution? I posted a query with an example on the same in AfC talk page, which went almost unresolved. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Request for ban and article lock in RJ Nieto article Requesting for ban/block of Object404 for insisting on preserving contentious content on RJ Nieto which are poorly sourced and cited. The article has sections that use citations irrelevant or not even discussing what it supposed to be a reference to. The article also cites Facebook posts and a website memebuster which both fails as reliable sources as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Yet Object404 insists that memebuster is a "reliable source" refering to a Talk page he himself created. He argues that memebuster has been "cited by CNN" but that doesn't make it reliable. News outlets cite blogs but that does not mean they are verified sources. News outlets also cite social media posts of random people. Memebuster is a blog written by anonymous people of unknown credentials. I have edited the article to remove poorly sourced and contentious materials but Object404 insists on preserving the contentious and poorly sourced version of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNDeSCRiPT (talk • contribs) 04:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC) ANI discussion in need of admin attention The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This discussion is in urgent need of attention from one or more uninvolved administrators. Its becoming unwieldy and TLDR. I seriously doubt further discussion is likely to add clarity or strength to any consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Heads Up: Neo-Nazi auto-confirmed trolls Handled There has been some recent vandalism from neo-Nazi auto-confirmed troll accounts at Gas Chamber and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege in case anybody with access to the magic 8 ball wants to have a look for possible sleeper accounts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Protecting an editor's user page or user space per their request Hi, fellow admins! I have a few questions and thoughts regarding the situation where users request pre-emptive protection of their user page, or to subpages within their user space (excluding their user talk page), where no active vandalism, abuse, or disruption is actively in progress or occurring at the time of their request. A request was made today on RFPP by an editor who requested extended confirmed protection be applied onto their user page, where it has never been the subject to any vandalism or abuse, because he would like it restricted to only be able to be edited by extended confirmed editors. I responded by telling the user that ECP may not be doable due to policy, but that would go double check and review it to be absolutely sure. I'm certain that I've applied semi-protection onto user pages pre-emptively per their request in the past, and I honestly don't see a problem with it if the user is established and trustworthy, and hasn't had issues with violating WP:UPNOT. However, I hadn't actually looked into this situation before, policy-wise. I had just granted these requests because I saw that other admins had always done the same thing; they were perfectly okay with applying pre-emptive page protection (usually always semi-protection) onto a page within an editor's own user space (but not their user talk page) if they simply requested it. I feel has been (or has become) the general "norm" regarding this situation and these requests. However, reading WP:UPROT (which references the closing statements on this discussion) state that any kind of pre-emptive or "automatic" protection of any pages within an editor's user space is not allowed, and that at least some level of need must exist before we can approve such user requests. I just feel like the general "norm", from what I've seen admins do consistently over many years, differs from what's stated within policy, and where I'd like to get input and thoughts from others and discuss this. Do you agree that this is also what you observe when users make such requests? Should we perhaps be open to consider starting a discussion as to whether or not consensus may have changed in this area, and whether or not pre-emptive user-requested protection of pages within own user space should be okay? If so, what protection levels (or "maximum" protection level) can they pre-emptively request? Any kind of thoughts or input about this would be awesome and highly appreciated. I guess I kind of realized, following this request I received on RFPP, that I hadn't actually reviewed the policy on this, and I had been following what felt to be the "norm" and from what I've observed other admins do, and my thoughts went from there... I'm going to decline the extended confirmed protection request on RFPP, but I'm going to be open to considering whether or not to start a discussion and proposal that semi-protection be fair to request and apply to someone's own user space pre-emptively (excluding their user talk page), but that'll depend on how this discussion goes and the input that others provide here. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Please revoke all permissions from this account I have no use for them as I have no intention of returning to editing and will be scrambling the password on this account shortly. Mélencron (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Indefinite IP address blocks Hello, fellow administrators! It's that time of the year again! :-) I try to post a yearly reminder to this noticeboard for all admins, and ask that you take a few moments and go through the list of indefinitely blocked IP addresses and ranges, locate any indefinite blocks that you've placed, and review them. If there are accidental blocks that you've placed on any IP addresses or ranges indefinitely (heh, I know that I've done this a few times in the past), please take a moment to remove those blocks. If there are indefinite IP address or range blocks that you've placed intentionally, please review them and verify whether or not the indefinite duration is still necessary. Obviously, if they're not, you'll want to either set the duration to expire at some point in time, or remove the block completely. Taking the time to review the indefinite IP and range blocks you've placed will help assure that we only apply and maintain blocks and other sanctions and restrictions if they're correct, accurate, and necessary, and avoid collateral damage and having any old or outdated blocks affect innocent users. Thanks for taking the time to do this, and I wish everyone an excellent day and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Also in general I have no issue with other administrators modifying my past administrative actions, except those marked as done in an arbitration capacity (in which, consult the current committee). –xenotalk 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Question about title blacklist Someone asked at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge (which is the wrong place, but that's neither here nor there) for Draft:Bad Apple!! to be moved to Bad Apple!!. The problem seems to be the double exclamation marks match an entry in the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Is there some reason why I shouldn't complete this move for the person? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 02:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Delete request Dear sysop, I got a request: Can you delete the user page User:AbdulZakir? Reason: Spam-only account: Spambot. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Request for topic ban This notification is to report behaviour by Snooganssnoogans (S) on the Brexit article and request a topic ban. A few days ago I had an edit to that article reverted several times by S. I took it to the relevant talk page and the discussion about it is here. I added my edit was back in, there being a clear majority in my favour. 4:1, no-one was on S's side. I made the point that S had lied in his or her edit summary of one of the reversions. [here]. This falsehood continued in the discussion. When S said "There was a RfC (the most embarrassing one I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia) where editors decided not to include a peer-reviewed study on this very subject." s/he was referring to this But editors didn't decide one way or another - there was an even split, followed by administrator judication. Brexit is a highly contentious subject, which makes it one over which editors must pay special attention to fairness and their allowing information to be presented which they disagree with. Unfortunately, with the edit under discussion there, S appeared to disagree with that concept, writing that "a working paper, which flies in the face of the broad assessment by economists, should not be included..." But the working paper was not just a snappy judgement by whoever, it was a survey undertaken by the Central Bank of Ireland. Therefore. the fact that it came to a conclusion contrary to information already presented in the article and supported by academic surveys (forecasts) is not relevant. Wikipedia is all about fairness and balance. We all know this. So there were major problems with S's arguments. Now all this would be something not unheard of it were not for the following. Other editors have raised the question of WP:OWN in relation to S. Octoberwoodland did so in the discussion linked above, while the comments of PaleCloudedWhite in the same place also relate to it. Futhermore, PCW drew attention to this unsolicited post by another editor on his Talk page, which says: "Don't bother editing the Brexit article, Snooganssnoogans will revert you. He owns the article (WP:OWN). Just look at his talk page to get an idea of his conception of a collaborative encyclopedia. The only way to shut him up would be to make a consensus building talk, as I think that most people agree that the Brexit page cannot only rely on academic studies..." Not surprisingly, S refuted the idea of him or her being involved in WP:OWN, but then said "As someone who has added pretty much every academic study to this Wikipedia article..." - which kind of flies in the face of that refutation. I also draw attention to the last comment on the Talk discussion about my edit, wbich says: "Got to laugh about the warnings on the talk page. I did a similar thing in User:Knox490's talk page when he started editing saying "Just to give you a heads up, there is a long history of people raising similar points to you about this page.....and a long history of people giving up due to the aggressive a relentless push back from a small group of editors. Not to discourage you, but be prepared to put in a lot of time and effort if you want to change anything." " Surely Wikipedians should not have to put up with the kind of behaviour being talked about? It is wearing. It puts good editors off of Wiki, sometimes permanently. A day or so ago, in that same discussion, I wrote: "I feel that should there be the same kind of activity again here on the Brexit article, it really should be reported." S duly "obliged" with more reversions. I had by then read a lot of S's talk page, which shows this (discussion with an Admin about avoiding a ban) and a multitude of 3RR warnings. I am of course far from being the only editor who has had edits to the Brexit article reverted by S. Asarlaí has also experienced it. See here. And I should add that IMO Asarlaí's contributions are exemplary, far superior to mine. I would like it to be possible to make good edits to the Brexit article without there being any risk of reversion for spurious reasons by S. Two more edits by me were reverted by S overnight. One in particular I am bringing to attention. This is the comparison. S uses wording in his or her edit summary which frankly I find distasteful. But much more important is the problem with the reversion. A study which makes a forecast of something is a forecast. It cannot be anything else, no matter how reputable the people or organisation responsible. So the phraseology "It forecasted that Brexit would ..." (my words) is correct. Whereas the statement "The study found that Brexit would..." (S's words) cannot be anything other than incorrect, because the study is a forecast, and therefore saying that something would happen, when it is only what the study says, is a misrepresention. This may be considered a minor point - I disagree. I wouldn't and couldn't of course make the following point in the article, due to SYNTH , (although if I noticed an RS that made the point I'd include it) but there were a multitude of pre- and post-referendum forecasts and studies which said that a pro-Brexit vote would be next to cataclysmic. Yet employment in Britain has as it stands right now never been higher. So study after study turned out to be so much waste paper. And therefore to say that something will or would be the case in the future wrt. Brexit is itself a contentious thing to say. But saying something is forecasted, no problem with that. I have not taken this to Talk:Brexit as talk discussions take up a lot of time. This has, too, but it's far more important. I feel that there is a major issue with S. By coincidence, at the very top of this noticeboard, in this discussion, yet another editor is alleging harassment by S. And that's on top of all that I have already written about. How many reports are needed? There are probably more that I haven't seen. I regret that I have to ask for a topic ban on Snooganssnoogans for Brexit-related articles. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 08:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC) The argument that has gained traction at the Brexit article (espoused particularly by Snooganssnoogans) is that academic economic literature is the 'best quality' and must be used in preference to other sources regarding predicted economic effects of Brexit. This sounds very reasonable to the average Wikipedian, but it is a false narrative here, as Brexit is not a purely economic entity; indeed, it is primarily a political one, albeit with economic implications. But the insistence on citing economic studies has helped create an unbalanced and unwieldy article that is not likely to answer the fundamental question of readers as to why people voted to leave despite all the predictions of doom and gloom. That is the heart of Brexit, and this article barely addresses it. It should not be the purpose of the Brexit article to make an assessment on which side of the Brexit debate is 'right' by focussing on predictions of economic outcomes - particularly as economics is a social, not natural, science. Currently about 30% of the article is taken up by an "impacts" section, with significant text about the economic 'impacts', even though the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet. There was general support to split much of this off into a separate article, yet when it was split off recently , Snooganssnoogans reverted the text back in, stating that "this text should not be forked" . PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC) It's hard to take Boscaswell seriously after the first couple of paragraphs. That RFC that's being referred to concluded with "maintain the status quo until a consensus is formed", which was to keep the peer reviewed study out. To accuse Snoogs of lying because "well ackshully there was no consensus and that's why the study can't be included" is at least as misleading. So then we get to the banking scenario. It does not fill me with confidence that in a dispute over reliable sources and neutrality, Bos cited a press release instead of the actual study. And looking at that study, the way it was included definitely makes Bos look like a tendentious POV pusher. In brief, that study was clearly included as a counter to dismal estimates of Britain's economic future. "Early estimates predicted [bad stuff]; however, a new study predicts the financial industry will be okay." However, by citing only the headline finding that "London will remain a large global financial center" and probably not even reading the actual study, key context is being missed. What the authors are concluding is that London's GFCI ranking will barely change, reflecting that it will remain one of the world's top financial centers in terms of competitiveness, even if 20% of its clients flee the country and/or the economy contracts by 3.8%. Using this as some kind of contrast with earlier research, Bos is either trying to push a POV or he didn't actually understand what he was citing. I'll allow him to let us know which it was. Either way, to have gotten so far as to drag another editor to ANI for disputing the inclusion of such indefensible content, I have to support Guy's suggestion that Boscaswell is topic banned from Brexit. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Oppose all Tbans here First, Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules or even that they won't listen to alternatives. Like minded editors are allowed to work on the same articles. If they are shutting out good edits then we have dispute resolution procedures to help. Like representatives democracy it's not always perfect but it's so hard to find a benevolent dictator these days. Boscaswell certainly should not be Tban'ed. There isn't strong evidence here of anything other than understandable frustration combined with inexperience. Sadly my feeling is the Tban suggestion had more to do with silencing a voice that didn't agree vs any reasonable protection of Wikipedia (the reason why we have tbans). From the outside looking in it seems like you have a group of experienced editors who don't want their view of the subject challenged. That challenge is coming from an editor who has much less experience navigating the Wikipedia ways and thus is both getting frustrated. That frustration, combined with less experience may be getting near a problem but our first resort should be understanding this is a good faith editor thus give them a hand rather than push them off the ladder. This complaint is a great example of needing a hand. I would suggest we close it, let them talk to an experienced, uninvolved editor or admin then decide how to best get consensus to fix the things they see as wrong with the Brexit article. If their posts on the Brexit page are like the opening post here, well I can see why they aren't getting any traction. Springee (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC) It seems to me that the text that Snooganssnoogans added to the lead here wasn't in the body of the article at that time - is that correct? I've scanned the article as it existed then, but haven't found that text. Indeed, it was later added to the body by a different editor (here). Could Snooganssnoogans either point to where that text was within the article body, or confirm that it wasn't there? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Proposing that both Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boscaswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned from editing the Brexit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article for 30 days. – Levivich 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Oddity at CAT:RFU I just swung by the requests for unblock category page and noticed that a lot of the entries have a block expiration of 49 years. not really a pressing matter, but thought I would just mention it. --Blackmane (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure An RfC has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC) (EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close. Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days. Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is . A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk. I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here? Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC) The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric." I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done... I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation: In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability." source As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists." Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting: I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington. If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it. As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it. TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Unblock request from CrazyAces489 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. BlackAmerican, previously known as CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs), is making an unblock request per the standard offer: Requesting standard offer. As Per WP:OFFER, I have waited 2 years with no sockpuppetry or ban evasion. I promise to avoid behavior that has led to my ban. I will not engage in problematic edit wars nor will I engage with individuals who baited me and vice versa. I will not create extraordinary reasons to object to a ban. I will continue to create articles that mainstream wikipedia does not necessary look at or for due to Systemic bias in Wikipedia. I am using courtesy and am willing to move forward productively. I plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page. I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. I have had some positive contributions to wikipedia including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I will produce articles on underrepresented groups that continue to not be heard on wikipedia for reasons including systematic bias. I believe that a 6 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia. I've already run a check, and there doesn't seem to have been any recent block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Regarding The Casagrandes Wikipedia page I'm currently being threatened of being blocked on The Casagrandes Wikipedia page. It is mainly edited by two people and two people only. They keep on adding false information help me. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginika1555 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) These two people are namely @Aumary: and @Magitroopa:. Literally Summary uses the term "dumb fans" in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginika1555 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Request to protect articles regarding Peruvian politics Due to the ongoing dispute on 2017–19 Peruvian political crisis, please extended-protect the said article, President of Peru, Vice President of Peru, Martín Vizcarra, and Mercedes Aráoz. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Hiccup in \incidents version history Greetings, Take a look at this page of hits from Sept 23 version history for ANI. Everyting up into Oct1 also looks struck out. Is that an accident of some sort? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Ah, I did not realize rev delete did not cascade through later versions behind the scenes. Thanks, my mistake NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Request for closure The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi. This discussion at templates for discussion has been open for nearly one month. It's transcluded across the BLP template on all talkpages, so it shows up quite a bit across WP! I'd be grateful if someone could take a look and move to close. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Copyvios from User:Peymanalipoursarvari The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This user has been consistently adding copyvios to articles, with warnings dating back to 2017. Despite numerous warnings, this user has persisted and has never edited their talk page. While they seem to be operating in good faith, their lack of any response to the issues raised on their talk page lead me to believe that they should be indeffed under A lack of competence. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 11:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Please, delete this Hi! All!, Please delete this file File:YudaiFunato.jpg, I thought I was doing the correct but now see it clearly violates even the fair rationale. From very now, my deepest apologies, it won't happen again. Thank you. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC) An image Can an admin delete this image as I have uploaded a new image for the person's article (Ahmed Rajib Haider), this is my uploaded photo which is better than the old photo, so the old image should be deleted. Mark Arr (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz banned The committee has resolved by motion that: The Arbitration Committee has received convincing evidence that Icewhiz has engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors. Consequently, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. Supporting: GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned Opposing: Did not vote: AGK, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis WormTT(talk) 13:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Paramount Animation Zsolt Borkai Zsolt Borkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please semi-protect this article. This Sunday elections go on in Hungary. See the view history. --Regasterios (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – October 2019 News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019). Administrator changes Interface administrator changes CheckUser changes Oversight changes Guideline and policy news Technical news Arbitration Miscellaneous Pending Changes Pending changes reviewer right is supposed to be automatically included with the Administrator flag. However, beginning this afternoon, I'm getting the following error message when I try to approve pending changes, "You do not have permission to review..." And while I was typing this and going back for the exact words of the error message the problem seems to have resolved itself. Anyone know what happened? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Asking for interference Hi, could you look at this deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Najran attack(The link was added after El_C reply). It is saying that the article should be removed because the Saudi said it is not factual. I think there are no page watchers or anything. The nomination is malformed. It is not categorised. The tag on the head of the article says it was nominated three times. I don't think it was nominated three times. Help please. I can't waste my time with this and I don't know what to do it remove the deletion tag from the article. I think if an admin interfered the editor might understand but I dont think I am able to make them understand their mistake.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission This has started. (I just happened to notice that the timeline says this should have started by now. I don't know if we usually post this here). --Rschen7754 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Search bar positioning is off The search bar on Special:Search is a bit bugged. When you try to place your mouse cursor in it to edit some text (on both desktop and mobile) it puts it 5 characters to the right. Browser: Google Chrome (desktop&mobile); works fine in IE&Edge. Nixinova T C 18:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case. For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Requesting closure review There is a clear consensus to endorse the RfC close. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Please could someone review the closure of this RfC? Editor who performed the closure claims an 8:6 majority constitutes consensus for making a major change that has severe NPOV implications.GideonF (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Resysop criteria RfC There is currently a request for comment on implementing the community consensus for a stricter resysop policy at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Remove AWB access for mobile account The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Can an admin please remove AWB access for my mobile account, Yoshi24517 (mobile)? I realized I really only need 1 account for AWB, and that is my main. Sorry about that. Plus I want to see what it looks like on AWB when you cannot use an account on wiki. Thanks. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 05:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Topic ban appeal, part... II? III? MCVI? The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Back in January 2018, I was topic-banned from XFD entirely due to a considerable amount of disruptive nominations. Last August, it was downgraded to only a ban from initiating XFDs, but not from participating in them, a ruling which I found fair. I would like to make another appeal toward this and move back to being allowed to initiate XFDs again. I have several articles and templates watchlisted which I would like to nominate, and I have used this time to make certain that they meet deletion criteria. (For example, Second Glance (film) has been on my watchlist for many months after I saw The Cinema Snob review it, and so far multiple searches have yielded almost nothing of note.) I understand why my topic-ban was imposed in the first place, and I will chalk it up to an overzealous attempt to clear out cleanup categories which led to a great deal of reckless nominations. I admit I've touched XFD less in general, but my interactions in that namespace have been a lot smoother. I have also shifted my focus toward article creation and improvement, as seen by the large number of good articles I've passed through since then. I think that my above-mentioned method of watchlisting articles or other content that I find suitable for deletion, and watching them for a period of time before determining whether or not to nominate, will help me take a more measured, uncontroversial approach to the isuses that led to this ban in the first place. I think it's been long enough now -- nearly two years. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC) repeat redirect vandal Awikivisitor20122018 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Awikivisitor20122018 is back to creating bizarre redirects the moment their block ended, still deleting and ignoring any feedback they get about their edits as if their last two blocks never happened. --2605:6000:8C52:6400:EC3E:FBC0:8B1F:F771 (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Delete an inappropriate diffs The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I forgot how I request deletion of inappropriate diffs. Can anyone delete this Special:Diff/920935422.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC) U1 request The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please batch-delete the pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/User:SD0001/AfC_sorting/. Thanks in advance. SD0001 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Request to Terminate Mutual IBAN The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Request to re-open the July 2019 MOS:THEMUSIC RfC The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. An RfC was recently closed assessing consensus. The close has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Closed? and there seems rough consensus there that the close is unsafe (but I am involved in that discussion). I have requested that the closer re-open the RfC but they have not responded. But the close is now being cited (example) as establishing a new guideline. I am therefore requesting that the RfC be re-opened by an uninvolved admin, to be closed in due course again by an uninvolved admin. I previously opened a request at WP:ANI#Request to re-open RfC but there seems to be consensus there that WP:AN is the correct forum. So I am moving the request here, as suggested there. I have notified those involved. There is no suggestion of behavioural problems. It is just honest disagreement. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC) The thread at WP:AN/I has now been closed as consensus is that it should at AN. Andrewa (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC) User is deleting a wikiquote page, even when all quotes are properly referenced. Please help The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Admin Latemplanza (https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Usuario:Latemplanza) is deleting next wikiquote page: https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lemmy_Kilmister, even when all the quotes are properly referenced. I´m asking please a third party to review the content deleted and if neccessary, the admin privileges to be revoked for Latemplanza user. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.153.130 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Possible need for a revdel on a Hong Kong related page. This dif speculates as to the motives of a police officer involved in a shooting. While it does not name the officer, it's veering pretty close to explicit accusations of serious criminal conduct toward a WP:BLP protected individual. I'm uncertain if admins will agree but I thought it was at least appropriate to raise it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Requesting CU The Gas Jews LTA is back. Latest accounts used are OneTopicSpree and LoccoPocco. There are probably others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Need to retrieve deleted file This is a very mundane, technical request, but I was wondering if an administrator could take a look at the deleted file revisions at File:Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png, and if there is an older, high-resolution version, please upload it over the current file on Commons. If I remember correctly, there used to be a high resolution version that was replaced with a low resolution version for copyright reasons. Since then, it was discovered that the image is actually public domain, so the low-resolution version was moved to Commons. Thanks for your help! Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC) If you want to take on a little art project, there is a much higher resolution black and white version that you could start from here. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Requesting an administrator to strike vote, and possibly comment, over at Shinhan Bank Canada deletion discussion Can I please request an administrator's assistance in striking the keep vote of a user over on the Shinhan Bank Canada deletion discussion page? While ostensibly good intentioned, the pages linked do not in any way substantiate his or her argument and aren't even close to related to the discussion at hand. In this way, the comment is seen as inherently disruptive to the discussion. One of the links is even spammy in nature. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Similar to the above mentioned, can I also request an administrator look into the Bridgewater Bank deletion discussion page whereby a user, while ostensibly good intentioned, has posted information that is seen as disruptive to the discussion by confusing Bridgewater Bank with a Nasdaq-listed Bridgewater Bancshares? A simple Google web search will confirm easily the two companies aren't even tangentially related. At the same time, the referenced links are somewhat, if not entirely, spammy in nature promoting stock pump-and-dump-type articles. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC) List of Cranbrook School, Sydney Alumni CUTPASTE move The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Can admin take a look at this? I'm not sure why Naddruf thought it was necessary to do a WP:CUTPASTE move when List of Old Boys of Cranbrook School, Sydney most likely could've just been WP:MOVEd to the new title instead. Now, it's not clear whether a HISTMERGE is needed because of the split page history, and, futhermore, Talk:List of Old Boys of Cranbrook School, Sydney is now an "orphan" talk page so to speak because of the "move". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC) 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team: The Committee thanks the community and all candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion. The Committee also welcomes the following user back to the functionary team: The Committee also thanks Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his long history of contributions to the functionary team. Timotheus Canens voluntarily resigned his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in September 2019. For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Hirohito related articles An IP (62.248.181.187) who was causing problems at Constitution of Japan, is now doing the same at List of longest reigning monarchs, by promoting that Hirohito's reign as emperor ended in 1945, rather then 1989. Not sure how to handle this. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Vandalism, or good edits? Help needed from the musically literate user:134.219.227.30 has made a series of changes to the categories of national anthems (see Special:Contributions/134.219.227.30). As someone who doesn't know the difference between, say F major and E flat major, I can't tell if this is right or wrong. Most of the ones I checked don't actually address the key at all. The Ecuadorian anthem does, but without a source. I'm musically illiterate, and I need help. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC) I don't have a lot of experience editing music articles, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the original score (the composer's written sheet music) should be in some specific key (the "original key"), although other versions may be in different keys. An RS should state what the original key was, and that's they key under which our article should be categorized. Listening to a recording and categorizing it based on what key we hear strikes me as original research. I went over to O Canada; it was categorized as E minor, with nothing about the key in the article (although one of the sources did have the information, stating it was G major. I added some prose cited to that source and changed the category to G major.) I agree with ComplexRational that no musical key category should be included at all, unless the key is stated in the article, properly cited. Where there are multiple versions in multiple keys, we should go with either the original or the most prevalent (I guess if there's a key conflict, that's a content dispute that can be discussed article by article). – Levivich 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Yes, anyone can re-arrange any song into different keys, and if there were other arrangements and they were reliable sourced, they should be recognized. Far as the category, by default it should go to the original key unless the title references a different singer or composer, and for that, again, whatever the reliable source says that key is, should be the recognized key. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Compromised account? Just wondering whether MJV479 (talk · contribs) might potentially be compromised... just asking for a second opinion and additional sets of eyes. Thanks! GABgab 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC) The Daily Caller The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Just for information: Wikipedia has an article on The Daily Caller, which is sharply critical of that publication. A Charles Glasser, representing the Daily Caller, requested dispute resolution at DRN today. What they requested was to provide a statement to an unbiased Wikipedia editor to clarify a few matters, and then, after approval, to lock down the article to prevent vandalism (which would of course also lock down normal editing). I declined the DRN because this is not how Wikipedia works. I then saw that, about a year ago, The Daily Caller requested arbitration concerning a similar content dispute, and the request was also declined. I don't think that any further action is in order, but I thought that I should advise administrators here of this request that doesn't reflect how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Dear People: I apologize for not being conversant in the confusing means of getting content sorted out. And yes, while I am a lawyer (I defend reporters and publsihers, not sue them) this is not any kind of threat. It's a sincere call for help. And yes, when some rando created a page about me I remember something over my head about whether someone paid someone. Never happened, and sadly, this is the kind of ad hominem stuff I desperately hope to avoid. And with all due respect, Mr. Snooganssnoogans seems to have a personal stake in the matter. If "lock down" is the wrong phrase, I apologize. It just seems like someone here has it out for The Daily Caller for their own biases, there are errors and people of good will can sort this out. Suggestions as to process, please? 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com Without commenting on the above, the article does seem to focus heavily on the publication's controversies. I wouldn't say that it meets WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. -- œ™ 03:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Pagemove needed The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Can I get an admin to delete Tip of My Tongue so I can move Tip of My Tongue (disambiguation)? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Revdel request (Resolved) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Can someone revdel this revision. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Unblock request from Ritchie333 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Greetings. Ritchie333 has been blocked for one week, for a supposed IBAN violation. The alleged violation was this series of edits. Praxidicae had tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation and a promotional piece in need of a total rewrite. Ritchie resolved these issues, spending hours of his time rewriting the article. However, even though he had removed the tags accordingly, it was treated as a “revert” of Praxidicae by the blocking administrator (who was one of the Arbs who imposed the behind-the-scenes sanction). Besides the supposed “revert”, there was no other interaction. Because the IBAN was imposed by Arbcom, this is technically an AE block that cannot be reviewed normally. As such, I am copying his appeal here per his request. Note that he has already additionally responded at length on his talk page as well, denying any and all ill intent whatsoever. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't notice who had tagged O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester for G11 and G12 until I had finished the first urgent rewrite to avoid close paraphrasing and excessive puffery and hit "save", by which point it was probably too late. For what it's worth I thought the tags were justified and deletion would have been within the bounds of administrator discretion; I just fancied improving the article so I could nominate it for Did you know? - as a musician, I'm interested in articles about live venues and my interest in Manchester history and architecture has been piqued by the meetup earlier this year. Anyway, I would like to be unblocked to do that, to continue my working in improving Marshlink line towards FAC, and to attend to any GA and DYK reviews I have put up that require my input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. RfC on additional page mover permissions Howdy, There is a current request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Page mover (discussion link) regarding whether page movers should be permitted to move pages which are full-protected. As this would require a change to the protection policy, I'm cross-posting here. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC) The Journal of Structured Finance The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please pay attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journal_of_Structured_Finance Please note that the journal is not accredited (see https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=The+Journal+of+Structured+Finance) therefore cannot be what it claims to be "quarterly academic journal". If someone believes that the journal is encyclopedic (and the the page in Wikipedia is not an advert) than the above quoted sentence should be amended: "quarterly practitioner journal". PS The external link in the page is broken This is the right link https://jsf.pm-research.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.179.217 (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC) One way interaction ban to keep Alex Shih from hounding Arbcom, functionaries and admins...or what? The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Question - was there any coordination in the creation of this post? It took Tony 23 minutes to find all those diffs and compose a long ish first response. I don’t support any sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Per Levivich's request, here are diffs taken approximately within the last month as recent disruptive remarks where he makes a habit of accusations and badgering: So, again, if he is doing bad stuff on-wiki ban him. If one dislikes what he has to say elsewhere either it is actual harassment, the criminal kind, and it is outside the scope of AN and needs to go to the Foundation or it is not and one must simply deal with living in a free world and get over it. We are an encyclopedia, nothing more. Jbh Talk 19:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Beyond that, this from @Berean Hunter: "He isn't worthy enough to deliver such comments and has no right here to accuse others." doubled down with "An editor that isn't in good standing with the community because of a disgraced position isn't worthy to criticize others that are still holding the position, especially when he is obviously bitter in his responses. No, he isn't worthy..." is absolutely the most sick expression of contempt and poor ADMINCOND I can recall from an admin on WP. It is a foul and disgusting expression of "othering" which should not be tolerated here. Certainly not in an administrator, not after ArbCom made the behavioral expectations crystal clear. Jbh Talk 20:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC) We all here have a responsibility to expect better and demand better. If people want the toxicity here to decrease then stop accepting it, call it out when it is observed and press until it is resolved. Change the expectations - change the behavior. Jbh Talk 02:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC) User:Frank marine I have copied over this discussion that was not complete. I was told that this is what to do if I believe that the discussion was not finished, which I believe it was not. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC) The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article (, among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa). You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones. I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Sorry to bother, but please can we make progress in this discussion. It is the second time I have listed it and for the second time it appears to have stalled. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Scope of resysop RfC and community desysop question Coming here because I don't know where else to post, but I do think this needs review (not in a bad way) on the current resysop RfC, a new proposal has been made to have a community desysop process. My concern here is pretty simple: it's at the very bottom of a long page; the proposal was about inactivity resysops, and you're very likely to only attract a very limited audience. It's entirely possible to get 20 or so people in support of it and gain "consensus", but if it were advertised on it's own, you'd likely get a hundred people or more participating, with a much more divided split. I guess my question is for a wider audience: should this be included in this RfC, or is it an important enough and controversial enough topic that it should be closed and have someone propose it on it's own if they want to. My view is the latter, but I thought it important enough that getting a wider view was needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC) I believe the resysop discussion is mainly about criteria for restoring administrative privileges that have been temporarily removed, without requiring a new request for administrative privileges to be passed, while discussions in the past on community desysop procedures have focused on procedures to permanently remove administrative privileges, requiring a new request to be passed in order to re-attain them. So while related, I think the two are distinct. People being what they are, it's easier to move forward on a smaller number of discussion threads at a time, so I think it would be beneficial for both discussions to put the community desysop discussion in a parking lot until after the resysop discussion is over. isaacl (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Request for commment on a binding desysop procedure Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure. GMGtalk 01:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC) 141.92.67.44 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. References Miss Universe 2019 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. why a newest user Jjj1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) like to add rumor details can you check his account and contribs? this page is about Miss Universe 2019 but not for promote a business of Pinoy politician/businessman who try to be on press by talking about MU pageant with unsources, so all details that i and other edtitors removed its fake news and rumors, that dont have any official announcement or confirmed details by MUO, its just fake news. why we dont add only the real things and good details for this page. fake news from rumors are not important for the article. thanks--Evrdkmkm (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) (Self-requested) Closure review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 11 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Greetings, Johnvr4 has been contesting my close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 11 on my talk page regarding Orlando's Summer of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and it seems like we are at an impasse. In my assessment their arguments mostly rely on throwing links to various policies/guidelines/essays that mostly don't apply at all to the situation or at least don't refute the concerns about the sourcing raised in the deletion review but I'd like a third party to take a gander - and since WP:AN is the place for reviewing administrative actions that don't have a dedicated forum, here I am. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Michael Gavin The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Can an admin please delete Michael Gavin so I can move Michael Gavin (soccer) over it? It's clearly a single entry dab. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorad_Choudhry Please pay attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorad_Choudhry It seems that has been made for advert See some occasional contributors such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CTeasdale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Reuben.Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.230.232.12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.86.145.255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.179.217 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Is this an acceptable link? News article linking to hate site with outing/death threats This recent news piece from Haaretz (use on Wikipedia) has some major problems which make me wonder if it is an acceptable link on Wikipedia, either as an external link (WP:EL) or as a reliable source (WP:RS). Since this concerns more than just reliability, and involves possible issues with WP:BLP/WP:OUTING and is has be used in context that is relevant to this recent ArbCom ruling (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations). One one hand, it is a news piece from a generally reliable newspaper. On another, it has the following red flags: 1) as the article admits, it is significantly based on an account by a single Wikipedia editor, User:Icewhiz, who shortly before its publication was indef banned for off-wiki harassment (his Twitter account used for said harassment was also suspended, but apparently he managed to air several of his grievances out in said newspaper piece). 2) The article directly links to an article on a hate site, Encyclopedia Dramatica, which contains WP:OUTING information for several editors as well as death threats (and in general, journalism that treats ED as a source is hardly high caliber...). 3) The article mentions at least two Wikipedians by name (disclaimer: including myself; I was in fact interviewed for this piece but I did not authorize it and it gets me wrong in several places), through both me and the other editor AFAIK have disclosed their name on English Wikipedia (I mean, look at my sig...). I am not concerned about myself much, but the other named Wikipedian, User:Halibutt, whom some of you may know from a number of Wikimanias and such (he was a spokeperson for Polish WMF chapter) has recently passed away, and the article insinuates he added an antisemitic hoax to Wikipedia (ironically, Halibutt disclosed on Wikipedia on his userpage that he was a Polish Jew...). Nonetheless, deceased individuals are still protected by BLP (see WP:BDP). So far Halibutt has been mentioned by name in at least two places, see diffs (, ). While there is an ongoing discussion on those article talks about how, if at all, to discuss the relevant hoax on Wikipedia in article content, it is worth noting this can be done through other reliable sources which picked up this story but decided to omit the parts about particular editors, nor link to ED (ex. ), so it is not like by banning this particular EL to Haaretz version we would deprive ourselves of a source. I do think that due to the red flags raised above, this particular Haaretz source should not be allowed (i.e. it should be added to spamlist or such, at least until they remove the direct link to ED page with death threats and such). Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Piotrus is in conflict of interest: he is roasted by article. Article uses two respectable historians as sources. Piotrus is shouting conspiracy on Wiki: 1. : "User:Icewhiz who co-authored this piece in which he harasses a number of editors" when Haaretz lists "Omer Benjakob" single author. 2. : "co-authored", "slanders", "hack piece". 3. : "getting the hack who wrote this to include links": shouting that BLP journalist is a "hack". Does Wiki accept users who shout conspiracy of secret unnamed authors of newspaper articles ? 176.221.108.218 (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC) At @Banana Republic: Piotrus shouts conspiracy louder: "The Haaretz article contains many factual errors as well as information that can be seen as harassing some editors; it is de facto a revenge piece by an editor banned for harassment.". Piotrus shouts one author: Wiki editor but not named author. Maybe Piotrus afraid of coverage of Piotrus ? 176.221.108.218 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC) I admit that I did not fully read each and every word of the Haaretz article. However, I now noticed that the editor who started this thread, User:Piotrus, is specifically mentioned at the bottom of the Haaretz article, and not in the best of light. This may explain his behavior of throwing a boatload of supposed violations of Wikipedia policies in the hope that something sticks. Of course, all his allegations of violations of Wikipedia policies are bogus. This thread should be closed as WP:BOOMERANG. Banana Republic (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC) If there are news stories about this that do not link to hate sites or such, using them instead of the original piece may be a better choice. Also, User:Winged Blades of Godric should adhere to our civility and no personal attacks policies. - Darwinek (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC) I am not really engaged in English Wikipedia community (about 20 edits here), so maybe I shouldn't write here, I don't know. Yet, I don't understand, either. This is actually a really complicated case. I generally dislike use of newsmedia as a source in Wikipedia, however I would concur that, as far as newsmedia outlets go, Haaretz is one of the better ones. And the OP's complaints of policy violation are largely irrelevant. Furthermore I'm unconvinced that there's any significant claim that using this source would equate to WP:OUTING unless the identity of specific Wikipedians was explicitly quoted on Wikipedia. I have previously been subject to negative commentary in news outlets (albeit deprecated ones) for my Wikipedia work and I do understand the OP's frustration to be singled out in this way. But that alone isn't grounds to exclude the source in an otherwise reliable outlet. With that said, it does largely feel like a parting shot from an editor who has been banned by Arbcom and went running to the press about it. And as such, WP:DENY might come into play via WP:MEATPUPPET. However that interpretation depends on the assumption that the editors attempting to insert this source into Wikipedia articles are coordinating with Icewhiz, something which I do not propose based on the information provided here. In the end I find my distaste for the use of newsmedia is directly at odds with my feeling that the targeted editors should probably ignore their bad press and get on with making constructive edits. I would say that use of this source is somewhat akin to handling nitroglycerine in that the risk of it boiling over into interpersonal conflict would be detrimental to the overall encyclopedia. I would council all the parties who have not yet been banned in this ongoing affair that going elsewhere on Wikipedia and doing something that didn't involve Poland for a while would probably be a very good idea. However I think on the balance, while I'd say use of this source is slightly perilous, the case has not been adequately made that it shouldn't be treated as reliable in this context. Though I would be interested to hear the opinions of other people who aren't involved in this conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC) @Banana Republic: My ambivalence toward the source is because I think that c) the publisher is always dubious at best when we use journalistic sources. I've been of the opinion that Wikipedia is overly-dependent on journalistic sources which don't meet the standards of academic rigor we expect of an encyclopedia for some time. If you review my initial comment though, you'll see that, despite my misgivings, I came down on the side of asserting that, within the frame of what is currently acceptable on Wikipedia this source probably fits the bill. I did state (and persist in thinking) that it's risky working with sources that could be seen as attacking specific active wikipedians in general. However warning people to proceed with caution is different than telling people not to proceed. In fact, my main actual point of digression from others who called the source reliable is to be concerned that I was contacted by Icewhiz through Wikimedia Commons and I don't believe they should be participating in this discussion in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Piotrus and My Very Best Wishes: topic banned from Poland. Former EEML members are in conflict of interest. Both imagine their opinions alleging a conspiracy theory in newspaper reporting hold weight. Haaretz was picked up by a dozen other reliable sources. They are not here to improve Wikipedia. They are here to purge all negative info on themselves and Poland. Piotrus canvassed on pl.wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.196.82.3 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Changes to functionary team In accordance with the Arbitration Committee's procedures for functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are removed. The Committee also notes the resignation of DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the CheckUser and Oversight teams. The Committee sincerely thanks DGG and DeltaQuad for their long and dedicated service as functionaries. For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 00:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC) CodeLyoko appointed trainee clerk The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome CodeLyoko (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee! The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Oversight audit request, October 2019 On 16 October, the Arbitration Committee received a request from User:DeltaQuad to review her suppression of revisions of User talk:Ritchie333. The committee has investigated the matter in our audit capacity for the use of oversight on the English Wikipedia. We note that after the suppression in question was queried, DeltaQuad initiated a discussion on the oversight mailing list. A consensus was reached that the suppression should be reversed, to which DeltaQuad agreed. The committee is satisfied that this resolved the matter and that DeltaQuad acted in good faith in accordance with the oversight policy. We thank her for her diligence in self-reporting the potential misuse and seeking the opinions of other members of the oversight team. AGK, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis Premeditated Chaos For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC) T-Mobile range block concerns According to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users#Why are T-Mobile IPv6 users often blocked?, the best way to avoid the T-Mobile range block is to create an account. However, account creation from the entire range is also blocked (for the next year). Considering that there are 266 million smartphone users in the U.S. and 22% of them use T-Mobile, that seems to mean we are blocking 59 million people from editing or creating accounts (unless they connect via another means). Is that correct? Is the vandalism deterrence really worth that level of collateral damage? If there have been previous discussions about this, my apologies. All I could find was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal, which seems to be related. Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Although I don't have checkuser and so I can't speak to ACB, simply from dealing with routine vandalism, I'd say the block is reasonable. T-mobile-USA is, as far as major US ISPs go, probably the worst offender in making it impossible to distinguish users. Part of the problem is that they don't break up their customer-base into any reasonable-sized chunks. A lot of other providers, for instance, may divide their customers among dozens of subnets or more, which allows collateral to be minimized. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC) If the collateral damage of blocking an entire ISP across the country is considered acceptable, then can someone explain to me why we don't simply require registration for people to edit? Because that's de facto what's being done here. ♟♙ (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Housekeeping deletion Can an admin please delete Mr. Steak so I can move Mr. Steak (restaurant) back to its old title following the deletion of Mr. Steak (grills)? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC) AfC and G13s Worldbruce correctly pointed out that the oldest AfC drafts are approaching the 6 month mark and thus vulnerable to G13s. I'm duplicating here for two things: 1) An immensely non-subtle request for some more reviewers (and active reviewers) to work on the oldest drafts to work us away from that time. 2) Notwithstanding the above, we were hoping those admins who handle G13s as part of their workflow would agree that drafts awaiting review are not subject to G13s. This is distinct from the 2nd criterion of G13 which reads "Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template" - with modern AfC the issue lies on us not being able to review quickly enough rather than a specific abandonment by the user. Thanks in advance, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC) That would seem to fix the problem? Guy (help!) 11:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC) (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Noting that HasteurBot is back on the beat and is reminding all the pages that are at least 5 months completely unedited that their pages are in danger of being G13ed. Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Temporarily reinstatement of "Young Sinatra: Undeniable" Page Young Sinatra: Undeniable should be temporarily reinstated per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 24. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Base, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 10:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Two companies merged, their inidividual articles remain Film Journal International and Box Office Pro (incorrectly titled w/in Wikipedia as BoxOffice instead of BoxOfficePro) merged, leaving only BoxOfficePro. I discovered it by accident while trying to track down a review done by FJI that appears to have been purged since the merger. Title blacklist help Howdy hello! This regards a request at the AfC Helpdesk. User:Coe-1878 would like to create Draft:Kumares Sinha ("Professor Kumares C. Sinha from Purdue University"). However, "((User)|(Draft)).*[Ss]inha" is on the local title blacklist, and thus the user got denied when trying to create the page. I think that Coe-1878 is legit and not trying to spam, they've had three articles accepted through AfC and don't seem to have caused trouble. Can an admin help get the draft created/workaround the title blacklist? Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Should this TFD be closed? I relisted Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_25#Template:Tucker Beathard but am wondering if it should just be closed as "delete". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Speaking of encouraging Wikipedia admins to have strong, unique passwords that are never reused on other sites... Equifax used 'admin' as username and password for sensitive data: lawsuit. I'm just saying. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Getting back to my advice for Wikipedia administrators choosing passwords, multiword passphrases are indeed easier for humans to remember and harder for password-guessing software to guess. It's a shame that so many websites recommend passwords that are hard to remember and easy to crack ("TrOub4dor&3"). Writing a proper English sentence has been found to be even easier to remember; "Paisley elephant slippers." instead of "paisleyelephantslippers" -- or better yet, make it grammatically correct and correctly punctuated instead of a sentence fragment: "The elephant wore paisley slippers." If you form a mental picture of an actual elephant wearing enormous patterned slippers, the passphrase will be easy to remember. The final piece of the secure password puzzle is to keep a list of logon names, passwords, and security questions (so you don't have to remember them) and secure them with encryption and a single multiword passphrase that unlocks the password file. You can use a password manager (I recommend Password Safe) or just save the passwords in a series of text files saved in a Veracrypt container. So, using the veracrypt method, to access your bank's website, you would type "The elephant wore paisley slippers." to unlock the veracrypt encrypted container, open a text file named gringotts.txt, and see this: Note that the security questions also have random answers, and every site gets a different password and different security answers. A dedicated attacker could research you, and if your sister mentioned the name of your first pet three years ago on Twitter, your security could be toast. Also note that there are times when you need to provide the answer to a security question over the phone, so they should be pronounceable. Unless you are a terrorist and the FBI is after you, print out your passwords and put them (unencrypted) on a SD card or thumb drive, then put them in a safe deposit box. Then save your encrypted password container to a bunch of SD cards or thumb drives and keep a copy at home, at work, in your car, at your brother's house, etc. These are useless without your master passphrase, but if your house burns down you will be glad you saved multiple copies. Finally, without looking at the answers above, can you type that elephant passphrase? How about that (less secure) troubador password? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Unable to create wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa I want create a wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa, But However it prevents me from creating the page by displaying "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism" Please enable to create this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaroche (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC) New editor, kinda lost Howdy, @Ojvh: a new editor, has been making unconstructive edits, mainly around the topic of heads of state. It's not vandalism, but more of a possible confidency issue, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Redirection request The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Could Second International Congress of Orientalists be redirected to International Congress of Orientalists? The article is just 2 sentences and has 1 source. Melofors (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC) ISIS leader killed - Get ready to post ITN The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed. Prez making announcement in just a few mins. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Is this uncivil? It certainly is incendiary. I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this, but considering there was a discussion less than a month ago about User:Incnis Mrsi, it seems worthy to me. I was doing a series of tautological edits, when Incnis Mrsi wikihounded me on three unrelated pages discussed at this edit warring arbitration page, insinuating I had an "agenda" and that I was a "stalker". That seems uncivil to me, definitely incendiary, and definitely baiting. This seems to be further proof that the uncivil behavior per WP:AGF continues. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Addendum: Incnis Mrsi is also editing my personal comments on the edit-warring discussion and disingenuously calling my edits slander. I believe editing another user's comments is generally not permitted, even if they are right. In this particular case it wasn't a personal attack or slander, but misidentifying his previous blocking as a ban, which somehow was interpreted as a personal attack. Rather than correct the mistake, he hid that potential information altogether. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi, both of you should be ashamed of yourselves for your unnecessarily combative behavior on full display here. This is a collaborative project. Please start acting that way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Repetitive personal attacks on me. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:Elizium23 has been doing repetitive personal attacks on me and accusing me of bad faith. We have been involved in conflict and I has pinged several editors for third opinion and to came on conclusion but the user went for personal attacks. These type of repetitive personal attacks and vituperative mudslinging are harming my presence on the Wikipedia and draining my energy. I can too fall on same lines and attack him personally by calling him as kneejerk and accusing him for assuming bad faith directly but I want to follow the policies of Wikipedia. I am looking for stringent action on the concerned editor for ad-hominems on me.-- Harshil want to talk? 02:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Copyvios from: User:Ljwljw.001 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I just reverted a copyvio from this user on Ping An Insurance. Looking at the history, this is not the first time he has inserted copyvios into the article, and looking at his talk page, this is not the first time he has been blocked for copyvios. Unfortunately, this user appears to not understand Wikipedia's policy on copyright, and I believe that they should receive a block. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 11:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Walk Off the Earth The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Can an admin please G6 Walk Off the Earth? That is the correct capitalization, since "Walk off" is a phrasal verb, thus meaning that "off" is an adverb and not a preposition. Compare Turn On the Radio, All I Ask For Anymore, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Possible Error In Block Tables Why are the block expiry dates saying "49 years ago" on the block table? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 19:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC) User:Frank marine The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I have copied this over a second time for the same reason as the first, which is directly below. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) I have copied over this discussion that was not complete. I was told that this is what to do if I believe that the discussion was not finished, which I believe it was not. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC) The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article (, among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa). You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones. I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Sorry to bother, but please can we make progress in this discussion. It is the second time I have listed it and for the second time it appears to have stalled. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Sorry I missed that. Given they're still causing problems, I'd support an indefinite block. To be clear, I mean that in the normal sense. It doesn't have to be a permanent block. If the editor starts to talk and gives some indication they understand the problems and will work with us to stop making copyvios, then an admin should feel free to unblock them. It shouldn't be a cban no matter that we had some discussion over them here. Also someone, probably whoever blocks the, should give some explanation more than a template even if brief of what they need to do to get unblocked. I don't see any point for a time limited block. I mean maybe that will convey editor this is a problem and they need to take it seriously but frankly there have been enough problems and the editor is still not talking even after directly approached. So we have no reason to think it's going to stop just because we block them for a time. By way of explanation although copying within wikipedia without proper attribution isn't IMO as serious a violation as copying from external sources given that you should not need to delete the text simply provide proper attribution, it's still a potential copyright violation and this editor has been told of that before the final warning. Yes a lot of editors don't understand that, but most of them respond when people approach them. I'd add that if the editor is copying from deleted articles, this article would need to be undeleted or at least the contributor list copied to the talk page for compliance. More importantly, if they're copying from deleted articles, they run the risk of copying text which was deleted as external copyvios. I don't know if this happened here, but even though this is a collaborative project, no one should need to have to make a lot of effort to work out where an editor got the content from and if it's an external copyvio as collaboration goes both ways. For example, if the editor was the sole contributor of the text they copied from another article, then no attribution is required. In that case a simple solution would be simply to say so in the edit summary when adding the content. Even if they don't, a quick response when people approach them of problems would also probably be enough. But this editor has given no reason to believe that they are paying attention to anything anyone says to them let alone that they understand or care about copyright. Whether that's because they can't work out talk pages or what is ultimately a moot point per WP:Competence. (I see similarities here with another recent case where I supported an indef of an editor, mostly because even though they did respond, all they said suggested they either didn't understand or didn't care about copyright violations and they seemed unwilling to engage further or at least give some reassurance it wouldn't be repeated.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Template:Editnotices/Page/Melissa Ohden The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Could someone please delete this page under G8? To give some context, the corresponding article was deleted back in August. ToThAc (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Copyviol The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Replicating strategy is a stub copied from its only reference, which is marked copyright and has no license attached. --151.70.4.22 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Miss Universe 2019 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. please protect on Miss Universe 2019 because many editors still always add unsourced and rumor details in the article, thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Jjj1238 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. please check about contributions of newest editor Jjj1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he always like to undo many details in pageant page everyday like he is own all of pageant pages and didnt agree other editors details or editing.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC) and sometime he like to add rumor details, fake news sources or unsourced.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Talk Page The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. can i remove any message in my talk page if i want? because i want to move it, so it's my talk page. Is it againt any Wiki rules? Because look like Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have a problem with me that i removed messages in my talk page. thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC) User:Evrdkmkm The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Evrdkmkm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in nonstop disruptive editing on the Miss Universe 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Their most common violation is removing sourced information repeatedly for no real reason (accusing it of being "rumors" and "fake news" although the article itself is not addressing it is an absolute fact), in addition to breaking the three revert rule and BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. They have been warned repeatedly about this behavior (although they have blanked their talk page to hide these warnings). Diffs can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here, although this is just an assortment and their disruptive editing has been going on for weeks. Evrdkmkm has also not assumed good faith or civility with other editors. As can be seen on this very page, they reported me twice for warning them about their disruptive edits and were warned by an admin for doing so (diff), and have left nasty comments towards those warning them in their edit summaries (diff) { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } Move Institutional Racism back The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A WikiEd student accidentally moved Institutional Racism to his sandbox, and then to namespace. Can a page mover or admin move it back? It is currently at User:Institutional Racism. Thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Standard Offer request by SithJarJar666 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User has requested unblock under the standard offer - bringing it here for discussion. I followed the standard offer and stayed away from editing Wikipedia for six months. I would like to come back and do my best to help the encyclopedia-the days of making nonsense articles to try to get in WP:DAFT are over for me. I regret those days, and I want to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. So I ask that you would let me back into the wiki. TheSithLordJarJar (My contribs) 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Userlinks: SithJarJar666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please add Support or Oppose comments below. Yunshui 雲水 22:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Actually, nevermind; checkuser shows IP socking last week. Sorry guys, as you were. Yunshui 雲水 22:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Helpneeded Both WP:AIV and WP:RFPP are extremely backlogged, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 2019 Grays incident I would appreciate it if admins could keep an eye on this article. The name of the driver has been widely published (poor editorial judgement by British media IMO but that's another issue). However I think it is a violation of BLP (more specifically WP:BLPCRIME) to include it in wikipedia - non-notable person, no charges. On the Talk page discussion here, Kingsif appears to make light of my concerns. He has made major contributions to this article and brought it up to ITN standards and I certainly don't want him blocked... I just think the article needs admin oversight. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Disruption at Alexander Dvorkin - need advise I had some colleagues coming to my talk page pointing to each other in relation to the disruption at Alexander Dvorkin.It is apparently some old editing dispute which is proliferating from the Russian Wikipedia to which I have no relation, however, there is indeed quite some disruption in the page history, and I am not involved in any way, so I am willing at least to reduce this disruption. Can anybody have a look whather it falls under Pseudoscience DS? In this case I could have just installed a 1RR restriction, but I am afraid it would be a stretch, and it looks like no other discretionary sanctions apply? I guess not Eastern Europe? I will appreciate any advise (or action). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Merging pages to stop notices @PamD: I'm asking for you, so please indicate if you even want this. PamD is suffering from too many notices because they created Districts of Russia. By merging that page with an older donor page and moving it back to Districts of Russia, I think the page creator should change. Here's a possible donor: the user page from Lamborghini Urus. A blocked sock from an LTA, so they won't mind the notices. Alternatively someone could delete the page and recreate it, but that would remove the page history. - Alexis Jazz 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Longstanding edit filter request needs to be addressed See this request about EditFilter 891. It's been ~2 months now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Loosening my unblock conditions It has been about six months since my last appeal of my editing restrictions, and I think that my understanding of policy regarding redirects and my common sense has significantly improved for me to understand what is tolerated and what is not acceptable. Over the past several months since my unblock, I have made constructive edits to article space. I recognize what is inappropriate for user/talk space, and have made changes since. I have recognized my limitations as well, and have made sure I never attempt to do what is outside of my capacity. Finally, I have reverted vandalism, recognized speedy articles and other deletion-policy-violating pages, and received no complaints/been open to feedback compared to before. My old username (for the record) is UpsandDowns1234, and I affirm that I will make improvements to Wikipedia or risk being blocked if my restrictions are loosened or lifted. Awesome Aasim 03:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Requesting block review: Katfactz Yesterday (UTC) I saw a request for full protection of this article at RFPP. I investigated and found that this user was removing content referenced to a source they appeared to dislike for POV reasons and against consensus, stating that their opposition was due to the source being offline, while two other users observed that the content had been discussed and consensus reached previously and corrected the reference to an archived version, which Katfactz still reverted. Since it appeared that Katfactz intended to continue removing the content (they had done so three times by that point) I declined the protection request and blocked them for 24 hours for edit warring. In responding to the block, Katfactz revealed personal information about one of the other editors, Jorm, which I interpreted as malicious outing (along with a diatribe of personal attacks) and so I escalated their block to indefinite and revoked their talk page access. I had checked Jorm's user page before doing so and did not see where Jorm openly reveals this personal information (their real first name), however after Katfactz submitted a request to UTRS, Beeblebrox pinged me to say that this is not outing and I should revise my block log entry. I agree (in retrospect) that Katfactz' actions do not constitute WP:OUTING, however I have declined to modify the block since I believe that Katfactz is still wielding Jorm's real name as a personal attack, and because their two UTRS appeals have been declined by other admins. I'm putting this out to the community to determine the correct course of action going forward, whether that's to restore the original block length of 24 hours, restore talk page access for a new appeal, overturn the block immediately as being a bad admin action on my part, make an explanatory entry in the block log, maintain the block, or whatever else the community determines is appropriate. I've also restored Katfactz' talk page access for the express purpose of commenting on this discussion, and I would appreciate if someone else would monitor their talk page for comments to copy over since I expect to be offline for the next 10-12 hours at least. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Douche. Katfactz (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Esteghlal–Tractor Sazi rivalry Esteghlal–Tractor rivalry is the main article and has been deleted for 3 times. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteghlal–Tractor Sazi rivalry. Draft:Esteghlal F.C.–Tractor S.C. rivalry and Draft:Esteghlal–Tractor rivalry, These two pages are in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden but what is being done right now is not true. Lexy iris (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Update: Please also check Esteghlal F.C.–Tractor S.C. rivalry and Esteghlal–Tractor Sazi rivalry. Lexy iris (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Tumbleman? I received an email alerting me to a possible Tumbleman sock. It looks plausible to me, but I am not a Tumbleman specialist. Anyone able to review this please? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman Guy (help!) 23:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – November 2019 News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019). Administrator changes Bureaucrat changes Interface administrator changes CheckUser changes Oversight changes Guideline and policy news Arbitration Help Please With An Edit Hello everybody, I am not good with tech! I am writing with info for an article for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army This is the article. I have managed to add a line about my grandad who fought in this army. He is now 96 years old! I have written "A decision, signed in 2002, on behalf of the President of Poland promoted Mr. Marian Pawłowski to a higher military rank of second lieutenant." I have placed this in the Post-War section. However, I have some images to accompany this that nobody else had! I will attach them to this. Please can you upload them and link them to my information about my grandad that I have written? My images are of his secret ID with his code name and also of the document from 2002 (that I have edited and written about) where he was promoted for his duties in the underground army. IT WILL NOT LET ME UPLOAD THE IMAGES TO THIS MESSAGE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Sandstein How on earth can a German comment on the Polish uprising?! It is not my fault you feel guilty for your families part in the war. I was not uploading a "family photo" as you said. They are relevant documents. You really should sort yourself out and not be bitter that your country lost two wars that it started. @sandstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC) You do not own Wikipedia. You should not be blocking people from serving the wider community with documents just because you are bitter about Germany's Nazi past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC) I have uploaded legitimate images of documents from the war. Until now they have been undocumented and unseen. I thought Wikipedia would like such material. However, Sandstein not only removed them. They then mocked me and said they were family photos! You need to watch your moderators on here! If unchallenged they are a bit like Nazis! This particular one appears to be German too! Please do look at the DOCUMENTS I uploaded and tell me which ones look like a family photo! They are of historical documents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC) You know what? Forget it. I wanted to help Wikipedia and have donated money. Sandstein has made it personal and now I will probably no longer help. The sooner this site is closed the better in my opinion now at this very moment. I was posting first hand source material of an actual soldier during the WW2 uprising in Poland. It is original and does NOT show any people. Only shows ID! This is pertinent because it is codenamed! I will politely ask here that sandstein reavulates their poor judgement and reinstates the historical imagery. Sandstein said that what I posted was "family pictures!" Marian Pawlowski is my grandfather, however there were NO pictures of him! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPavaldo (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Discussion of blocking and username policy A discussion has been started at WT:Blocking_policy#Impersonation_blocks on the application of blocking policy, and possible changes to a policy page. The did not seem quite the thing for WP:CENT, so I am mentioning it here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Ban for Никита-Родин-2002 from editing English Wikipedia The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This user has been socking for past 5 years. I think it's time for them to be banned from editing English Wikipedia. Can community propose ban for this user? --46.211.15.43 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Changes to CheckUser team Per his request to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Deskana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are removed. The committee sincerely thanks Deskana for his long service to the CheckUser team. For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC) History merge needed The content at Eragrostis setifolia appears to have been copy-and-pasted from Draft:Neverfail Grass (Eragrostis setifolia). Can an admin please perform the needed history merge? Peacock (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Non-neutral editing in tendentious areas User:Bringeroftruth92 has been making seriously tendentious edits esp. at Death of Jeffrey Epstein and Christine Lagarde, operating from what appears to be a right-wing, anti-media, anti-etc. stance. The synthesis in the Lagarde article (this stuff about interest rates) is unacceptable. Whether "convicted criminal" should be in the lead is a matter for talk page discussion, I suppose. In the Epstein article, they're adding a link to, guess what, a video from Project Veritas. I am going to revert them again, and again, because these are serious violations and I am going to cry BLP, particularly since they don't wish to discuss anything (their username and this edit should indicate sufficiently where they come from). I'll warn them about edit warring too. I would appreciate a second or third admin looking at this; thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC) RfC closure grants bureaucrats new discretion in processing resysopping requests There's been a closure of the above-linked RfC resulting in significant changes to the resysopping procedures used by bureaucrats. These changes need to be written into the policy page at Wikipedia:Administrators before the procedure page at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats can be updated to reflect the changes. Note I've expressed some reservations about the closure in a personal capacity, but will be continue to be guided as a bureaucrat by whatever policies achieve community consensus. –xenotalk 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Again we have editor TakuyaMurata, who seems to believe that they are the only one qualified to edit a nest of Draft sub-stubs that have remained in the Draft Namespace for years with trivial edits designed to allow them to keep their empire of contepts (many of them post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts) that either need to see consistent improvement or have any of the Alternatives to deletion forcably enacted. Consider the history of Draft:Microfunction. A user nominates it for G13 on September 15th at 22:10 UTC, and Graeme Bartlett restores it from a WP:REFUND request, I notice it be restored. I look at the previous content and see that it was proposed by Taku to be merged to Algebraic analysis on March 10th 2019 (6 months before the September 15th G13). I presumed that since the page had sat for 6 months and there was no objection in Algebraic analysis that all the content that was presumably worth saving was already spliced over. I redirected citing the MFD and the Merge proposal. I specifically noted that the previous content is in the page history to allow others to grab content if it was missed. This is significantly important. Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect. We go back and forth a few times arguing in edit comments and I decide to let it go. In a little under 25 hours after I first attempted to redirect, Taku merge/redirects it to the same target. This, in my mind screams "Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". The content and formatting previously in the page was still available, yet Taku demands that no page started by them can be changed unless it has their blessing. I specifically chose these ways of redirecting without a move so that the original page history remains so that they could extract content that might be useful. So, because less strict sanctions have failed to work I therefore propose: TakuyaMurata is topic banned from undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace. Further TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace. I am attempting to get at the heart of the issue: Taku's stubs that sit around for years that get trivial improvements made to them to avoid the CSD:G13 sweep. Interested users who appear to still be active: Topic ban participants (Cryptic—Unscintillating—Alsee—power~enwiki—Premeditated_Chaos—Beyond_My_Ken—RileyBugz—Johnuniq—Ivanvector—Cullen328) Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) MFD participants (Robert McClenon—SmokeyJoe—Hut 8.5—UnitedStatesian—Mark viking) Submitted: Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I completely agree with "an end needs to be put to it". This proposal is a much cleaner and simpler approach to the dispute. This thread itself is enough evidence supporting such a ban. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Both User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata are topic banned from draft space (broadly construed). Anything currently in draft space for which TakuyaMurata is the primary author is moved to their user space. Two-way interaction ban between User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion or of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old and are not currently under dispute as of 1 October 2019 and may not contest edits to such drafts after community consensus for deletion or merging/into an article, broadly construed. Exceptions: TakuyaMurata may continue such discussions as that already exist and may request pages to be restored in his own user space, but cannot create new drafts to circumvent this process. TakuyaMurata is also permitted to contest such edits in relevant fora: AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom, but is cautioned to not use such an option outside of exceptional circumstances. Limited IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all direct communications with TakuyaMurata except as required by policy (such as notifications or technical requirements), broadly construed. Exceptions: Hasteur may bring Draft pages primarily edited by TakuyaMurata to relevant XfD pages, but must be solely for procedural reasons; remarks about TakuyaMurata are not permitted. Hasteur may also bring disputes with TakuyaMurata to relevant AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom pages, but must not engage with TakuyaMurata in such a discussion outside of ArbCom. Hasteur is reminded be brief in such a discussion, to WP:AGF, and to be WP:Civil. Rationale: TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC) If there is any doubt that the issue revolves around TakuyaMurata's misuse of Draft space consider Draft:Simple Lie algebra that was nominated by @CASSIOPEIA:, the G13 was sustained by @Fastily:, Taku then turns around an immediately gives a misguided REFUND request that Hut8.5 does. This is precicely the kind of behavior that needs to be curtailed and demonstrates it's not just me that finds Taku's usage of draftspace problematic. Hasteur (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Rationale: (same as above, but now easier to enforce + clarification). TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may. It's obvious the community's patience is wearing thin, but package deals like the one above won't pass muster as they are all-or-none (despite attempts to separate them...not the intent at the time). Ergo, it's worth looking at each in their own regard in as simple of terms as possible. We can always lessen them or make caveats later. Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Two-Way IBAN for Hasteur/TakuyaMurata: User:Hasteur must cease all communications with/about TakuyaMurata, broadly construed, and vice versa. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. One-Way IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all communications with/about TakuyaMurata, broadly construed. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. One-Way IBAN for TakuyaMurata: User:TakuyaMurata must cease all communications with/about Hasteur, broadly construed. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Proposal: Let Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics take over the matter; precisely, let the project decide where to put long-term math drafts (in draft space? user space? project space?), promote them to the mainspace, delete them, etc. Rationale: From reading the comments in the thread, some users clearly believe/suspect that (1) I'm using the draft space to keep my personal notes indefinitely as opposed to draft articles worth of moving to mainspace and that (2) somehow I "own" them and oppose moving them to maispace. If the problem is with me as an individual, as opposed to a process, I think this proposal would mitigate such concerns in the simple non-disruptive manners. It's been too long now and this is lingering like a Sword of Damocles. Could an uninvolved admin please make a decision about the points brought up and close this? At this point, closure is better than this nebulous status. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC) |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplayer#cite_note-120] | [TOKENS: 6859] |
Contents Cosplay Cosplay, a blend word of "costume play", is an activity and performance art in which participants called cosplayers wear costumes and fashion accessories to represent a specific character. Cosplayers often interact to create a subculture, and a broader use of the term "cosplay" applies to any costumed role-playing in venues apart from the stage. Any entity that lends itself to dramatic interpretation may be taken up as a subject. Favorite sources include anime, cartoons, manga, comic books, television series, musical artists, video games, memes, and in some cases, original characters. The term has been adopted as slang, often in politics, to mean someone pretending to play a role or take on a personality disingenuously. Cosplay grew out of the practice of fan costuming at science fiction conventions, beginning with Morojo's "futuristicostumes" created for the 1st World Science Fiction Convention held in New York City, United States, in 1939. The Japanese term "cosplay" (コスプレ, kosupure) was coined in 1983. A rapid growth in the number of people cosplaying as a hobby since the 1990s has made the phenomenon a significant aspect of popular culture in Japan, as well as in other parts of East Asia and in the Western world. Cosplay events are common features of fan conventions, and today there are many dedicated conventions and competitions, as well as social networks, websites, and other forms of media centered on cosplay activities. Cosplay is very popular among all genders, and it is not unusual to see crossplay, also referred to as gender-bending. Etymology The term "cosplay" is a Japanese blend word of the English terms costume and play. The term was coined by Nobuyuki Takahashi [ja] of Studio Hard in an article for the Japanese magazine My Anime [ja] in June 1983. Takahashi decided to coin a new word rather than use the existing translation of the English term "masquerade" because it implied nobility and was old-fashioned. The coinage reflects a common Japanese method of abbreviation in which the first two moras of a pair of words are used to form an independent compound: 'costume' becomes kosu (コス) and 'play' becomes pure (プレ). History Masquerade balls were a feature of the Carnival season in the 15th century, and involved increasingly elaborate allegorical Royal Entries, pageants, and triumphal processions celebrating marriages and other dynastic events of late medieval court life. They were extended into costumed public festivities in Italy during the 16th century Renaissance, generally elaborate dances held for members of the upper classes, which were particularly popular in Venice. In April 1877, French novelist Jules Verne sent out almost 700 invitations for an elaborate costume ball, where several of the guests showed up dressed as characters from Verne's novels. Costume parties (American English) or fancy dress parties (British English) were popular from the 19th century onwards. Costuming guides of the period, such as Samuel Miller's Male Character Costumes (1884) or Ardern Holt's Fancy Dresses Described (1887), feature mostly generic costumes, whether that be period costumes, national costumes, objects or abstract concepts such as "Autumn" or "Night". Most specific costumes described therein are for historical figures although some are sourced from fiction, like Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers or William Shakespeare's characters. By March 1891, a literal call by one Herbert Tibbits for what would today be described as "cosplayers" was advertised for an event held from 5–10 March that year at the Royal Albert Hall in London, for the so-named Vril-Ya Bazaar and Fete based on a science fiction novel and its characters, published two decades earlier. A.D. Condo's science fiction comic strip character Mr. Skygack, from Mars (a Martian ethnographer who comically misunderstands many Earthly affairs) is arguably the first fictional character that people emulated by wearing costumes, as in 1908 Mr. and Mrs. William Fell of Cincinnati, Ohio, are reported to have attended a masquerade at a skating rink wearing Mr. Skygack and Miss Dillpickles costumes. Later, in 1910, an unnamed woman won first prize at masquerade ball in Tacoma, Washington, wearing another Skygack costume. The first people to wear costumes to attend a convention were science fiction fans Forrest J Ackerman and Myrtle R. Douglas, known in fandom as Morojo. They attended the 1939 1st World Science Fiction Convention (Nycon or 1st Worldcon) in the Caravan Hall, New York, US dressed in "futuristicostumes", including green cape and breeches, based on the pulp magazine artwork of Frank R. Paul and the 1936 film Things to Come, designed and created by Douglas. Ackerman later stated that he thought everyone was supposed to wear a costume at a science fiction convention, although only he and Douglas did. Fan costuming caught on, however, and the 2nd Worldcon (1940) had both an unofficial masquerade held in Douglas' room and an official masquerade as part of the programme. David Kyle won the masquerade wearing a Ming the Merciless costume created by Leslie Perri, while Robert A. W. Lowndes received second place with a Bar Senestro costume (from the novel The Blind Spot by Austin Hall and Homer Eon Flint). Other costumed attendees included guest of honor E. E. Smith as Northwest Smith (from C. L. Moore's series of short stories) and both Ackerman and Douglas wearing their futuristicostumes again. Masquerades and costume balls continued to be part of World Science Fiction Convention tradition thereafter. Early Worldcon masquerade balls featured a band, dancing, food and drinks. Contestants either walked across a stage or a cleared area of the dance floor. Ackerman wore a "Hunchbackerman of Notre Dame" costume to the 3rd Worldcon (1941), which included a mask designed and created by Ray Harryhausen, but soon stopped wearing costumes to conventions. Douglas wore an Akka costume (from A. Merritt's novel The Moon Pool), the mask again made by Harryhausen, to the 3rd Worldcon and a Snake Mother costume (another Merritt costume, from The Snake Mother) to the 4th Worldcon (1946). Terminology was yet unsettled; the 1944 edition of Jack Speer's Fancyclopedia used the term costume party. Rules governing costumes became established in response to specific costumes and costuming trends. The first nude contestant at a Worldcon masquerade was in 1952; but the height of this trend was in the 1970s and early 1980s, with a few every year. This eventually led to "No Costume is No Costume" rule, which banned full nudity, although partial nudity was still allowed as long as it was a legitimate representation of the character. Mike Resnick describes the best of the nude costumes as Kris Lundi wearing a harpy costume to the 32nd Worldcon (1974) (she received an honorable mention in the competition). Another costume that instigated a rule change was an attendee at the 20th Worldcon (1962) whose blaster prop fired a jet of real flame; which led to fire being banned. At the 30th WorldCon (1972), artist Scott Shaw wore a costume composed largely of peanut butter to represent his own underground comix character called "The Turd". The peanut butter rubbed off, doing damage to soft furnishings and other peoples' costumes, and then began to go rancid under the heat of the lighting. Food, odious, and messy substances were banned as costume elements after that event. Costuming spread with the science fiction conventions and the interaction of fandom. The earliest known instance of costuming at a convention in the United Kingdom was at the London Science Fiction Convention (1953) but this was only as part of a play. However, members of the Liverpool Science Fantasy Society attended the 1st Cytricon (1955), in Kettering, wearing costumes and continued to do so in subsequent years. The 15th Worldcon (1957) brought the first official convention masquerade to the UK. The 1960 Eastercon in London may have been the first British-based convention to hold an official fancy dress party as part of its programme. The joint winners were Ethel Lindsay and Ina Shorrock as two of the titular witches from the novel The Witches of Karres by James H. Schmitz. Star Trek conventions began in 1969 and major conventions began in 1972 and they have featured cosplay throughout. In Japan, costuming at conventions was a fan activity from at least the 1970s, especially after the launch of the Comiket convention in December 1975. Costuming at this time was known as kasō (仮装). The first documented case of costuming at a fan event in Japan was at Ashinocon (1978), in Hakone, at which future science fiction critic Mari Kotani wore a costume based on the cover art for Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel A Fighting Man of Mars.[Notes 1] In an interview Kotani states that there were about twenty costumed attendees at the convention's costume party—made up of members of her Triton of the Sea fan club and Kansai Entertainers (関西芸人, Kansai Geinin), antecedent of the Gainax anime studio—with most attendees in ordinary clothing. One of the Kansai group, an unnamed friend of Yasuhiro Takeda, wore an impromptu Tusken Raider costume (from the film Star Wars) made from one of the host-hotel's rolls of toilet paper. Costume contests became a permanent part of the Nihon SF Taikai conventions from Tokon VII in 1980. Possibly the first costume contest held at a comic book convention was at the 1st Academy Con held at Broadway Central Hotel in New York in August 1965. Roy Thomas, future editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics but then just transitioning from a fanzine editor to a professional comic book writer, attended in a Plastic Man costume. The first Masquerade Ball held at San Diego Comic-Con was in 1974 during the convention's 6th event. Voice actress June Foray was the master of ceremonies. Future scream queen Brinke Stevens won first place wearing a Vampirella costume. Ackerman (who was the creator of Vampirella) was in attendance and posed with Stevens for photographs. They became friends and, according to Stevens "Forry and his wife, Wendayne, soon became like my god parents." Photographer Dan Golden saw a photograph of Stevens in the Vampirella costume while visiting Ackerman's house, leading to him hiring her for a non-speaking role in her first student film, Zyzak is King (1980), and later photographing her for the cover of the first issue of Femme Fatales (1992). Stevens attributes these events to launching her acting career. As early as a year after the 1975 release of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, audience members began dressing as characters from the movie and role-playing (although the initial incentive for dressing-up was free admission) in often highly accurate costumes. Costume-Con, a conference dedicated to costuming, was first held in January 1983. The International Costumers Guild, Inc., originally known as the Greater Columbia Fantasy Costumer's Guild, was launched after the 3rd Costume-Con (1985) as a parent organization and to support costuming. Costuming had been a fan activity in Japan from the 1970s, and it became much more popular in the wake of Takahashi's report. The new term did not catch on immediately, however. It was a year or two after the article was published before it was in common use among fans at conventions. It was in the 1990s, after exposure on television and in magazines, that the term and practice of cosplaying became common knowledge in Japan. The first cosplay cafés appeared in the Akihabara area of Tokyo in the late 1990s. A temporary maid café was set up at the Tokyo Character Collection event in August 1998 to promote the video game Welcome to Pia Carrot 2 (1997). An occasional Pia Carrot Restaurant was held at the shop Gamers in Akihabara in the years up to 2000. Being linked to specific intellectual properties limited the lifespan of these cafés, which was solved by using generic maids, leading to the first permanent establishment, Cure Maid Café, which opened in March 2001. The first World Cosplay Summit was held on 12 October 2003 at the Rose Court Hotel in Nagoya, Japan, with five cosplayers invited from Germany, France and Italy. There was no contest until 2005, when the World Cosplay Championship began. The first winners were the Italian team of Giorgia Vecchini [it], Francesca Dani and Emilia Fata Livia. Worldcon masquerade attendance peaked in the 1980s and started to fall thereafter. This trend was reversed when the concept of cosplay was re-imported from Japan. Practice of cosplay Cosplay costumes vary greatly and can range from simple themed clothing to highly detailed costumes. It is generally considered different from Halloween and Mardi Gras costume wear, as the intention is to replicate a specific character, rather than to reflect the culture and symbolism of a holiday event. As such, when in costume, some cosplayers often seek to adopt the affect, mannerisms, and body language of the characters they portray (with "out of character" breaks). The characters chosen to be cosplayed may be sourced from any movie, TV series, book, comic book, video game, musical artist, anime, or manga. Some cosplayers even choose to cosplay an original character of their own design or a fusion of different genres (e.g., a steampunk version of a character), and it is a part of the ethos of cosplay that anybody can be anything, as with genderbending, crossplay, or drag, a cosplayer playing a character of another ethnicity, or a hijabi portraying Captain America. Cosplayers obtain their apparel through many different methods. Manufacturers produce and sell packaged outfits for use in cosplay, with varying levels of quality. These costumes are often sold online, but also can be purchased from dealers at conventions. Japanese manufacturers of cosplay costumes reported a profit of 35 billion yen in 2008. A number of individuals also work on commission, creating custom costumes, props, or wigs designed and fitted to the individual. Other cosplayers, who prefer to create their own costumes, still provide a market for individual elements, and various raw materials, such as unstyled wigs, hair dye, cloth and sewing notions, liquid latex, body paint, costume jewelry, and prop weapons. Cosplay represents an act of embodiment. Cosplay has been closely linked to the presentation of self, yet cosplayers' ability to perform is limited by their physical features. The accuracy of a cosplay is judged based on the ability to accurately represent a character through the body, and individual cosplayers frequently are faced by their own "bodily limits" such as level of attractiveness, body size, and disability that often restrict and confine how accurate the cosplay is perceived to be. Authenticity is measured by a cosplayer's individual ability to translate on-screen manifestation to the cosplay itself. Some have argued that cosplay can never be a true representation of the character; instead, it can only be read through the body, and that true embodiment of a character is judged based on nearness to the original character form. Cosplaying can also help some of those with self-esteem problems. Many cosplayers create their own outfits, referencing images of the characters in the process. In the creation of the outfits, much time is given to detail and qualities, thus the skill of a cosplayer may be measured by how difficult the details of the outfit are and how well they have been replicated. Because of the difficulty of replicating some details and materials, cosplayers often educate themselves in crafting specialties such as textiles, sculpture, face paint, fiberglass, fashion design, woodworking, and other uses of materials in the effort to render the look and texture of a costume accurately. Cosplayers often wear wigs in conjunction with their outfit to further improve the resemblance to the character. This is especially necessary for anime and manga or video-game characters who often have unnaturally colored and uniquely styled hair. Simpler outfits may be compensated for their lack of complexity by paying attention to material choice and overall high quality. To look more like the characters they are portraying, cosplayers might also engage in various forms of body modification. Cosplayers may opt to change their skin color utilizing make-up to more simulate the race of the character they are adopting. Contact lenses that match the color of their character's eyes are a common form of this, especially in the case of characters with particularly unique eyes as part of their trademark look. Contact lenses that make the pupil look enlarged to visually echo the large eyes of anime and manga characters are also used. Another form of body modification in which cosplayers engage is to copy any tattoos or special markings their character might have. Temporary tattoos, permanent marker, body paint, and in rare cases, permanent tattoos, are all methods used by cosplayers to achieve the desired look. Permanent and temporary hair dye, spray-in hair coloring, and specialized extreme styling products are all used by some cosplayers whose natural hair can achieve the desired hairstyle. It is also commonplace for them to shave off their eyebrows to gain a more accurate look. Some anime and video game characters have weapons or other accessories that are hard to replicate, and conventions have strict rules regarding those weapons, but most cosplayers engage in some combination of methods to obtain all the items necessary for their costumes; for example, they may commission a prop weapon, sew their own clothing, buy character jewelry from a cosplay accessory manufacturer, or buy a pair of off-the-rack shoes, and modify them to match the desired look. Cosplay may be presented in a number of ways and places. A subset of cosplay culture is centered on sex appeal, with cosplayers specifically choosing characters known for their attractiveness or revealing costumes. However, wearing a revealing costume can be a sensitive issue while appearing in public. People appearing naked at American science fiction fandom conventions during the 1970s were so common, a "no costume is no costume" rule was introduced. Some conventions throughout the United States, such as Phoenix Comicon (now known as Phoenix Fan Fusion) and Penny Arcade Expo, have also issued rules upon which they reserve the right to ask attendees to leave or change their costumes if deemed to be inappropriate to a family-friendly environment or something of a similar nature. The most popular form of presenting a cosplay publicly is by wearing it to a fan convention. Multiple conventions dedicated to anime and manga, comics, TV shows, video games, science fiction, and fantasy may be found all around the world. Cosplay-centered conventions include Cosplay Mania in the Philippines and EOY Cosplay Festival in Singapore. The single largest event featuring cosplay is the semiannual doujinshi market, Comic Market (Comiket), held in Japan during summer and winter. Comiket attracts hundreds of thousands of manga and anime fans, where thousands of cosplayers congregate on the roof of the exhibition center. In North America, the highest-attended fan conventions featuring cosplayers are San Diego Comic-Con and New York Comic Con held in the United States, and the anime-specific Anime North in Toronto, Otakon held in Washington, D.C. and Anime Expo held in Los Angeles. Europe's largest event is Japan Expo held in Paris, while the London MCM Expo and the London Super Comic Convention are the most notable in the UK. Supanova Pop Culture Expo is Australia's biggest event. Star Trek conventions have featured cosplay for many decades. These include Destination Star Trek, a UK convention, and Star Trek Las Vegas, a US convention. In different comic fairs, "Thematic Areas" are set up where cosplayers can take photos in an environment that follows that of the game or animation product from which they are taken. Sometimes the cosplayers are part of the area, playing the role of staff with the task of entertaining the other visitors. Some examples are the thematic areas dedicated to Star Wars or to Fallout. The areas are set up by not for profit associations of fans, but in some major fairs it is possible to visit areas set up directly by the developers of the video games or the producers of the anime. The appearance of cosplayers at public events makes them a popular draw for photographers. As this became apparent in the late 1980s, a new variant of cosplay developed in which cosplayers attended events mainly for the purpose of modeling their characters for still photography rather than engaging in continuous role play. Rules of etiquette were developed to minimize awkward situations involving boundaries. Cosplayers pose for photographers and photographers do not press them for personal contact information or private sessions, follow them out of the area, or take photos without permission. The rules allow the collaborative relationship between photographers and cosplayers to continue with the least inconvenience to each other. Some cosplayers choose to have a professional photographer take high quality images of them in their costumes posing as the character. Cosplayers and photographers frequently exhibit their work online and sometimes sell their images. As the popularity of cosplay has grown, many conventions have come to feature a contest surrounding cosplay that may be the main feature of the convention. Contestants present their cosplay, and often to be judged for an award, the cosplay must be self-made. The contestants may choose to perform a skit, which may consist of a short performed script or dance with optional accompanying audio, video, or images shown on a screen overhead. Other contestants may simply choose to pose as their characters. Often, contestants are briefly interviewed on stage by a master of ceremonies. The audience is given a chance to take photos of the cosplayers. Cosplayers may compete solo or in a group. Awards are presented, and these awards may vary greatly. Generally, a best cosplayer award, a best group award, and runner-up prizes are given. Awards may also go to the best skit and a number of cosplay skill subcategories, such as master tailor, master weapon-maker, master armorer, and so forth. The most well-known cosplay contest event is the World Cosplay Summit, selecting cosplayers from 40 countries to compete in the final round in Nagoya, Japan. Some other international events include European Cosplay Gathering (finals taking place at Japan Expo in Paris), EuroCosplay (finals taking place at London MCM Comic Con), and the Nordic Cosplay Championship (finals taking place at NärCon in Linköping, Sweden). This table contains a list of the most common cosplay competition judging criteria, as seen from World Cosplay Summit, Cyprus Comic Con, and ReplayFX. Portraying a character of the opposite sex is called crossplay. The practicality of crossplay and cross-dress stems in part from the abundance in manga of male characters with delicate and somewhat androgynous features. Such characters, known as bishōnen (lit. 'pretty boy'), are Asian equivalent of the elfin boy archetype represented in Western tradition by figures such as Peter Pan and Ariel. Male to female cosplayers may experience issues when trying to portray a female character because it is hard to maintain the sexualized femininity of a character. Male cosplayers may also be subjected to discrimination, including homophobic comments and being touched without permission. This affects men possibly even more often than it affects women, despite inappropriate contact already being a problem for women who cosplay, as is "slut-shaming". Animegao kigurumi players, a niche group in the realm of cosplay, are often male cosplayers who use zentai and stylized masks to represent female anime characters. These cosplayers completely hide their real features so the original appearance of their characters may be reproduced as literally as possible, and to display all the abstractions and stylizations such as oversized eyes and tiny mouths often seen in Japanese cartoon art. This does not mean that only males perform animegao or that masks are only female. "Cosplay Is Not Consent", a movement started in 2013 by Rochelle Keyhan, Erin Filson, and Anna Kegler, brought attention to the issue of sexual harassment in the convention attending cosplay community. Harassment of cosplayers include photography without permission, verbal abuse, touching, and groping. Harassment is not limited to women in provocative outfits as male cosplayers talked about being bullied for not fitting certain costume and characters. Starting in 2014, New York Comic Con placed large signs at the entrance stating that "Cosplay is Not Consent". Attendees were reminded to ask permission for photos and respect the person's right to say no. The movement against sexual harassment against cosplayers has continued to gain momentum and awareness since being publicized. Traditional mainstream news media like The Mercury News and Los Angeles Times have reported on the topic, bringing awareness of sexual harassment to those outside of the cosplay community. As cosplay has entered more mainstream media, ethnicity becomes a controversial point. Cosplayers of different skin color than the character are often ridiculed for not being 'accurate' or 'faithful'. Many cosplayers feel as if anyone can cosplay any character, but it becomes complicated when cosplayers are not respectful of the character's ethnicity. These views against non-white cosplayers within the community have been attributed to the lack of representation in the industry and in media. Issues such as blackface, brownface, and yellowface are still controversial since a large part of the cosplay community see these as separate problems, or simply an acceptable part of cosplay.[citation needed] Cosplay has influenced the advertising industry, in which cosplayers are often used for event work previously assigned to agency models. Some cosplayers have thus transformed their hobby into profitable, professional careers. Japan's entertainment industry has been home to the professional cosplayers since the rise of Comiket and Tokyo Game Show. The phenomenon is most apparent in Japan but exists to some degree in other countries as well. Professional cosplayers who profit from their art may experience problems related to copyright infringement. A cosplay model, also known as a cosplay idol, cosplays costumes for anime and manga or video game companies. Good cosplayers are viewed as fictional characters in the flesh, in much the same way that film actors come to be identified in the public mind with specific roles. Cosplayers have modeled for print magazines like Cosmode and a successful cosplay model can become the brand ambassador for companies like Cospa. Some cosplay models can achieve significant recognition. While there are many significant cosplay models, Yaya Han was described as having emerged "as a well-recognized figure both within and outside cosplay circuits". Jessica Nigri, used her recognition in cosplay to gain other opportunities such as voice acting and her own documentary on Rooster Teeth. Liz Katz used her fanbase to take her cosplay from a hobby to a successful business venture, sparking debate through the cosplay community whether cosplayers should be allowed to fund and profit from their work. In the 2000s, cosplayers started to push the boundaries of cosplay into eroticism paving the way to "erocosplay". The advent of social media coupled with crowdfunding platforms like Patreon and OnlyFans have allowed cosplay models to turn cosplay into profitable full-time careers. During protests During various protests, cosplaying as a satirization of important people and political events. In Myanmar various protests after the 2021 coup d'état various protests occurred with cosplayers. Youth groups protested on the roads by wearing cosplay costumes, skirts, wedding dresses, and other unusual clothing for daily life while holding signboards and vinyl banners that break with the country's more traditional protest messages for the purpose of grabbing attention from both domestic and international press media. Other times fictional characters are used to convey a message such as women dressing like characters from The Handmaid's Tale to protest bodily restrictions in the United States. Cosplay by country or region Cosplayers in Japan formerly referred to themselves as reiyā (レイヤー), pronounced "layer". In contemporary Japan, however, cosplayers are more commonly referred to as kosupure (コスプレ), pronounced "ko-su-pray", as the term reiyā is now more frequently used to describe literal layers (for example, hair or clothing). Words such as kawaii (可愛い) (lit. 'cute') and kakko ī (かっこいい) (lit. 'cool') were often used to describe these changes, expressions that were closely tied to notions of femininity and masculinity. Those who photograph players are known as cameko (カメコ), a shortened form of camera kozō (カメラ小僧) (lit. 'camera boy'). Originally, cameko would give printed photographs to players as gifts. Growing interest in cosplay events—both among photographers and cosplayers willing to model—has led to the formalization of procedures at events such as Comiket. Photography is conducted in designated areas separate from the exhibit halls. In Japan, wearing costumes outside of conventions or other designated areas is generally discouraged. Since 1998, Tokyo's Akihabara district has contained a number of cosplay restaurants catering to devoted anime and manga fans, in which waitresses dress as characters from video games, anime, or manga; maid cafés are particularly popular. In Japan, Tokyo's Harajuku district serves as a favored informal gathering place for engaging in cosplay in public. Events held in Akihabara also attract large numbers of cosplayers. Ishoku-hada (異色肌) is a form of Japanese cosplay in which players use body paint to alter their skin color to match that of the character they portray. This practice allows for the representation of anime or manga characters, as well as video game characters, with non-human skin tones. A 2014 survey conducted for the Comiket convention in Japan reported that approximately 75% of cosplayers attending the event were female. Cosplay is common in many East Asian countries. For example, it is a major part of the Comic World conventions taking place regularly in South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Historically, the practice of dressing up as characters from works of fiction can be traced as far as the 17th century late Ming dynasty China. Western cosplay developed primarily from science fiction and fantasy fandoms. Compared with Japan, Western cosplayers are more likely to portray characters originating from live-action television series and films. Western costuming traditions also encompass a variety of related hobbyist subcultures, including participants in Renaissance faires, live action role-playing games, and historical reenactments. Costume competitions at science fiction conventions commonly feature masquerades, in which costumes are formally judged during stage presentations, as well as hall costumes that are evaluated informally throughout the event. The growing international popularity of Japanese cartoon during the late 2000s contributed to a rise in American and other Western cosplayers portraying characters from manga and anime. Over the following decade, anime conventions became increasingly common across Western countries, often rivaling long-established science fiction, comic book, and historical conventions in terms of attendance. At these events, cosplayers—much like their Japanese counterparts—gather to display their costumes, be photographed, and participate in competitive costume events. Convention attendees also frequently choose to dress as characters from Western comic books, animated works, films, and video games. Despite increasing global exchange, cultural differences in taste remain evident. Certain costume styles that may be worn without hesitation by Japanese cosplayers are often avoided in Western contexts, particularly those that resemble Nazi uniforms. Western cosplayers may also encounter debates regarding legitimacy when portraying characters whose canonical racial backgrounds differ from their own, and instances of insensitivity toward cosplayers depicting characters of different skin tones have been documented. Western cosplayers who portray anime characters may likewise experience targeted ridicule or misunderstanding. In comparison with Japan, wearing costumes in public spaces is generally more socially accepted in countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, and Canada. These regions possess longer-standing traditions of Halloween costuming, fan dress, and related practices. Consequently, it is not uncommon for convention attendees in costume to be seen in nearby restaurants and public venues outside the immediate boundaries of the event itself. Media Japan is home to two especially popular cosplay magazines, Cosmode (コスモード) and ASCII Media Works' Dengeki Layers (電撃Layers). Cosmode has the largest share in the market and an English-language digital edition. Another magazine, aimed at a broader, worldwide audience is CosplayGen. In the United States, Cosplay Culture began publication in February 2015. Other magazines include CosplayZine featuring cosplayers from all over the world since October 2015, and Cosplay Realm Magazine which was started in April 2017. There are many books on the subject of cosplay as well. Cosplay groups and organizations See also Notes References Bibliography External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_ref-99] | [TOKENS: 3908] |
Contents Guinness World Records Page version status This is an accepted version of this page Guinness World Records, known from its inception in 1955 until 1999 as The Guinness Book of Records and in previous United States editions as The Guinness Book of World Records, is a British reference book published annually, listing world records both of human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. Sir Hugh Beaver created the concept in order to settle arguments debated in pubs, and twin brothers Norris and Ross McWhirter co-founded the book in London in late August 1955. The first edition topped the bestseller list in the United Kingdom by Christmas 1955. The following year the book was launched internationally, and as of the 2026 edition, it is now in its 71st year of publication, published in 100 countries and 40 languages, and maintains over 53,000 records in its database. The international franchise has extended beyond print to include television series and museums. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international source for cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organization employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. Following a series of owners, the franchise has been owned by the Jim Pattison Group since 2008, with its headquarters moved to South Quay Plaza, Canary Wharf, London, in 2017. Since 2008, Guinness World Records has orientated its business model away from selling books, and towards creating new world records as publicity exercises for individuals and organizations, which has attracted criticism. History On 10 November 1951, Sir Hugh Beaver, then the managing director of the Guinness Breweries, went on a shooting party in the North Slob, by the River Slaney in County Wexford, Ireland. After missing a shot at a golden plover, he became involved in an argument over whether the golden plover or the red grouse was the fastest game bird in Europe (the plover is faster, but neither is the fastest game bird in Europe). That evening at Castlebridge House, he realized that it was impossible to confirm in reference books whether or not the golden plover was Europe's fastest game bird. Beaver knew that there must have been numerous other questions debated nightly among the public, but there was no book in the world with which to settle arguments about records. He realized then that a book supplying the answers to this sort of question might prove successful. Beaver's idea became a reality when Guinness employee Christopher Chataway recommended university friends Norris and Ross McWhirter, who had been running a fact-finding agency in London. The twin brothers were commissioned in August 1954 to compile what became The Guinness Book of (Superlatives and now) Records.[clarification needed] A thousand copies were distributed for free to pubs across Britain and Ireland as a promotional asset for the Guinness brand, and they became immensely popular with customers. After the founding of The Guinness Book of Records office at the top of Ludgate House, 107 Fleet Street, London, the first 198-page edition was bound on 27 August 1955 and went to the top of the British bestseller list by Christmas. The following year, it was introduced into the United States by New York publisher David Boehm and sold 70,000 copies. Since then, Guinness World Records has sold more than 150 million copies in 100 countries and 40 languages. Due to the book's surprise success, many further editions were printed, eventually settling into a pattern of one revision a year, published in September/October, in time for Christmas. The McWhirters continued to compile it for many years. Both brothers had an encyclopedic memory; on the British children's television series Record Breakers (based upon the book), which was broadcast on the BBC from 1972 to 2001, they would take questions posed by children in the audience on various world records and were able to give the correct answer. Ross McWhirter was assassinated by two members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1975, in response to offering a £50,000 reward for information that would lead to the capture of members of the organization. Following Ross's assassination, the feature on the show where questions about records posed by children were answered was called Norris on the Spot. Norris carried on as the book's sole editor. Guinness Superlatives, later Guinness World Records Limited, was incorporated in London in 1954 to publish the first book. Sterling Publishing owned the rights to the Guinness book in the US for decades until it was repurchased by Guinness in 1989 after an 18-month long lawsuit. The group was owned by Guinness PLC and subsequently Diageo until 2001, when it was purchased by Gullane Entertainment for £45.5 million ($65 million). Gullane was itself purchased by HIT Entertainment in 2002. In 2006, Apax Partners purchased HIT and subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group, the parent company of Ripley Entertainment, which is licensed to operate Guinness World Records' Attractions. With offices in New York City and Tokyo, Guinness World Records' global headquarters remain in South Quay Plaza in Canary Wharf, London, while its museum attractions are based at Ripley headquarters in Orlando, Florida. Recent editions have focused on record feats by individuals. Competitions range from obvious ones such as Olympic weightlifting to the longest egg tossing distances, or for the longest time spent playing Grand Theft Auto IV or the largest number of hot dogs consumed in three minutes. Besides records about competitions, it contains such facts such as the heaviest tumor, the most poisonous fungus, the longest-running soap opera and the most valuable life-insurance policy, among others. Many records also relate to the youngest people to have achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world, currently held by Maurizio Giuliano. Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year. The latest edition is the 72nd, published in August 2025. The retirement of Norris McWhirter from his consulting role in 1995 and the subsequent decision by Diageo Plc to sell The Guinness Book of Records brand have shifted the focus of the books from text-oriented to illustrated reference. A selection of records are curated for the book from the full archive but all existing Guinness World Records titles can be accessed by creating a login on the company's website. Applications made by individuals for existing record categories are free of charge. There is an administration fee of £5 (or $5) to propose a new record title. A number of spin-off books and television series have also been produced. Guinness World Records bestowed the record of "Person with the most records" on Ashrita Furman of Queens, New York, in April 2009; at that time, he held 100 records. In 2005, Guinness designated 9 November as International Guinness World Records Day to encourage breaking of world records. In 2006, an estimated 100,000 people participated in over 10 countries. Guinness reported 2,244 new records in 12 months, which was a 173% increase over the previous year. In February 2008, NBC aired The Top 100 Guinness World Records of All Time and Guinness World Records made the complete list available on their website. The popularity of the franchise has resulted in Guinness World Records becoming the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. Over its history, numerous world record categories have been discontinued. This list may include that the record poses a threat to health or the environment. Defining records For many records, Guinness World Records is the effective authority on the exact requirements for them and with whom records reside, the company providing adjudicators to events to determine the veracity of record attempts. The list of records which the Guinness World Records covers is not fixed, records may be added and also removed for various reasons. The public is invited to submit applications for records, which can be either the bettering of existing records or substantial achievements which could constitute a new record. The company also provides corporate services for companies to "harness the power of record-breaking to deliver tangible success for their businesses." Guinness World Records states several types of records it will not accept for ethical reasons, such as those related to the killing or harming of animals. In the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records, Colombian serial killer Pedro López was listed as the "most prolific serial killer", having murdered at least 110 people (with Lopez himself claiming he murdered over 300 people) in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in the late 1960s to 1980s. This was later removed after complaints that it made a competition out of murder, however the record was reinstated in the 2026 edition. Several world records that were once included in the book have been removed for ethical reasons, including concerns for the well-being of potential record breakers. For example, following publication of the "heaviest pet" record, many owners overfed their pets beyond the bounds of what was healthy, and therefore such entries were removed. The Guinness Book also dropped records within their "eating and drinking records" section of Human Achievements in 1991 over concerns that potential competitors could harm themselves and expose the publisher to potential litigation. These changes included the removal of all spirit, wine and beer drinking records, along with other unusual records for consuming such unlikely things as bicycles and trees. Other records, such as sword swallowing and rally driving (on public roads), were closed from further entry as the current holders had performed beyond what are considered safe human tolerance levels. There have been instances of closed categories being reopened. For example, the sword swallowing category was listed as closed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records, but has since been reopened with Johnny Strange breaking a sword swallowing record on Guinness World Records Live. Similarly, the speed beer drinking records which were dropped from the book in 1991, reappeared 17 years later in the 2008 edition, but were moved from the "Human Achievements" section of the older book to the "Modern Society" section of the newer edition. As of 2011[update], it is required in the guidelines of all "large food" type records that the item be fully edible, and distributed to the public for consumption, to prevent food wastage. Chain letters are also not allowed: "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail." After Roger Guy English set the record for sleeplessness in 1974, the category was discontinued for being too dangerous. At the request of the U.S. Mint, in 1984, the book stopped accepting claims of large hoardings of pennies or other currency. Environmentally unfriendly records (such as the releasing of sky lanterns and party balloons) are no longer accepted or monitored, in addition to records relating to tobacco or cannabis consumption or preparation. In 2024, Guinness World Records was accused of laundering the reputation of the oppressive governments as it set world records for the UAE's police forces and Egypt's military. By 2024, the UAE achieved 526 records, of which 21 were credited to the Emirates' police force. Matthew Hedges, a British academic who was forced to sign a false confession, asked the records body to take down the Abu Dhabi police department's certificate for "most signatures on a scroll", along with other such titles. Concerns were also raised around the activities around Egypt, which moved from 22 records to 110 within a decade until 2024. James Lynch, co-founder of FairSquare, said the records were legitimizing Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's regime. The Guinness World Records stated that its record titles "cannot be purchased". Guinness World Records has been accused of romanticizing diseases, such as Graves' Disease and Pica. For some potential categories, Guinness World Records has declined to list some records that are too difficult or impossible to determine. For example, its website states: "We do not accept any claims for beauty as it is not objectively measurable." On 10 December 2010, Guinness World Records stopped accepting submissions for the "dreadlock" category after an investigation of its first and only female title holder, Asha Mandela, determining it was impossible to judge this record accurately. Change in business model Traditionally, the company made a large amount of its revenue via book sales to interested readers, especially children. The rise of the Internet began to cut into book sales starting in the 2000s, part of a general decline in the book industry. According to a 2017 story by Planet Money of NPR, Guinness began to realize that a lucrative new revenue source to replace falling book sales was the would-be record-holders themselves. While any person can theoretically send in a record to be verified for free, the approval process is slow. Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on. In particular, corporations and celebrities seeking a publicity stunt to launch a new product or draw attention to themselves began to hire Guinness World Records, paying them for finding a record to break or to create a new category just for them. As such, they have been described as a native advertising company, with no clear distinction between content and advertisement. Television talk show host John Oliver criticized Guinness World Records on the programme Last Week Tonight with John Oliver in August 2019, during an episode about President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. Oliver said Guinness took money from authoritarian governments for pointless vanity projects such as Berdimuhamedow's. Oliver asked Guinness to work with Last Week Tonight to adjudicate a record for "Largest cake featuring a picture of someone falling off a horse", but according to Oliver, the offer did not work out after Guinness insisted on a non-disparagement clause. Guinness World Records denied the accusations and stated that they declined Oliver's offer to participate because "it was merely an opportunity to mock one of our record-holders," and that Oliver did not specifically request the record for the largest marble cake. As of 2021, the Guinness World Record for "Largest marble cake" remains with Betty Crocker Middle East in Saudi Arabia. Following Oliver's episode, Guinness World Records' ethics were called into question by human rights groups. Museums In 1976, a Guinness Book of World Records museum opened in the Empire State Building. Speed shooter Bob Munden then went on tour promoting The Guinness Book of World Records by performing his record fast draws with a standard weight single-action revolver from a Western movie-type holster. His fastest time for a draw was 0.02 seconds. Among exhibits were life-size statues of the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, and world's largest earthworm, an X-ray photo of a sword swallower, repeated lightning strike victim Roy Sullivan's hat complete with lightning holes and a pair of gem-studded golf shoes on sale for $6,500. The museum closed in 1995. In more recent years, the Guinness company has permitted the franchising of small museums with displays based on the book, all currently (as of 2010[update]) located in towns popular with tourists: Tokyo, Copenhagen, San Antonio. There were once Guinness World Records museums and exhibitions at the London Trocadero, Bangalore, San Francisco, Myrtle Beach, Orlando, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. The Orlando museum, which closed in 2002, was branded The Guinness Records Experience; the Hollywood, Niagara Falls, Copenhagen, and Gatlinburg museums also previously featured this branding. Retail and merchandise Guinness World Records operates an official online shop, the Guinness World Records Store, which offers items related to record-breaking achievements, including certificates of participation, apparel, and the annual Guinness World Records book. The shop provides record-holders and the general public with access to official Guinness World Records materials. Merchandise is part of the organization's broader engagement efforts beyond its publications and events. Television series Guinness World Records has commissioned various television series documenting world record breaking attempts, including: Rhianna Loren (2025) Specials: Gamer's edition In 2008, Guinness World Records released its gamer's edition, a supplement that keeps records for popular video game high scores, codes and feats in association with Twin Galaxies. The Gamer's Edition used to contain 258 pages, over 1,236 video game related world records and four interviews including one with Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day. Editions were published for the years 2008 through 2020, with the 2009 edition in hardcover. The 2025 edition is the first since 2020, returning after a five-year hiatus. Since 2020, the supplement has had 192 pages. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was a music reference book first published in 1977. It was compiled by BBC Radio 1 DJs Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read with brothers Tim Rice and Jonathan Rice. It was the first in a number of music reference books that were to be published by Guinness Publishing with sister publication The Guinness Book of British Hit Albums coming in 1983. After being sold to Hit Entertainment, the data concerning the Official Chart Company's singles and albums charts were combined under the title British Hit Singles & Albums, with Hit Entertainment publishing the book from 2003 to 2006 (under the Guinness World Records brand). After Guinness World Records was sold to The Jim Pattison Group, it was effectively replaced by a series of books published by Ebury Publishing/Random House with the Virgin Book of British Hit Singles first being published in 2007 and with a Hit Albums book following two years later. Other media and products In 1975, Parker Brothers marketed a board game, The Guinness Game of World Records, based on the book. Players compete by setting and breaking records for activities such as the longest streak of rolling dice before rolling doubles, stacking plastic pieces, and bouncing a ball off alternating sides of a card, as well as answering trivia questions based on the listings in the Guinness Book of World Records. A video game, Guinness World Records: The Videogame, was developed by TT Fusion and released for Nintendo DS, Wii and iOS in November 2008. In 2012, Warner Bros. announced the development of a live-action film version of Guinness World Records with Daniel Chun as scriptwriter. The film, however, never entered production. Dr. Sunil Gupta is listed in the Guinness World Records for participating in the largest multi-location diabetic neuropathy screening conducted on World Diabetes Day, 14 November 2013, during which 1,676 screenings were performed across 27 locations in India. References |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplayer#cite_note-firefox-122] | [TOKENS: 6859] |
Contents Cosplay Cosplay, a blend word of "costume play", is an activity and performance art in which participants called cosplayers wear costumes and fashion accessories to represent a specific character. Cosplayers often interact to create a subculture, and a broader use of the term "cosplay" applies to any costumed role-playing in venues apart from the stage. Any entity that lends itself to dramatic interpretation may be taken up as a subject. Favorite sources include anime, cartoons, manga, comic books, television series, musical artists, video games, memes, and in some cases, original characters. The term has been adopted as slang, often in politics, to mean someone pretending to play a role or take on a personality disingenuously. Cosplay grew out of the practice of fan costuming at science fiction conventions, beginning with Morojo's "futuristicostumes" created for the 1st World Science Fiction Convention held in New York City, United States, in 1939. The Japanese term "cosplay" (コスプレ, kosupure) was coined in 1983. A rapid growth in the number of people cosplaying as a hobby since the 1990s has made the phenomenon a significant aspect of popular culture in Japan, as well as in other parts of East Asia and in the Western world. Cosplay events are common features of fan conventions, and today there are many dedicated conventions and competitions, as well as social networks, websites, and other forms of media centered on cosplay activities. Cosplay is very popular among all genders, and it is not unusual to see crossplay, also referred to as gender-bending. Etymology The term "cosplay" is a Japanese blend word of the English terms costume and play. The term was coined by Nobuyuki Takahashi [ja] of Studio Hard in an article for the Japanese magazine My Anime [ja] in June 1983. Takahashi decided to coin a new word rather than use the existing translation of the English term "masquerade" because it implied nobility and was old-fashioned. The coinage reflects a common Japanese method of abbreviation in which the first two moras of a pair of words are used to form an independent compound: 'costume' becomes kosu (コス) and 'play' becomes pure (プレ). History Masquerade balls were a feature of the Carnival season in the 15th century, and involved increasingly elaborate allegorical Royal Entries, pageants, and triumphal processions celebrating marriages and other dynastic events of late medieval court life. They were extended into costumed public festivities in Italy during the 16th century Renaissance, generally elaborate dances held for members of the upper classes, which were particularly popular in Venice. In April 1877, French novelist Jules Verne sent out almost 700 invitations for an elaborate costume ball, where several of the guests showed up dressed as characters from Verne's novels. Costume parties (American English) or fancy dress parties (British English) were popular from the 19th century onwards. Costuming guides of the period, such as Samuel Miller's Male Character Costumes (1884) or Ardern Holt's Fancy Dresses Described (1887), feature mostly generic costumes, whether that be period costumes, national costumes, objects or abstract concepts such as "Autumn" or "Night". Most specific costumes described therein are for historical figures although some are sourced from fiction, like Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers or William Shakespeare's characters. By March 1891, a literal call by one Herbert Tibbits for what would today be described as "cosplayers" was advertised for an event held from 5–10 March that year at the Royal Albert Hall in London, for the so-named Vril-Ya Bazaar and Fete based on a science fiction novel and its characters, published two decades earlier. A.D. Condo's science fiction comic strip character Mr. Skygack, from Mars (a Martian ethnographer who comically misunderstands many Earthly affairs) is arguably the first fictional character that people emulated by wearing costumes, as in 1908 Mr. and Mrs. William Fell of Cincinnati, Ohio, are reported to have attended a masquerade at a skating rink wearing Mr. Skygack and Miss Dillpickles costumes. Later, in 1910, an unnamed woman won first prize at masquerade ball in Tacoma, Washington, wearing another Skygack costume. The first people to wear costumes to attend a convention were science fiction fans Forrest J Ackerman and Myrtle R. Douglas, known in fandom as Morojo. They attended the 1939 1st World Science Fiction Convention (Nycon or 1st Worldcon) in the Caravan Hall, New York, US dressed in "futuristicostumes", including green cape and breeches, based on the pulp magazine artwork of Frank R. Paul and the 1936 film Things to Come, designed and created by Douglas. Ackerman later stated that he thought everyone was supposed to wear a costume at a science fiction convention, although only he and Douglas did. Fan costuming caught on, however, and the 2nd Worldcon (1940) had both an unofficial masquerade held in Douglas' room and an official masquerade as part of the programme. David Kyle won the masquerade wearing a Ming the Merciless costume created by Leslie Perri, while Robert A. W. Lowndes received second place with a Bar Senestro costume (from the novel The Blind Spot by Austin Hall and Homer Eon Flint). Other costumed attendees included guest of honor E. E. Smith as Northwest Smith (from C. L. Moore's series of short stories) and both Ackerman and Douglas wearing their futuristicostumes again. Masquerades and costume balls continued to be part of World Science Fiction Convention tradition thereafter. Early Worldcon masquerade balls featured a band, dancing, food and drinks. Contestants either walked across a stage or a cleared area of the dance floor. Ackerman wore a "Hunchbackerman of Notre Dame" costume to the 3rd Worldcon (1941), which included a mask designed and created by Ray Harryhausen, but soon stopped wearing costumes to conventions. Douglas wore an Akka costume (from A. Merritt's novel The Moon Pool), the mask again made by Harryhausen, to the 3rd Worldcon and a Snake Mother costume (another Merritt costume, from The Snake Mother) to the 4th Worldcon (1946). Terminology was yet unsettled; the 1944 edition of Jack Speer's Fancyclopedia used the term costume party. Rules governing costumes became established in response to specific costumes and costuming trends. The first nude contestant at a Worldcon masquerade was in 1952; but the height of this trend was in the 1970s and early 1980s, with a few every year. This eventually led to "No Costume is No Costume" rule, which banned full nudity, although partial nudity was still allowed as long as it was a legitimate representation of the character. Mike Resnick describes the best of the nude costumes as Kris Lundi wearing a harpy costume to the 32nd Worldcon (1974) (she received an honorable mention in the competition). Another costume that instigated a rule change was an attendee at the 20th Worldcon (1962) whose blaster prop fired a jet of real flame; which led to fire being banned. At the 30th WorldCon (1972), artist Scott Shaw wore a costume composed largely of peanut butter to represent his own underground comix character called "The Turd". The peanut butter rubbed off, doing damage to soft furnishings and other peoples' costumes, and then began to go rancid under the heat of the lighting. Food, odious, and messy substances were banned as costume elements after that event. Costuming spread with the science fiction conventions and the interaction of fandom. The earliest known instance of costuming at a convention in the United Kingdom was at the London Science Fiction Convention (1953) but this was only as part of a play. However, members of the Liverpool Science Fantasy Society attended the 1st Cytricon (1955), in Kettering, wearing costumes and continued to do so in subsequent years. The 15th Worldcon (1957) brought the first official convention masquerade to the UK. The 1960 Eastercon in London may have been the first British-based convention to hold an official fancy dress party as part of its programme. The joint winners were Ethel Lindsay and Ina Shorrock as two of the titular witches from the novel The Witches of Karres by James H. Schmitz. Star Trek conventions began in 1969 and major conventions began in 1972 and they have featured cosplay throughout. In Japan, costuming at conventions was a fan activity from at least the 1970s, especially after the launch of the Comiket convention in December 1975. Costuming at this time was known as kasō (仮装). The first documented case of costuming at a fan event in Japan was at Ashinocon (1978), in Hakone, at which future science fiction critic Mari Kotani wore a costume based on the cover art for Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel A Fighting Man of Mars.[Notes 1] In an interview Kotani states that there were about twenty costumed attendees at the convention's costume party—made up of members of her Triton of the Sea fan club and Kansai Entertainers (関西芸人, Kansai Geinin), antecedent of the Gainax anime studio—with most attendees in ordinary clothing. One of the Kansai group, an unnamed friend of Yasuhiro Takeda, wore an impromptu Tusken Raider costume (from the film Star Wars) made from one of the host-hotel's rolls of toilet paper. Costume contests became a permanent part of the Nihon SF Taikai conventions from Tokon VII in 1980. Possibly the first costume contest held at a comic book convention was at the 1st Academy Con held at Broadway Central Hotel in New York in August 1965. Roy Thomas, future editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics but then just transitioning from a fanzine editor to a professional comic book writer, attended in a Plastic Man costume. The first Masquerade Ball held at San Diego Comic-Con was in 1974 during the convention's 6th event. Voice actress June Foray was the master of ceremonies. Future scream queen Brinke Stevens won first place wearing a Vampirella costume. Ackerman (who was the creator of Vampirella) was in attendance and posed with Stevens for photographs. They became friends and, according to Stevens "Forry and his wife, Wendayne, soon became like my god parents." Photographer Dan Golden saw a photograph of Stevens in the Vampirella costume while visiting Ackerman's house, leading to him hiring her for a non-speaking role in her first student film, Zyzak is King (1980), and later photographing her for the cover of the first issue of Femme Fatales (1992). Stevens attributes these events to launching her acting career. As early as a year after the 1975 release of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, audience members began dressing as characters from the movie and role-playing (although the initial incentive for dressing-up was free admission) in often highly accurate costumes. Costume-Con, a conference dedicated to costuming, was first held in January 1983. The International Costumers Guild, Inc., originally known as the Greater Columbia Fantasy Costumer's Guild, was launched after the 3rd Costume-Con (1985) as a parent organization and to support costuming. Costuming had been a fan activity in Japan from the 1970s, and it became much more popular in the wake of Takahashi's report. The new term did not catch on immediately, however. It was a year or two after the article was published before it was in common use among fans at conventions. It was in the 1990s, after exposure on television and in magazines, that the term and practice of cosplaying became common knowledge in Japan. The first cosplay cafés appeared in the Akihabara area of Tokyo in the late 1990s. A temporary maid café was set up at the Tokyo Character Collection event in August 1998 to promote the video game Welcome to Pia Carrot 2 (1997). An occasional Pia Carrot Restaurant was held at the shop Gamers in Akihabara in the years up to 2000. Being linked to specific intellectual properties limited the lifespan of these cafés, which was solved by using generic maids, leading to the first permanent establishment, Cure Maid Café, which opened in March 2001. The first World Cosplay Summit was held on 12 October 2003 at the Rose Court Hotel in Nagoya, Japan, with five cosplayers invited from Germany, France and Italy. There was no contest until 2005, when the World Cosplay Championship began. The first winners were the Italian team of Giorgia Vecchini [it], Francesca Dani and Emilia Fata Livia. Worldcon masquerade attendance peaked in the 1980s and started to fall thereafter. This trend was reversed when the concept of cosplay was re-imported from Japan. Practice of cosplay Cosplay costumes vary greatly and can range from simple themed clothing to highly detailed costumes. It is generally considered different from Halloween and Mardi Gras costume wear, as the intention is to replicate a specific character, rather than to reflect the culture and symbolism of a holiday event. As such, when in costume, some cosplayers often seek to adopt the affect, mannerisms, and body language of the characters they portray (with "out of character" breaks). The characters chosen to be cosplayed may be sourced from any movie, TV series, book, comic book, video game, musical artist, anime, or manga. Some cosplayers even choose to cosplay an original character of their own design or a fusion of different genres (e.g., a steampunk version of a character), and it is a part of the ethos of cosplay that anybody can be anything, as with genderbending, crossplay, or drag, a cosplayer playing a character of another ethnicity, or a hijabi portraying Captain America. Cosplayers obtain their apparel through many different methods. Manufacturers produce and sell packaged outfits for use in cosplay, with varying levels of quality. These costumes are often sold online, but also can be purchased from dealers at conventions. Japanese manufacturers of cosplay costumes reported a profit of 35 billion yen in 2008. A number of individuals also work on commission, creating custom costumes, props, or wigs designed and fitted to the individual. Other cosplayers, who prefer to create their own costumes, still provide a market for individual elements, and various raw materials, such as unstyled wigs, hair dye, cloth and sewing notions, liquid latex, body paint, costume jewelry, and prop weapons. Cosplay represents an act of embodiment. Cosplay has been closely linked to the presentation of self, yet cosplayers' ability to perform is limited by their physical features. The accuracy of a cosplay is judged based on the ability to accurately represent a character through the body, and individual cosplayers frequently are faced by their own "bodily limits" such as level of attractiveness, body size, and disability that often restrict and confine how accurate the cosplay is perceived to be. Authenticity is measured by a cosplayer's individual ability to translate on-screen manifestation to the cosplay itself. Some have argued that cosplay can never be a true representation of the character; instead, it can only be read through the body, and that true embodiment of a character is judged based on nearness to the original character form. Cosplaying can also help some of those with self-esteem problems. Many cosplayers create their own outfits, referencing images of the characters in the process. In the creation of the outfits, much time is given to detail and qualities, thus the skill of a cosplayer may be measured by how difficult the details of the outfit are and how well they have been replicated. Because of the difficulty of replicating some details and materials, cosplayers often educate themselves in crafting specialties such as textiles, sculpture, face paint, fiberglass, fashion design, woodworking, and other uses of materials in the effort to render the look and texture of a costume accurately. Cosplayers often wear wigs in conjunction with their outfit to further improve the resemblance to the character. This is especially necessary for anime and manga or video-game characters who often have unnaturally colored and uniquely styled hair. Simpler outfits may be compensated for their lack of complexity by paying attention to material choice and overall high quality. To look more like the characters they are portraying, cosplayers might also engage in various forms of body modification. Cosplayers may opt to change their skin color utilizing make-up to more simulate the race of the character they are adopting. Contact lenses that match the color of their character's eyes are a common form of this, especially in the case of characters with particularly unique eyes as part of their trademark look. Contact lenses that make the pupil look enlarged to visually echo the large eyes of anime and manga characters are also used. Another form of body modification in which cosplayers engage is to copy any tattoos or special markings their character might have. Temporary tattoos, permanent marker, body paint, and in rare cases, permanent tattoos, are all methods used by cosplayers to achieve the desired look. Permanent and temporary hair dye, spray-in hair coloring, and specialized extreme styling products are all used by some cosplayers whose natural hair can achieve the desired hairstyle. It is also commonplace for them to shave off their eyebrows to gain a more accurate look. Some anime and video game characters have weapons or other accessories that are hard to replicate, and conventions have strict rules regarding those weapons, but most cosplayers engage in some combination of methods to obtain all the items necessary for their costumes; for example, they may commission a prop weapon, sew their own clothing, buy character jewelry from a cosplay accessory manufacturer, or buy a pair of off-the-rack shoes, and modify them to match the desired look. Cosplay may be presented in a number of ways and places. A subset of cosplay culture is centered on sex appeal, with cosplayers specifically choosing characters known for their attractiveness or revealing costumes. However, wearing a revealing costume can be a sensitive issue while appearing in public. People appearing naked at American science fiction fandom conventions during the 1970s were so common, a "no costume is no costume" rule was introduced. Some conventions throughout the United States, such as Phoenix Comicon (now known as Phoenix Fan Fusion) and Penny Arcade Expo, have also issued rules upon which they reserve the right to ask attendees to leave or change their costumes if deemed to be inappropriate to a family-friendly environment or something of a similar nature. The most popular form of presenting a cosplay publicly is by wearing it to a fan convention. Multiple conventions dedicated to anime and manga, comics, TV shows, video games, science fiction, and fantasy may be found all around the world. Cosplay-centered conventions include Cosplay Mania in the Philippines and EOY Cosplay Festival in Singapore. The single largest event featuring cosplay is the semiannual doujinshi market, Comic Market (Comiket), held in Japan during summer and winter. Comiket attracts hundreds of thousands of manga and anime fans, where thousands of cosplayers congregate on the roof of the exhibition center. In North America, the highest-attended fan conventions featuring cosplayers are San Diego Comic-Con and New York Comic Con held in the United States, and the anime-specific Anime North in Toronto, Otakon held in Washington, D.C. and Anime Expo held in Los Angeles. Europe's largest event is Japan Expo held in Paris, while the London MCM Expo and the London Super Comic Convention are the most notable in the UK. Supanova Pop Culture Expo is Australia's biggest event. Star Trek conventions have featured cosplay for many decades. These include Destination Star Trek, a UK convention, and Star Trek Las Vegas, a US convention. In different comic fairs, "Thematic Areas" are set up where cosplayers can take photos in an environment that follows that of the game or animation product from which they are taken. Sometimes the cosplayers are part of the area, playing the role of staff with the task of entertaining the other visitors. Some examples are the thematic areas dedicated to Star Wars or to Fallout. The areas are set up by not for profit associations of fans, but in some major fairs it is possible to visit areas set up directly by the developers of the video games or the producers of the anime. The appearance of cosplayers at public events makes them a popular draw for photographers. As this became apparent in the late 1980s, a new variant of cosplay developed in which cosplayers attended events mainly for the purpose of modeling their characters for still photography rather than engaging in continuous role play. Rules of etiquette were developed to minimize awkward situations involving boundaries. Cosplayers pose for photographers and photographers do not press them for personal contact information or private sessions, follow them out of the area, or take photos without permission. The rules allow the collaborative relationship between photographers and cosplayers to continue with the least inconvenience to each other. Some cosplayers choose to have a professional photographer take high quality images of them in their costumes posing as the character. Cosplayers and photographers frequently exhibit their work online and sometimes sell their images. As the popularity of cosplay has grown, many conventions have come to feature a contest surrounding cosplay that may be the main feature of the convention. Contestants present their cosplay, and often to be judged for an award, the cosplay must be self-made. The contestants may choose to perform a skit, which may consist of a short performed script or dance with optional accompanying audio, video, or images shown on a screen overhead. Other contestants may simply choose to pose as their characters. Often, contestants are briefly interviewed on stage by a master of ceremonies. The audience is given a chance to take photos of the cosplayers. Cosplayers may compete solo or in a group. Awards are presented, and these awards may vary greatly. Generally, a best cosplayer award, a best group award, and runner-up prizes are given. Awards may also go to the best skit and a number of cosplay skill subcategories, such as master tailor, master weapon-maker, master armorer, and so forth. The most well-known cosplay contest event is the World Cosplay Summit, selecting cosplayers from 40 countries to compete in the final round in Nagoya, Japan. Some other international events include European Cosplay Gathering (finals taking place at Japan Expo in Paris), EuroCosplay (finals taking place at London MCM Comic Con), and the Nordic Cosplay Championship (finals taking place at NärCon in Linköping, Sweden). This table contains a list of the most common cosplay competition judging criteria, as seen from World Cosplay Summit, Cyprus Comic Con, and ReplayFX. Portraying a character of the opposite sex is called crossplay. The practicality of crossplay and cross-dress stems in part from the abundance in manga of male characters with delicate and somewhat androgynous features. Such characters, known as bishōnen (lit. 'pretty boy'), are Asian equivalent of the elfin boy archetype represented in Western tradition by figures such as Peter Pan and Ariel. Male to female cosplayers may experience issues when trying to portray a female character because it is hard to maintain the sexualized femininity of a character. Male cosplayers may also be subjected to discrimination, including homophobic comments and being touched without permission. This affects men possibly even more often than it affects women, despite inappropriate contact already being a problem for women who cosplay, as is "slut-shaming". Animegao kigurumi players, a niche group in the realm of cosplay, are often male cosplayers who use zentai and stylized masks to represent female anime characters. These cosplayers completely hide their real features so the original appearance of their characters may be reproduced as literally as possible, and to display all the abstractions and stylizations such as oversized eyes and tiny mouths often seen in Japanese cartoon art. This does not mean that only males perform animegao or that masks are only female. "Cosplay Is Not Consent", a movement started in 2013 by Rochelle Keyhan, Erin Filson, and Anna Kegler, brought attention to the issue of sexual harassment in the convention attending cosplay community. Harassment of cosplayers include photography without permission, verbal abuse, touching, and groping. Harassment is not limited to women in provocative outfits as male cosplayers talked about being bullied for not fitting certain costume and characters. Starting in 2014, New York Comic Con placed large signs at the entrance stating that "Cosplay is Not Consent". Attendees were reminded to ask permission for photos and respect the person's right to say no. The movement against sexual harassment against cosplayers has continued to gain momentum and awareness since being publicized. Traditional mainstream news media like The Mercury News and Los Angeles Times have reported on the topic, bringing awareness of sexual harassment to those outside of the cosplay community. As cosplay has entered more mainstream media, ethnicity becomes a controversial point. Cosplayers of different skin color than the character are often ridiculed for not being 'accurate' or 'faithful'. Many cosplayers feel as if anyone can cosplay any character, but it becomes complicated when cosplayers are not respectful of the character's ethnicity. These views against non-white cosplayers within the community have been attributed to the lack of representation in the industry and in media. Issues such as blackface, brownface, and yellowface are still controversial since a large part of the cosplay community see these as separate problems, or simply an acceptable part of cosplay.[citation needed] Cosplay has influenced the advertising industry, in which cosplayers are often used for event work previously assigned to agency models. Some cosplayers have thus transformed their hobby into profitable, professional careers. Japan's entertainment industry has been home to the professional cosplayers since the rise of Comiket and Tokyo Game Show. The phenomenon is most apparent in Japan but exists to some degree in other countries as well. Professional cosplayers who profit from their art may experience problems related to copyright infringement. A cosplay model, also known as a cosplay idol, cosplays costumes for anime and manga or video game companies. Good cosplayers are viewed as fictional characters in the flesh, in much the same way that film actors come to be identified in the public mind with specific roles. Cosplayers have modeled for print magazines like Cosmode and a successful cosplay model can become the brand ambassador for companies like Cospa. Some cosplay models can achieve significant recognition. While there are many significant cosplay models, Yaya Han was described as having emerged "as a well-recognized figure both within and outside cosplay circuits". Jessica Nigri, used her recognition in cosplay to gain other opportunities such as voice acting and her own documentary on Rooster Teeth. Liz Katz used her fanbase to take her cosplay from a hobby to a successful business venture, sparking debate through the cosplay community whether cosplayers should be allowed to fund and profit from their work. In the 2000s, cosplayers started to push the boundaries of cosplay into eroticism paving the way to "erocosplay". The advent of social media coupled with crowdfunding platforms like Patreon and OnlyFans have allowed cosplay models to turn cosplay into profitable full-time careers. During protests During various protests, cosplaying as a satirization of important people and political events. In Myanmar various protests after the 2021 coup d'état various protests occurred with cosplayers. Youth groups protested on the roads by wearing cosplay costumes, skirts, wedding dresses, and other unusual clothing for daily life while holding signboards and vinyl banners that break with the country's more traditional protest messages for the purpose of grabbing attention from both domestic and international press media. Other times fictional characters are used to convey a message such as women dressing like characters from The Handmaid's Tale to protest bodily restrictions in the United States. Cosplay by country or region Cosplayers in Japan formerly referred to themselves as reiyā (レイヤー), pronounced "layer". In contemporary Japan, however, cosplayers are more commonly referred to as kosupure (コスプレ), pronounced "ko-su-pray", as the term reiyā is now more frequently used to describe literal layers (for example, hair or clothing). Words such as kawaii (可愛い) (lit. 'cute') and kakko ī (かっこいい) (lit. 'cool') were often used to describe these changes, expressions that were closely tied to notions of femininity and masculinity. Those who photograph players are known as cameko (カメコ), a shortened form of camera kozō (カメラ小僧) (lit. 'camera boy'). Originally, cameko would give printed photographs to players as gifts. Growing interest in cosplay events—both among photographers and cosplayers willing to model—has led to the formalization of procedures at events such as Comiket. Photography is conducted in designated areas separate from the exhibit halls. In Japan, wearing costumes outside of conventions or other designated areas is generally discouraged. Since 1998, Tokyo's Akihabara district has contained a number of cosplay restaurants catering to devoted anime and manga fans, in which waitresses dress as characters from video games, anime, or manga; maid cafés are particularly popular. In Japan, Tokyo's Harajuku district serves as a favored informal gathering place for engaging in cosplay in public. Events held in Akihabara also attract large numbers of cosplayers. Ishoku-hada (異色肌) is a form of Japanese cosplay in which players use body paint to alter their skin color to match that of the character they portray. This practice allows for the representation of anime or manga characters, as well as video game characters, with non-human skin tones. A 2014 survey conducted for the Comiket convention in Japan reported that approximately 75% of cosplayers attending the event were female. Cosplay is common in many East Asian countries. For example, it is a major part of the Comic World conventions taking place regularly in South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Historically, the practice of dressing up as characters from works of fiction can be traced as far as the 17th century late Ming dynasty China. Western cosplay developed primarily from science fiction and fantasy fandoms. Compared with Japan, Western cosplayers are more likely to portray characters originating from live-action television series and films. Western costuming traditions also encompass a variety of related hobbyist subcultures, including participants in Renaissance faires, live action role-playing games, and historical reenactments. Costume competitions at science fiction conventions commonly feature masquerades, in which costumes are formally judged during stage presentations, as well as hall costumes that are evaluated informally throughout the event. The growing international popularity of Japanese cartoon during the late 2000s contributed to a rise in American and other Western cosplayers portraying characters from manga and anime. Over the following decade, anime conventions became increasingly common across Western countries, often rivaling long-established science fiction, comic book, and historical conventions in terms of attendance. At these events, cosplayers—much like their Japanese counterparts—gather to display their costumes, be photographed, and participate in competitive costume events. Convention attendees also frequently choose to dress as characters from Western comic books, animated works, films, and video games. Despite increasing global exchange, cultural differences in taste remain evident. Certain costume styles that may be worn without hesitation by Japanese cosplayers are often avoided in Western contexts, particularly those that resemble Nazi uniforms. Western cosplayers may also encounter debates regarding legitimacy when portraying characters whose canonical racial backgrounds differ from their own, and instances of insensitivity toward cosplayers depicting characters of different skin tones have been documented. Western cosplayers who portray anime characters may likewise experience targeted ridicule or misunderstanding. In comparison with Japan, wearing costumes in public spaces is generally more socially accepted in countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, and Canada. These regions possess longer-standing traditions of Halloween costuming, fan dress, and related practices. Consequently, it is not uncommon for convention attendees in costume to be seen in nearby restaurants and public venues outside the immediate boundaries of the event itself. Media Japan is home to two especially popular cosplay magazines, Cosmode (コスモード) and ASCII Media Works' Dengeki Layers (電撃Layers). Cosmode has the largest share in the market and an English-language digital edition. Another magazine, aimed at a broader, worldwide audience is CosplayGen. In the United States, Cosplay Culture began publication in February 2015. Other magazines include CosplayZine featuring cosplayers from all over the world since October 2015, and Cosplay Realm Magazine which was started in April 2017. There are many books on the subject of cosplay as well. Cosplay groups and organizations See also Notes References Bibliography External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Records] | [TOKENS: 75] |
Template:Records This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible. To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used: |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Records] | [TOKENS: 120] |
Contents Template talk:Records January 2007 Should this be changed into just a "World Record template" and not just specifically human records? Remember 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Based upon a suggestion by the user 86.134.114.137 on the page world record, this template can now be added to a page in two ways, {{records}} for the default, hidden version, or {{records|state=expand}} for the expanded version. --Neo 10:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#cite_ref-11] | [TOKENS: 5211] |
Contents Wikipedia:Protection policy In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when there is disruption that cannot be prevented through other means, such as blocks. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection, and when each protection should and should not be applied. Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time. The various levels of protection can be applied to the page edit, page move, page create, and file upload actions. Even when a page is protected from editing, the source wikitext of the page can still be viewed and copied by anyone. A protected page is marked at its top right by a padlock icon, usually added by the {{pp-protected}} template. The {{pp-protected}} template is automatically added by the {{documentation}} template used in template space. Overview of page protection Any protection applied to a page involves setting a type, level, and duration as follows: Preemptive protection Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible. Exceptions include the Main Page, along with its templates and images, which are indefinitely fully protected. Additionally, Today's Featured Article is typically semi-protected from the day before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page until the day after it leaves. Finally, pages subject to Arbitration Committee remedies that permit or require preemptive protection may be protected accordingly. Requesting protection Page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and then (if necessary) requested by adding an edit request. From there, if the requested changes are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them, the changes can be carried out by a user who can edit the page. Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary. Users can request unprotection or a reduction in protection level by asking the administrator who applied the protection on the administrator's user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer an administrator, or does not respond, then a request for reduction in protection level may be filed. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first. A log of protections and unprotections is available at Special:Log/protect. Summary table Protection types Edit protection restricts editing of a page, often due to vandalism or disputes, ensuring only experienced users can make changes (see above for more information). Administrators can prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. There are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection. A list of protected titles can be found at Special:ProtectedTitles (see also historical lists). Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, which allows for more flexible protection with support for substrings and regular expressions. Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as "salted". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. Create protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly recreated in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, or full). Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot create pages in mainspace; thus, semi-creation protection should be used only for protection of pages outside of mainspace. While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection can be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable). Move-protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator. Move protection is commonly applied to: Move protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly moved in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (extended-confirmed or full). Non-confirmed editors cannot move pages so semi-move protection has no effect. Fully edit-protected pages are also implicitly move-protected. As with full edit protection, protection because of edit warring should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion, the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started. All files and categories are implicitly move-protected, requiring file movers or administrators to rename files, and page movers or administrators to rename categories. Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator. Upload protection does not protect file pages from editing. It can be applied by an administrator to: Protection levels Pending changes protection allows unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping their edits hidden from unregistered users (who make up the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia articles) until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer or an administrator. An alternative to semi-protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems, while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes is technically implemented as a separate option, with its own duration, and it yields to other edit protection levels in cases of overlap. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an autoconfirmed user, the edit will be immediately visible to Wikipedia readers, unless there are pending edits waiting to be reviewed. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as "pending review". Readers who are not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers. A user who clicks "edit this page" is always, at that point, shown the latest version of the page for editing regardless of whether the user is logged in or not. Pending changes are typically reviewed within several hours. Pending changes can be used to protect articles against: Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, pending changes protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Semi-protection is generally a better option for articles with a high edit rate as well as articles affected by issues difficult for pending changes reviewers to detect, such as non-obvious vandalism, plausible-sounding misinformation, and hard-to-detect copyright violations. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested to any administrator, or at requests for unprotection. The reviewing process is described in detail at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Semi-protected pages may be edited only by registered users who are confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old and with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected, the edit request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: In addition, administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as Wikipedia's biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies). A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time. In exceptional cases, if a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing. Today's featured article is, since 2023, always semi-protected. However, this was historically not the case. Extended confirmed protection, previously known as 30/500 protection, restricts editing to users with the extended confirmed user access level, administrators, and bots. Extended confirmed is automatically granted to users one edit after their account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes (except as general sanction enforcement; see below). When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. (This is distinct from the extended confirmed restriction below.) Community-designated contentious topics grant similar authorizations. Some topic areas are under Arbitration Committee extended confirmed restriction as a general sanction. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required (other enforcement methods are outlined in the policy). As always, review the policy before enforcing it. Community general sanctions, applying a similar extended confirmed restriction, have also been authorized by the community. General sanctions has a list of the active general sanctions that incorporate the extended confirmed restriction. High-risk templates can be extended confirmed–protected at administrator discretion when template protection would be too restrictive and semi-protection would be ineffective to stop widespread disruption. Extended confirmed protection can be applied at the discretion of an administrator when creation-protecting a page. A bot maintains a report of pages recently put under extended confirmed protection. Any protection made as arbitration enforcement will be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. Community-authorized discretionary sanctions must be logged on a page specific to the topic area. A full list of the 14975 pages under extended confirmed protection can be found here. Users can request edits to an extended confirmed–protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules. In cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, this protection level is also valid. This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists—the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower can be applied to high risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly. A full list of the pages under template protection can be found here. Editors may request edits to a template-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit template-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A fully protected page cannot be edited or moved by anyone except administrators. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. While content disputes and edit warring can be addressed with user blocks issued by uninvolved administrators, allowing normal page editing by other editors at the same time, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version. Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked. Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally. If a deleted page is going through deletion review, only administrators are normally capable of viewing the former content of the page. If they feel it would benefit the discussion to allow other users to view the page content, administrators may restore the page, replace the contents with the {{Temporarily undeleted}} template or a similar notice, and fully protect the page to prevent further editing. The previous contents of the page are then accessible to everyone via the page history. Generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg, File:Example.jpg, File:Map.jpg, and File:Sound.wav are fully protected to prevent new versions from being uploaded. Furthermore, File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are salted. The following pages and templates are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time: As with full edit protection, administrators should avoid favoring one version over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. An exception to this rule is when they are protected due to upload vandalism. Pages can be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel as outlined in Foundation:Policy:Office actions § Use of advanced rights by Foundation staff. Such actions override community consensus. Administrators should not edit or unprotect such pages without permission from Wikimedia Foundation staff. Cascading protection fully protects a page, and extends that full protection automatically to any page that is transcluded onto the protected page, whether directly or indirectly. This includes templates, images and other media that are hosted on the English Wikipedia. Files stored on Commons are not protected by any other wiki's cascading protection and, if they are to be protected, must be either temporarily uploaded to the English Wikipedia or explicitly protected at Commons (whether manually or through cascading protection there). When operational, KrinkleBot cascade-protects Commons files transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and Main Page. As the bot's response time varies, media should not be transcluded on the main page (or its constituent templates) until after it has been protected. (This is particularly relevant to Template:In the news, for which upcoming images are not queued at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow.) Cascading protection: The list of cascading-protected pages can be found at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Requests to add or remove cascading protection on a page should be made at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items as an edit request. Operational pages principally used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes configuration pages, data pages, log pages, status pages, and other pages specific to the operation of software. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are automatically protected and should not be protected for this reason. Some pages on Wikipedia are subject to software-enforced protection that administrators cannot change or remove. This is called permanent or indefinite protection, and interface protection in the case of CSS and JavaScript pages. Specifically, this applies to: Protection by namespace Modifications to a protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected. However, protection can be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from. A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests can be considered if a reason is provided. Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user with talk page access removed should be preferred over applying protection to the page. If the user has been blocked and with the ability to edit their user talk page disabled, they should be informed of this in a block notice, subsequent notice, or message, and it should include information and instructions for appealing their block off-wiki, such as through the UTRS tool interface or, as a last recourse, the Arbitration Committee. When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected. Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/Lipsum or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous temporary account users. An exception is that unconfirmed registered users are allowed to create or edit their own user page. Temporary account editors and unconfirmed accounts are also unable to create or edit user pages that do not belong to a currently registered account. This protection is enforced by an edit filter. Users may opt-out of this protection by placing {{unlocked userpage}} anywhere on their own user page. User pages and subpages within their own user space can be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or preemptively protected without good reason or cause. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) can be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism, a user may choose to create a ".css" subpage (e.g., User:Example/monobook.css), copy all the contents of their user page onto the subpage, transclude the subpage by putting {{User:Example/monobook.css}} on their user page, and then ask an administrator to fully protect their user page. Because user space pages that end in ".css" and ".js" are editable only by the user to which that user space belongs and interface administrators, this will protect one's user page from further vandalism. In the event of the confirmed death of an editor, their user page (but not the user talk page) should be fully protected. Highly visible templates – those used on a large number of pages or frequently substituted – are often protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other considerations. Protected templates should normally have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, categories and interwiki links. It also automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the top right corner and categorizes the template as protected. Only manually add {{pp-template}} to protected templates that do not use {{documentation}} (mostly the flag templates). Cascading protection should generally not be applied directly to templates, as it will not protect transclusions inside <includeonly> tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the template's documentation subpage. Instead, consider either of the following: Note: All editnotice templates (except those in userspace) are already protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They can be edited by admins, template editors and page movers only. Sandboxes should not ordinarily be protected since their purpose is to let new users test and experiment with wiki syntax. Most sandboxes are automatically cleaned every 12 hours, although they are frequently overwritten by other testing users. The Wikipedia:Sandbox is cleaned every hour. Those who use sandboxes for malicious purposes, or to violate policies such as no personal attacks, civility, or copyrights, should instead be warned and/or blocked. Available templates The following templates can be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected: On redirect pages, use the {{Redirect category shell}} template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will serve only to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed. Retired protections Superprotect was a level of protection, allowing editing only by Wikimedia Foundation employees who were in the Staff global group. It was implemented on August 10, 2014 and removed on November 5, 2015. It was never used on the English Wikipedia. For several years, the Gadget namespace (which no longer exists) could only be edited by WMF staff, which has sometimes been referred to as superprotection even though it is unrelated to the above use. Cascading semi-protection was formerly possible, but it was disabled in 2007 after users noticed that non-administrators could fully protect any page by transcluding it onto the page to which cascading semi-protection had been applied by an administrator. Originally, two levels of pending changes protection existed, where level 2 required edits by all users who were not pending changes reviewers to be reviewed. Following a community discussion, level 2 was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017. Since that change, "pending changes level 1" is generally referred to as just "pending changes". See also Notes |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_(magazine)] | [TOKENS: 262] |
Contents 360 (magazine) 360 was an Xbox 360 video games magazine published by Imagine Publishing in the UK. Originally published four-weekly, the magazine switched to a three-weekly schedule in 2009. The magazine was withdrawn from sale following its merger with sister publication X360 in July 2012. Overview The magazine was split into four main sections: Agenda, Foreplay, Reviews, and Live Style. The double page spread on pages eight and nine, called Thread, was composed of emails, letters and posts or sections of posts from the 360 magazine forum. On page nine, there was a pie chart showing votes cast on the 360 magazine forum on a different subject every week, which was chosen by the magazine staff. There were also two features following the Reviews section that sometimes were as long as ten pages. As a standard, the magazine was 130 pages long. Merger with X360 On 7 June 2012, Imagine announced to 360's forum that 360 and its sister publication, X360, were to merge under the latter's name. As a result, 360 was to be withdrawn from sale, with no further issues published. The first issue of the new X360 went on sale on 11 July 2012. References External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Games] | [TOKENS: 445] |
Contents Ação Games Ação Games was a Brazilian magazine specialized in video games that circulated from 1991 to 2002. History Released as a special edition of the sports magazine A Semana em Ação, which replaced Placar at Editora Abril in August 1990, it had its first edition in December 1990 under the title A Semana em Ação: Especial Games (The Week in Action: Games Special). As the most prominent words in the title were "Ação" (Action) and "Games", the magazine soon was called Ação Games. There was also a second edition in March 1991, but the "mother magazine" did not last long, being extinct in the first half of that year. However, the special about games had its title bought by Editora Azul, who started to edit it as a monthly magazine since October 1991, entitled Ação Games. It was created by, among others, Marcelo Duarte of ESPN Brasil and that today[when?] commands the video games TV show Game Up, from the same television network. Growth With news about releases and tips on how to pass through stages in various games, the magazine had grown for about two years, along with the video game market in Brazil, and was published in Argentina under the name Action Games. When the editorial line began to favor one manufacturer over another, the quality began to be questioned. Aggressive competition only accentuated this situation, especially when, in 1994, the magazines Super Game and Game Power merged under the Editora Nova Cultural label and changed the market scenario. Decline The rise of the Internet and the rapid successive changes in the magazine's profile, which culminated in the creation of Frango (a character created by the editors, who always answered the readers' letters in a rude way and spoke ill of the magazine itself), had also contributed to the loss of space of the magazine until it stopped being published in January 2002 According to the last editorial, the magazine would cease to be monthly and would be released as special editions without basis. Only two such issues were released, both in 2003.[citation needed] References External links |
======================================== |
[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#cite_ref-12] | [TOKENS: 5211] |
Contents Wikipedia:Protection policy In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when there is disruption that cannot be prevented through other means, such as blocks. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection, and when each protection should and should not be applied. Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time. The various levels of protection can be applied to the page edit, page move, page create, and file upload actions. Even when a page is protected from editing, the source wikitext of the page can still be viewed and copied by anyone. A protected page is marked at its top right by a padlock icon, usually added by the {{pp-protected}} template. The {{pp-protected}} template is automatically added by the {{documentation}} template used in template space. Overview of page protection Any protection applied to a page involves setting a type, level, and duration as follows: Preemptive protection Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible. Exceptions include the Main Page, along with its templates and images, which are indefinitely fully protected. Additionally, Today's Featured Article is typically semi-protected from the day before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page until the day after it leaves. Finally, pages subject to Arbitration Committee remedies that permit or require preemptive protection may be protected accordingly. Requesting protection Page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and then (if necessary) requested by adding an edit request. From there, if the requested changes are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them, the changes can be carried out by a user who can edit the page. Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary. Users can request unprotection or a reduction in protection level by asking the administrator who applied the protection on the administrator's user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer an administrator, or does not respond, then a request for reduction in protection level may be filed. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first. A log of protections and unprotections is available at Special:Log/protect. Summary table Protection types Edit protection restricts editing of a page, often due to vandalism or disputes, ensuring only experienced users can make changes (see above for more information). Administrators can prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. There are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection. A list of protected titles can be found at Special:ProtectedTitles (see also historical lists). Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, which allows for more flexible protection with support for substrings and regular expressions. Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as "salted". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. Create protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly recreated in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, or full). Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot create pages in mainspace; thus, semi-creation protection should be used only for protection of pages outside of mainspace. While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection can be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable). Move-protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator. Move protection is commonly applied to: Move protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly moved in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (extended-confirmed or full). Non-confirmed editors cannot move pages so semi-move protection has no effect. Fully edit-protected pages are also implicitly move-protected. As with full edit protection, protection because of edit warring should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion, the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started. All files and categories are implicitly move-protected, requiring file movers or administrators to rename files, and page movers or administrators to rename categories. Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator. Upload protection does not protect file pages from editing. It can be applied by an administrator to: Protection levels Pending changes protection allows unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping their edits hidden from unregistered users (who make up the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia articles) until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer or an administrator. An alternative to semi-protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems, while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes is technically implemented as a separate option, with its own duration, and it yields to other edit protection levels in cases of overlap. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an autoconfirmed user, the edit will be immediately visible to Wikipedia readers, unless there are pending edits waiting to be reviewed. Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as "pending review". Readers who are not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers. A user who clicks "edit this page" is always, at that point, shown the latest version of the page for editing regardless of whether the user is logged in or not. Pending changes are typically reviewed within several hours. Pending changes can be used to protect articles against: Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, pending changes protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Semi-protection is generally a better option for articles with a high edit rate as well as articles affected by issues difficult for pending changes reviewers to detect, such as non-obvious vandalism, plausible-sounding misinformation, and hard-to-detect copyright violations. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Removal of pending changes protection can be requested to any administrator, or at requests for unprotection. The reviewing process is described in detail at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Semi-protected pages may be edited only by registered users who are confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old and with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected, the edit request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. Administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are: In addition, administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as Wikipedia's biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies). A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time. In exceptional cases, if a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing. Today's featured article is, since 2023, always semi-protected. However, this was historically not the case. Extended confirmed protection, previously known as 30/500 protection, restricts editing to users with the extended confirmed user access level, administrators, and bots. Extended confirmed is automatically granted to users one edit after their account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes (except as general sanction enforcement; see below). When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. (This is distinct from the extended confirmed restriction below.) Community-designated contentious topics grant similar authorizations. Some topic areas are under Arbitration Committee extended confirmed restriction as a general sanction. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it is not required (other enforcement methods are outlined in the policy). As always, review the policy before enforcing it. Community general sanctions, applying a similar extended confirmed restriction, have also been authorized by the community. General sanctions has a list of the active general sanctions that incorporate the extended confirmed restriction. High-risk templates can be extended confirmed–protected at administrator discretion when template protection would be too restrictive and semi-protection would be ineffective to stop widespread disruption. Extended confirmed protection can be applied at the discretion of an administrator when creation-protecting a page. A bot maintains a report of pages recently put under extended confirmed protection. Any protection made as arbitration enforcement will be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. Community-authorized discretionary sanctions must be logged on a page specific to the topic area. A full list of the 14975 pages under extended confirmed protection can be found here. Users can request edits to an extended confirmed–protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules. In cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, this protection level is also valid. This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists—the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower can be applied to high risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly. A full list of the pages under template protection can be found here. Editors may request edits to a template-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit template-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. A fully protected page cannot be edited or moved by anyone except administrators. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. While content disputes and edit warring can be addressed with user blocks issued by uninvolved administrators, allowing normal page editing by other editors at the same time, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version. Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked. Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally. If a deleted page is going through deletion review, only administrators are normally capable of viewing the former content of the page. If they feel it would benefit the discussion to allow other users to view the page content, administrators may restore the page, replace the contents with the {{Temporarily undeleted}} template or a similar notice, and fully protect the page to prevent further editing. The previous contents of the page are then accessible to everyone via the page history. Generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg, File:Example.jpg, File:Map.jpg, and File:Sound.wav are fully protected to prevent new versions from being uploaded. Furthermore, File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are salted. The following pages and templates are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time: As with full edit protection, administrators should avoid favoring one version over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. An exception to this rule is when they are protected due to upload vandalism. Pages can be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel as outlined in Foundation:Policy:Office actions § Use of advanced rights by Foundation staff. Such actions override community consensus. Administrators should not edit or unprotect such pages without permission from Wikimedia Foundation staff. Cascading protection fully protects a page, and extends that full protection automatically to any page that is transcluded onto the protected page, whether directly or indirectly. This includes templates, images and other media that are hosted on the English Wikipedia. Files stored on Commons are not protected by any other wiki's cascading protection and, if they are to be protected, must be either temporarily uploaded to the English Wikipedia or explicitly protected at Commons (whether manually or through cascading protection there). When operational, KrinkleBot cascade-protects Commons files transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and Main Page. As the bot's response time varies, media should not be transcluded on the main page (or its constituent templates) until after it has been protected. (This is particularly relevant to Template:In the news, for which upcoming images are not queued at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow.) Cascading protection: The list of cascading-protected pages can be found at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Requests to add or remove cascading protection on a page should be made at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items as an edit request. Operational pages principally used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes configuration pages, data pages, log pages, status pages, and other pages specific to the operation of software. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are automatically protected and should not be protected for this reason. Some pages on Wikipedia are subject to software-enforced protection that administrators cannot change or remove. This is called permanent or indefinite protection, and interface protection in the case of CSS and JavaScript pages. Specifically, this applies to: Protection by namespace Modifications to a protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected. However, protection can be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from. A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests can be considered if a reason is provided. Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor. In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user with talk page access removed should be preferred over applying protection to the page. If the user has been blocked and with the ability to edit their user talk page disabled, they should be informed of this in a block notice, subsequent notice, or message, and it should include information and instructions for appealing their block off-wiki, such as through the UTRS tool interface or, as a last recourse, the Arbitration Committee. When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected. Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/Lipsum or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous temporary account users. An exception is that unconfirmed registered users are allowed to create or edit their own user page. Temporary account editors and unconfirmed accounts are also unable to create or edit user pages that do not belong to a currently registered account. This protection is enforced by an edit filter. Users may opt-out of this protection by placing {{unlocked userpage}} anywhere on their own user page. User pages and subpages within their own user space can be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or preemptively protected without good reason or cause. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) can be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need. When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism, a user may choose to create a ".css" subpage (e.g., User:Example/monobook.css), copy all the contents of their user page onto the subpage, transclude the subpage by putting {{User:Example/monobook.css}} on their user page, and then ask an administrator to fully protect their user page. Because user space pages that end in ".css" and ".js" are editable only by the user to which that user space belongs and interface administrators, this will protect one's user page from further vandalism. In the event of the confirmed death of an editor, their user page (but not the user talk page) should be fully protected. Highly visible templates – those used on a large number of pages or frequently substituted – are often protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other considerations. Protected templates should normally have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, categories and interwiki links. It also automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the top right corner and categorizes the template as protected. Only manually add {{pp-template}} to protected templates that do not use {{documentation}} (mostly the flag templates). Cascading protection should generally not be applied directly to templates, as it will not protect transclusions inside <includeonly> tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the template's documentation subpage. Instead, consider either of the following: Note: All editnotice templates (except those in userspace) are already protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They can be edited by admins, template editors and page movers only. Sandboxes should not ordinarily be protected since their purpose is to let new users test and experiment with wiki syntax. Most sandboxes are automatically cleaned every 12 hours, although they are frequently overwritten by other testing users. The Wikipedia:Sandbox is cleaned every hour. Those who use sandboxes for malicious purposes, or to violate policies such as no personal attacks, civility, or copyrights, should instead be warned and/or blocked. Available templates The following templates can be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected: On redirect pages, use the {{Redirect category shell}} template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will serve only to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed. Retired protections Superprotect was a level of protection, allowing editing only by Wikimedia Foundation employees who were in the Staff global group. It was implemented on August 10, 2014 and removed on November 5, 2015. It was never used on the English Wikipedia. For several years, the Gadget namespace (which no longer exists) could only be edited by WMF staff, which has sometimes been referred to as superprotection even though it is unrelated to the above use. Cascading semi-protection was formerly possible, but it was disabled in 2007 after users noticed that non-administrators could fully protect any page by transcluding it onto the page to which cascading semi-protection had been applied by an administrator. Originally, two levels of pending changes protection existed, where level 2 required edits by all users who were not pending changes reviewers to be reviewed. Following a community discussion, level 2 was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017. Since that change, "pending changes level 1" is generally referred to as just "pending changes". See also Notes |
======================================== |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.