Maybe, Ciudad de Córdoba. 22, likes · 1, talking about this · 6, were here. Tus Sábados son de Maybe! Sep 05, · 10 videos Play all MayBe - X (Álbum) MayBe Ya No Hay Forma de Pedir Perdon (Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word) (En Vivo) - Duration: Pedro Aznar Recommended for you. Últimas noticias, videos y fotos de MayBe. Escucha la radio de Los 40 y conoce la mejor música y artistas del momento. LOS40 - Todos Los Éxitos.
Or are you leaning more towards having a battleship with the current offensive weapon where it is designed to stay in the fight with massive ammo storage in preparation for a prolonged operation? If it's the second choice, do you envision escort ships to provide the cruiser with ASW defense?
Originally the cruiser is designed as a forward scout to provide information for the main invasion fleet. Do you think that with current day radar technologies, such a role could be revived for the cruiser? Examples would be shadowing the various new Chinese ships, discouraging N.
What do you mean by "discouraging N. Korean missile shoots in international waters"? Assuming that we have this massive cruiser off the coast of North Korea, what are we there to do apart of doing things like a FON? Are we gonna shoot down their test missiles to express a disagreement with their development?
Are we gonna collect their missiles if it reached international waters? I would love to hear you expand on this idea. Are you proposing physically blocking the island expansion? What else do you think we could do with a cruiser that it is possible to intimidate the Chinese efforts?
Great post, as always! A steadily declining carrier fleet. We're down to 9 right now because that's how many air wings we have. Related to 1. So, no, it can't sail up to a 'hotly contested' area by itself.
The cruiser is intended to relieve some of the pressure from our main naval force which is the carrier group. Thus, the cruiser would operate around the margins in less contested areas less intense areas is probably a better way to say it. Thus, critical raids and the like would be a prime mission.
Plus, subs have a very limited 'magazine'. A cruiser group would have an impressive magazine of explosives and could sustain attacks whereas a sub would have to make a small strike and leave. It does not operate on its own!
It forms the nucleus of a group with additional cruisers and several escort Burkes. For example, discouraging NKorean missile shoots would entail shooting down their missiles as a threat to international waters and safety and then daring NKorea to do something about it. NK has been lobbing missiles into international waters and Japanese territorial waters!
The same reasoning and aggressiveness applies to the other missions. Article on the Granits getting swapped for smaller missiles to the tune of in an Oscar. I note the that the author qualifies his statement: " The author's speculation may well be correct but it is far from definitive!
Accuracy of the report aside, what do you think about a swap of P for more numerous P? The P has a much larger warhead kg versus the P kg and a higher top speed. That's giving up a lot of explosive power to gain numbers. Is it worth it? It could be!! Maybe this is a return to the Soviet ideas of quantity over quality?
Or an internal admittance that they doubt the accuracy or survivability?? At 3 to 1, its an improvement at any success rate. But each success hit produces a smaller amount of damage.
Is it still worth it? Taken to its logical conclusion, thousands of rifle bullets are better than a giant missile. Is that right? Somewhat tough to call, but a nearly lb charge hitting any US ship anywhere but the extreme ends is awful likely to cause at least mission kill. The lb-er will do the same with more certainty, but not necessarily sink it. So what do the other two smaller missles add?? Hit probability. So many missiles, as well as defenses, are truly untested, that admittedly its all speculation.
But my gut feeling is that Id rather have the ability to put three missiles in the air than one, reasonably expecting ANY hit to at least take the target ship off the board for at least a few days, if not weeks, or the duration of the conflict. Id note that the lb warhead is twice that of the Exocet, which has caused significant damage in its history. So assuming a relatively high chance of mission kill at minimum with lbs is pretty reasonable Something to consider is that at a ratio for Granit to Oniks, you're trading 1xkg warhead for 3xkg warheads, so according to the math that's actually more warhead hitting the target.
Even if you're rolling with the kg HE warhead on the export options, that's still a lbs warhead, which is only 40 lbs short of Harpoon's warhead. This is more like dropping four lbs Mark 82 bombs instead of a single lbs Mark 84 bomb. In that, I'm in agreement with Jjabatie: it's a way to stretch how long th boats can stay out before returning for reload, and generating larger missile salvoes to get past interception fire.
So in the explosive size vs missile count balance, I'd choose the 3 smaller ones. If thats in fact what they did, I think its the wise choice It also totally ignores the fact that smaller warheads do less proportional damage. If you factor in the risk of missiles missing, aren't many smaller ones a safer choices? There's a balance between smaller and more numerous versus more powerful. An analogy would be 5" guns versus 16" guns.
You can fire a lot more 5" rounds at your target and, likely, get more hits but a single 16" shell does far more damage than many 5" ones. Taken to the extreme, the 'smaller' logic would dictate lots of Hellfires so that you can get lots of hits but we know they won't sink a ship. You need more powerful missiles to sink a ship. Again, there's a balance and it lies toward the more powerful end of the spectrum but exactly where, I don't know. This is the kind of research the Navy should be doing but seems to have no interest in.
We were impressed. It would have been over for us in a hurry, what with our one 5 inch mount and a couple of machine guns. We had tracked Soviet subs and knew they were really noisy and I always thought we could take one on with another destroyer with a P3 or helo up and our ASROC.
By the way, how did they get those photos of Soviet ships inside harbors from water level? Looking at the reports of the European and Japanese hypersonic AShM programs, it seems that they're looking for fairly smaller missiles than Granit - the Japanese program wants the missile to fit into the Mark 41 launcher, which I think makes some sense, since there are more corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers in the water than there are carriers.
Plus Russia assumes they are playing a home game. Who cares about reloading away from home. A bit of news. They revamped a Udaloy. The smoke and tugs as per usual.
The Chinese are engaged in an all-out program to build large supercarriers. In addition, they are currently building the very large Type cruiser which is nearly the same size as a Zumwalt or a WWII Cleveland class cruiser.
They are also building Type amphibious ships which are 25, ton, ft long and Type LHAs which are 40, tons. They are most certainly building very large ships that will require very large missiles to kill them. In addition, warships are not the only target. China has a vast fleet of VERY large merchant ships that will need to be sunk. A large, heavyweight, supersonic missile is hardly overkill. It should not be the only weapon in the fleet but it is most certainly a necessary one that the USN lacks.
There are a LOT of very large targets out there. ComNavOps: I was thinking more about the historical context in which Harpoon was developed, and the last five decades of warship shipbuilding globally. Viewed in that context, China's shipbuilding efforts are a relatively recent and limited phenomenon - the biggest warships most other nations have been building are frigates, with the occasional destroyer or assault ship. If we look at the Soviet Navy, which was the main opponent in the USN's eyes, the Kirovs were very much an aberration - much of their surface fleet could well enough be serviced with Harpoon.
Of course, things have changed, and there is a strong argument that USN has been slow to realise that change. I really wouldn't want to trade a limited supply of carrier killers on frigates, let alone corvettes. That said, I do find it interesting that the biggest driver of hypersonic missiles in the US has been not the Navy, but the Air Force, with the Arrow and Hacksaw programs.
I also find it interesting that USAF cancelled Hacksaw, which was supposedly a hypersonic missile carried by tactical aircraft, in favor of Arrow, which is a bomber-launched missile.
Perhaps it's a reflection of how the Air Force's easiest way to surge firepower to an Air Sea Battle against China is going to be the bomber force. Definitely something worth looking at, I suppose. Wondering if sized to launch from a Mk 41 VLS. Remember, the next SM-6 version ups the ante to a 21" second stage. We're talking a missile topping out over lb.
A kinetic hit of the weight involved at that mach number, probably delivered from a ballistic angle will make a heck of a mess even without a warhead. However, we face current enemies who DO have large ships and lots of them. There is also the 25, ton Typhoon class submarine which, if surfaced, would require a very powerful klub - Yximalloo - maybe (CDr) to deal with. China is. You made an incorrect and ill-considered statement about ship size. It happens. Acknowledge it and move on. We looked at the kinetic energy KE for a supercavitating torpedo which everyone assumed would sink a ship from the KE alone and it turned out to be insignificant.
It's on the order of a Harpoon missile warhead. However, kinetic energy is not released instantaneously and klub - Yximalloo - maybe (CDr), like a warhead explosion. It's converted to heat over a long period of time long, relative to an instantaneous explosion. Thus, it would have far less effect than a warhead. The Standard missile warhead is fairly small with a? This is not to say that a ship can laugh off a SM-6 hit but it's no likely to be an instant sinking, either.
I'm particularly dubious about the fragmentation warhead effect. I hope someone has tested it out against a real ship. It was hit with a Harpoon and refused to sink. The ship did sink after being torpedoed by a sub. With regard to merchant shipping, it is a surprise that nobody has actually tried to SINKEX a merchant ship to determine how much punishment they can handle.
The Falklands experience of Atlantic Conveyor suggests that merchant ships could potentially be quite vulnerable to antiship missiles: Atlantic Conveyor burnt up and sank after being hit with two Exocets - although to be fair, it was carrying fuel and ammunition at the time. Aside from the many hundreds of examples of merchant ships being sunk in WWII from all manner of weapons, there's the extensive data from the Iran-Iraq war, lots of mining damage data, the data presented in Hughes fleet tactics book, etc.
There's no shortage of merchant ship damage resistance data. I have no opinions on that either way, but it would be an interesting topic for discussion and an agregation of all that data you have would be more than educational to the reading public. Anybody else watching news right now? USS Bonhomme Richard on fire. Looks bad. The Ohio's launch tubes, originally designed to launch alb SLBM, would have less, if any, restrictions relative to size and weight. If an Ohio launch tube to accept of the new missiles compared to the current 7 Tomahawks, tradeoff would have less of an effect.
Except, after the Ohio's are retired, that just leaves the Zumwalt's as a launch platform. And, any new large antiship missile should be compatible with our bomber fleet.
Good thought about the Mk57 and Ohio. The Mk57, however, is still kind of small for such a missile. It's 26 ft deep and has a cell diameter of 28 in. The SS-N Shipwreck would be too big to fit in the Mk57 although a smaller version of the missile might be possible. Of course, a smaller missile negates the goal of a big, fast, heavy, powerful missile.
The Ohio might be an option but I'd hate to take away from our already limited SSGN fleet and, as you point out, they won't be around for much longer, anyway. Compatibility with bombers is of no importance.
In a peer war, our very limited bomber fleets ought to be busy with far more important targets than ships. My understanding is the internal dimesion of Mk57 is 25" to allow for a mk 41 canister in the new slot. I'd like that to apply to the next generation and allow the internal dimension of 28" and also allow for 32' length. Basically something the size of Talos with greater weight. Any more than that and you never gett he numbers needed. Plus you could quad pack a I was trying to make use of what is already in service, albietly, in limited quanities.
But, some antiship missiles, like Russia's Kalibr with a lb. This would make for a smaller missile compared to the larger Shipwreck and something that should fit a Mk 57 cell. But, say we built a Shipwreck like missile, what platform would it be compatible with?
A Columbia-based SSGN wouldn't be available until the timeframe and they would only carry 64, maybe 80 missiles if you can fit 5 in a launch tube. Talking about the Kirov being a one shot wonder makes me wonder what current warships will do once missiles are all used up. If you remember the post by a former called Takao on defensetalk, after 6 months in a big conflict, the high tech munitions will be gone.
That leaves ships with guns. Maybe all torpedoes will be used up by then too. What functions will ships have?
Anti sub? Amphibious assault? No more heavy land attack. I do wonder because 5 inch guns can't really sink ships not boatsthough they can possibly damage engines and sensor towers. I read Chuck Hills analysis on how 92 ww2 ships were sunk, with sinkex updates til Takes a lot! You would hope that the Navy would rapidly and as a priority massivley increase the production of missiles. They will increase production, of course.
The problem is that, unlike WWII 'dumb' shells, production takes far longer, requires exotic materials that may not be readily available rare earths and other elementsrequires advanced electronics, and requires more complex manufacturing techniques.
In other words, it's still going to take far longer to make a ship or missile than a WWII ship or shell. There's also the issue that a lot of our manufacturing facilities have moved overseas and are not available for conversion to war production.
I appreciate that. Be interesting to see a wargame focussed the munitions logistics of a full scale war from the perspective of the US. For whatever reason, the US Navy has never been big on anti-ship missiles. When I was on active duty, the Russians had several, the French had Exocet, but we had no ship-to-ship or surface-to-surface missile.
So our ships klub - Yximalloo - maybe (CDr) without a ship-to-ship or surface-to-surface missile for many years while the Soviets had them. Steaming around pawing the dirt with them in the eastern Med during the Yom Kippur War was not a comfortable feeling. I read that Royal Navy doctrine was that carrier aircraft and Submariens constituted the primary anti shipping platforms.
When the Russians developed the Sverdlov class cruiser, the Britiah developed the Blackburn Bucaneer rather than a ship class to match. It was only after the cancellation of the CV project that the RN started hanging Exocets off the front of everything they could manage. Was the USN the same doctrine wise?
Aircraft and subs for anti shipping, escorts as primarily defensive units We eventually developed Harpoon and Tomahawk, which leads me to believe that the doctrine may have been, "Hey, I've got a cushy job lined up after retirement at MDD or LockMart or Northrup Grumman or whatever their predecessors were called at the time and I'm not going to go buy some off-the-shelf weapon from somebody else and cut off my gravy train.
Great post. Admiral Nachimov is due to undergo sea tests from the end of Tbere should be at least 80Oniks are also land attack capable. Regarding SAM, about are expected. Torpedos in the Kirov class were Shipwreck and Granit were launched in a salvo, with missiles comunicating with eacj other. Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam. Friday, July 10, Kirov Class Battlecruiser. During the Cold War, the Soviets built the Kirov, the largest and most powerful post-WWII surface ship in the world and it retains that distinction even today.
It more closely approximates a PT boat than a battleship — a heavy hitter that cannot, itself, take a hit. AK dual mm. SA-N-4 Gecko. AK 30 mm. SA-N-6 Grumble. Any discussion must begin with an understanding of its mission. Well, no one knows exactly what the Soviets had in mind when they built the ship but, by most accounts, its mission was to sink US carriers. For this, it had 20 SS-N Shipwreck missiles.
These were 15, lb, 33 ft long, Mach 1. Presumably, the Kirovs were intended to operate together, as a group. Four Kirov class cruisers, operating together and able to generate a salvo of 80 Shipwrecks, would have been a frightening and nearly unstoppable force especially in the days prior to the widespread appearance of Aegis. As a carrier-killer, the Kirovs would have had no choice but to encounter American carrier aircraft and the Soviets, therefore, provided the Kirovs with massive anti-air capability with around SAMs of varying ranges plus multiple point defense weapons.
The Kirovs were well protected! Considering their mission — to sink US carriers — and their incredible degree of AAW protection, the Kirovs were quite similar to WWII battleships in the sense that they were built to stand and fight. We see in this the difference in design philosophy between the WWII ship designer who believed in armor versus the modern ship designer who believes in AAW defense.
It is also possible that the Soviets intended the Kirovs to be battleship killers. At the time, the US still maintained and operated battleships and persistent rumors suggest that the Soviets feared our battleships more than our carriers. Balance of Armament.
Kirov had a massively heavy offensive punch but it was a punch that was very limited in number and good only for one shot. There were no other anti-ship weapons other than the guns and there were no reloads for the anti-ship missiles. Kirov would have one shot at the enemy, albeit a very heavy one, and then would be impotent as far as offensive capability was concerned.
The Kirovs were built for offense. They were built to strike and strike hard, unlike the US Navy today which is mostly defensive in nature.
An interesting aspect of the Kirov design is the density and redundancy of sensors on the ship which goes far beyond Western ship designs. While likely intended as compensation for reliability and construction quality issues, the sensors do provide a significant degree of battle resilience assuming they work! As the Kirov class entered service, the US was beginning to build Aegis ships. It is interesting to speculate what a Kirov could have been with its enormous AAW capability coupled to an Aegis type system.
Such a ship would have been even more impressive than it already was and would have been as close to invulnerable to aerial threats as it was possible to be! Arsenal Ship. One could look at the Kirov class as arsenal ships, in a sense. As far as I know, the Kirovs had no particularly noteworthy degree of armor.
For a ship that was nearly as big as an Iowa class battleship and carried a massive amount of weapons and sensors, the lack of armor is striking and is what prevents the class from being classified as a battleship. If the enemy happened to get the first shot in, it is quite likely that the Kirovs would be rendered at least a mission kill, if not worse.
Thus, the lack of armor would prevent the Kirovs from taking a hit and continuing to fight. Like the LCS of today, the Kirovs would likely have been a one-hit mission kill. The Kirovs represented a lot of weapons, sensors, and money in an unprotected hull. This potential vulnerability was exacerbated by the lack of aircraft carriers to provide an additional layer of protection.
US ships were, and still are, unarmored but have the benefit of carrier aircraft to provide additional defense. The lack of armor strikes me as the key weakness in the Kirov design. Modern Assessment. Aegis was designed to handle saturation missile attacks and one presumes that 20 Shipwreck missiles would not constitute a major threat.
It would require a group of at least four Kirovs to have any realistic hope of accomplishing anything significant. On the other hand, a Kirov represents a dire threat to any non-Aegis type ship and there are a great many of those in the world! Honestly, beyond prestige, not a lot. All of this raises the obvious question, is there any need for a Kirov-like battlecruiser in the US Navy?
A Kirov-like ship would be attractive for one reason only: its heavy anti-ship missile capability. Having rejected a Kirov-type ship, other than its Shipwreck missile, one could easily imagine a use for a modified Kirov equipped with enough armor to stand and fight. This would have to include armor on the order of a WWII battleship.
Such a ship, with a massive, supersonic anti-ship missile would be a formidable threat, indeed. Unfortunately, the Navy seems to have totally rejected the very idea of armor. Still, one can dream and hope. AndyM July 10, at AM. Unknown August 12, at PM. Anonymous July 10, at AM. Lonfo July 10, at PM. Anonymous July 10, at PM. AndyM July 10, at PM. Fighting Irish July 10, at AM. Cyberguy July 11, at AM.
So frankly, I think there might be edit warring even if consensus is reached on this page. As far as the competition is concerned, none of those labels matter anyways, so I'm not sure why the seasons' Wikipedia pages should be concerned with it either.
After reading all of this and going to look at all the edit warring, I really see no other option but getting rid of all three of the "The contestant received xxx critiques Saying whether the critiques were good or bad is not only subjective and polarizing, as we have found, but also not encyclopedic. Found5dollar talkklub - Yximalloo - maybe (CDr), 18 May UTC. There seem to be a number of visitors to the season 12 page who see it as a fan page rather than an Encyclopaedia article.
My take away from the discussion above is that these criteria are subjective and seem to be entirely a Wikipedia creation rather than one made by primary or secondary sources. As such I can't see how they follow Wikipedia's core policies. The article s can't be protected forever. This discussion needs an end product, a result that can be used to highlight a consensus that follows Wikipedia's policies and prevent any future edit wars. That said, as an interim solution, the page could be reduced to semi-protection and a voluntary system of 1RR?
Woody talk23 May UTC. This is what the Season 12 table would look like with those colors implemented. Also, it seems like another constant request on that Talk Page to edit is the placement of Sherry Pie, so I didn't fill anything in for the already aired episode for Episode 13 which is the reunion episode. I believe that discussion on both her placement and on the tablestill needs to be resolved as well. Asd17 talk29 May UTC. Just a thought, but would it make more sense to always use blue shades for wins and tops, red shades for eliminated and bottom, neutral shades for safe cornsilk and greyand save the yellow to mark the special cases?
It just seems to me that the yellow stands out from the color story we already have; a gradient from red to blue. Found5dollar talk29 May UTC. I don't remember where we left off re: whether or not projects of contestants were part of this project or not. I've nominated Poundcake album for Good article status.
The album features several RPDR queens. Should this article be under the umbrella of this project? In episode 11, Sherry Pie should be changed to LOW as she got a lot of negative feedback for going over the time limit with her act and not condensing it, and was called "selfish" for doing so.
And in episode 12, Jaida Essence Hall should be changed to HIGH because she got overwhelmingly positive feedback, which as a whole was the best feedback next to Gigi Goode, who ultimately won the challenge. If anyone does not agree with these, please let me know. I think mentioning the appearances of the contestants in other seasons in the lede is a bit much. I think it should go into its own section at the end of the article.
Nihlus1 June UTC. Should all the queens get credit for this as a single for their respective Wikipedia articles? So, All Stars 5 is already starting, so I think it would be good to get a clear policy in place, so i think we should move forward with this conversation. So far, the current proposal worked by Asd17 is as follows:. Should the following table, or something very similar, be adopted to quell the ongoing edit-warring over placement High, low in the tables?
I think overall it's a solid proposal, which may merit some comments and observations to make sure it works well in most or all episodes and seasons. There was a proposal to replace yellow with a lighter shade of blue, and we might want to check how it would fit All Stars both in the past rules seasons 2, 3 and 4 and the current rules Season 5. Any other question we might want to check? In case there is a consensus here, is there any special procedure to turn this into a style guideline?
Simply put, what follows? This just leads to more issues; it groups the best and the worst together rather than showing the difference. One may see the chart, and while they see the slight shading of SAFE means they were the best or the worst, it doesn't truly represent what occurred; they have no way of knowing if one did poor or one did better.
I realize the semantics and technicalities rule in favor of this, but it still causes more confusion and misrepresentation than actual helpfulness and accuracy.
Billwebster91 talk8 June UTC. So, where do we go from here? Is there any procedure to move the discussion forward? Just to let everybody know that even though the premiere of Canada's Drag Race is still four days away, there has already been a newly registered editor named "Adm Drag race" who's already gone in and tried to pre-spoil the first four weeks of the competition by updating the progress table with unsourced placement claims. Some of their claims match rumours I've heard on the Toronto tell-a-queen circuit, so I'm not accusing them of being a liar, but that's not the point: the point is that even if their information is completely correct, we still don't publish the claims on here at all until they're independently verifiable in published sources.
I've reverted and revision-deleted their edits and placed the page under semi-protection, but just wanted to give you hennies a heads up what's happening just in case this snowballs. Bearcat talk29 June UTC. I've tried to introduce some changes to the RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars season 5 article per the Manuel of Style on Accessibility and several editors have reverted them or just ignored the changes.
Being accessible is klub - Yximalloo - maybe (CDr) huge importance because legislation around the world is changing.
In the UK, in Septemberwe have web accessibility compliance legislation coming into force which will impact on this. Being accessible is a really small and minor set of changes that could be made across the project to improve readability for those who have a disability or who are hard of sight. The changes are small and do not effect functionality for the majority of users. I've done some examples below to show how web accessibility could be achieved, using All Stars 5 as an example.
I would like to see us adopt these standards to be more web accessible as these changes generally benefit everyone but particularly those who might be hard of sight. If I understand it correctly, this shouldn't be on the previous, locked discussion. This is the current progress table for All Stars If I understand correctly, this table doesn't comply, as it uses three different color combinations along with the same text "WIN" depending on whether the queen won, lost or tied the lipsync.
Combined, at most, with bold text for win and tied, and regular text for lost. What kind of symbology could be used to make this more accessible? The voting table has similar or worse problems, should it be part of this discussion or would it be better to take it one table at the time?
Not A Superhero What do you reckon? They're not ready for prime time yet, but since you all know more about what it needs, I thought it's a good time to get more feedback. One additional advantage I see is that once you all come up with a color scheme you like, we can add it to the template so that 1 you don't need to change it across dozens of pages and 2 it's harder for people to mess with the colors without consensus.
Take a look and let me know what features you would find useful. But an article list of terminology of the series could be quite fun too! Gleeanon talk14 July UTC. I only did American ones, if someone wants to do UK, Canada go for it. Gleeanon talk18 July UTC. I made a RuBarnstar here for deserving editors. Help updating the pages of the queens in the series is appreciated.
I've also proposed this article klub - Yximalloo - maybe (CDr) the Collaboration of the Month for August. I've redirected Drag Race Holland to the parent article for now. Gleeanon talk31 July UTC.
Happy editing! Just a thought, it might end up being more effort than it's worth but I thought it might be useful since these seem to get changed more than the rest of the articles as a whole. Umimmak talk2 August UTC. Improvements based on journalistic coverage welcome! Should we formalize this or another standard in an RfC? I've encountered probably half a dozen situations in the past year where having a formal consensus to point to would have been helpful.
Here is one example. Now that we've slowly been getting some of our RuGirl biographies to GA status, I think it's only a matter of time before a reviewer wants more than a verbal explanation of pronoun handling from the nominator. I think this kind of consensus would also be a useful reference point for other drag queen articles that do not fall within the scope of the Drag Race WikiProject.
Armadillo pteryx13 August UTC. Wikipedia contains several hundred biographies of notable drag queens and kings see Category:Drag queens and Category:Drag kings.
Reliable sources typically report on these subjects using only the name and pronouns associated with the drag persona.
Which of the following describes the most appropriate use of names and pronouns in drag performers' Wikipedia articles? What are other editors' thoughts on this wording? What changes and improvements should be made before opening the RfC?
I've noticed User:Isaacwshearer has been creating a lot of problems, and there are many warnings on their user talk page. Do we need to escalate this somehow? Bearcat talk14 August UTC. It likely needs a name change but the franchise article is at AfD. Gleeanon talk15 August UTC. Someone created an unsourced stub for Kiara drag queenwhich I've reverted twice. I don't want to be accused of edit warring, so someone else may need to step in here.
FWIW, I'd love to see an entry if possible, but this unsourced one does not make the cut. There appear to be as-yet unsubstantiated reports circulating on social media that Chi Chi DeVayne died today.
The article is overwhelmed with an onslaught of IPs adding this to the article with zero sourcing. I've already reverted twice but would appreciate more eyes on this—they're pretty persistent. Armadillo pteryx20 August UTC. I think we would benefit from a hatnote on articles about drag queens. Here is the format for Chi Chi DeVayne :. It also works for someone that prefers non-binary pronouns, using Sasha Velour for lack of a better example :. Armadillopteryx and others, what do you think?
I saw the above template was added to the Chi Chi DeVayne article. I am still thinking about some possible changes to the template's wording, but I have one comment in the meantime. I think we should display full names in the template. In the case of Chi Chi, simply displaying "Davenport" and "DeVayne" is perhaps intuitive enough, but many drag queens have pseudo-last names which I do not think should be used. For example, I don't think we should ever refer to Detox Icunt by "Icunt".
Does this make sense? I went ahead and added full names to the Chi Chi DeVayne article. I just thought of something else. Chi Chi DeVayne is notable as a female persona. Leading with the subject's birth name, which is not how the subject is known, is a bit confusing. Ok, sorry, another thing. Re: the wording "This article about a drag queen uses a different pronoun when referring to the subject in drag", some entertainers prefer to be called "drag performers".
I wonder if we should use a gender neutral term here, and simply link to " Drag clothing " instead of " Drag queen "? Also, are there any other wording adjustment to consider such as "This article about a drag queen uses different pronouns when referring to the subject in and out of drag", or similar? I'm mostly just trying to make sure we're using the most inclusive language possible. A user has just added a numerical placement column to the progress tables in all the regular season articles e.
Is this something we want? Armadillo pteryx23 August UTC. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Ask questions, get answers. Be politeand welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution Archives : 123. LGBT portal. Television portal.
Very nice condition release, cover and vinyl are both VG+ or maybe even slightly better. Paper RCA Gold Seal inner sleeve, plastic outer sleeve. View Release Page: Seller: MK_SELECT_RECORDS; %, 1, ratings ; Ships From: United States; $ +$ shipping $ total: Add to Cart. Make Offer / %(2K). Jun 30, · Song Maybe (Album Version (Edited)) Artist Rocko; Writers Pharrell Williams, Chad Hugo; Licensed to YouTube by UMG (on behalf of Def Jam Recordings); LatinAutor - UMPG, Warner Chappell, ASCAP, Global Music Rights LLC, UMPG Publishing, UMPI, Kobalt Music Publishing, PEDL, UNIAO BRASILEIRA DE EDITORAS DE MUSICA - UBEM, BMI - Broadcast Music Inc., LatinAutor, . De Reizende Verkoper (Dutch for The Travelling Salesman) was an obscure freak jazz improvisation band created around Croatian avant-garde musicians who settled in Amsterdam during the nineties (maybe late 80's).The band consists of guitarist Razorblade Jr., drummer Marc and sax player Kafka (Damir Prica).Some members were a.o. also involved in the no-wave group Blisters and the highly.
Sep 05, · 10 videos Play all MayBe - X (Álbum) MayBe Ya No Hay Forma de Pedir Perdon (Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word) (En Vivo) - Duration: Pedro Aznar Recommended for you.
Oct 20, · Maybe Strip Club, Leiria. 1, likes · 20 talking about this · 23 were here. Aberto de Segunda a Sábado. Maybe 7 Úvod» Členové kapely. Členové kapely. Katka – zpěv. Bylo jasné již od raného dětství, že z Katky něco bude. Ať už zpívala v dětském sboru, hrála na flétničku, nebo se dozvídala o české historii na túrách s rodiči po hradech a zámcích, anebo zasněně hleděla přes Vltavu k Národnímu divadlu. To, že.
USED HOLIDAYS IN THE SUN VOL 2 - V/A (Recorded LIVE in ! w/, Casualties, Zounds, Buzzcocks, English Dogs, Spoodge, Sham 69, Lurkers, and more!).
May 15, · Maybe the sonar maybe imported, if required, as mentioned above. 4). We have our own batteries for the subs, that we use on the Kilo class or we can look to import the batteries. Multiple sources exists and maybe in the future, the battery technology with Lithium-ion or Lithium-polymer batteries, will make the need for AIP modules redundant. 5). Explore releases from the Sakura wrechords label. Discover what's missing in your discography and shop for Sakura wrechords releases.
Sep 19, · 50+ videos Play all Mix - Maybe YouTube Phish - November 29, - Providence Civic Center - Providence, Rhode Island - Duration: MyinnerEyeMike 2, views.
Flashback - Cyantific & Logistics - Flashback / Cant Let Go (Vinyl), Crippled Dimension - Tenebris - Diib (CD), Desmond Dekker - The Very Best Of (CD), Katten (Mixtape Skit) - Extince - De Winnaar Houdt Aan (CD), O rzД…dzie - Kasia Stoparczyk - Dzieci WiedzД… Lepiej (CD), EpifanГa Para Popea - Ricardo Cantalapiedra - En Casa De La Maruja (Vinyl, LP, Album), Dans Le LumiГЁre - FГ©licia Atkinson With Sylvain Chauveau - Roman Anglais (CD, Album), Buffalo - Various - Silver Linings Playbook (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) (CD), Highway Girl - The Tragically Hip - In Store CD Sampler (CD), РљСѓРєСѓС€РєР°, Och, Ten Hollywood - Maanam - Totalski No Problemski (CD, Album), True Blue Hearts - Don Williams (2) - Cafe Carolina (Vinyl, LP, Album), II. CsГЎrdГЎskГ¶r - Bakti Г‰va KГ¶zremЕ±kГ¶dik A Polip* - NyГregyhГЎza VГЎsГЎrГЎban 6. (Cassette, A