Jump to content

Talk:Acme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Titius, Gaius, Sempronius are probably more equivalent to "Tom, Dick, and Harry" than "John Doe" don't you think?

What is the quote from Walt Whitman doing there?Nathanmurray1 20:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Daniel Latson? Google comes up with squat. Are we sure this isn't a case of someone creeping in to mention their own (unknown) stuff? The paragraph on it here doesn't mention that this Acme is ever in any published works. -- Tarquin 20:17 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

It was added by a regular contributor (Fonzy), and it seems an unlikely thing to add if it was unknown (even if it is virtually unknown you would expect some mention of it to be on the web even if it was just the guy's homepage). So as a result I suspect that there is a typo in the name and that is why you can't find him. --Imran
Well, Fonzy seems to make a lot of typos. (I don't mind, it means there's someone who makes more than me!) -- so that's plausible. I guess I'm in a suspicious mood because we've had quite a few people add things they've made up lately. I'll ask Fonzy to clarify -- Tarquin

I'm confused myself. I never wrote that. :-s. All i can think of is that one my freidns must have doen it when they were at my house, dot kow why. - fonzy

In that case I'll move it here until someone can confirm.
* the fictitious country of Acme is a fictitious country invented by Daniel Latson in 1950. He came up with a whole fictitious history of the country. It is still continued by his descendants.

I found this information a while ago and stupidly did not write back, and now i lost the URL to where I found it:

Crastonium Emperors of Acme
115-157 Hevwod
157-180 Fawick
180-209 Baldwerd
209-237 Gorlac I
237-245 Osmald I
245-277 Aswald I
277-320 Masmick I
320-358 Bernven
358-370 Aacthen
370-392 Karkwern
392-399 Masmick II
399-432 Swozthord
432-469 Aswald II
469 Osmald II
469-482 Owock
482-509 Gorlac II
509-517 Andec
517-537 Gorlac III
537-579 Gorlac IV
579-592 Yekbet I
592-639 Hiah
639 Gorbin
639-640 Yekbet II
640-654 Osmald III
Barbarian Kings of Acme
654-660 Ologrod
660-677 Asmut I
677-690 Kaktos
690 Asmut II
690-702 Fawreck
702-714 Plaword
Kings of Acme
714-732 Kongston
732-760 Alfred
760-770 Algon
770-795 Elsbic I
795-813 Eldwin
813-849 Elsbic II
849-850 Aldwin
850-874 Osgon I
874-878 Osgon II
878-899 Pogtod I
899-917 Elsbic III
917-931 Ardwin
931-957 David I
957-966 Pogtod II
966-968 Fredrick I
968-979 David II
979-982 Ponin
982-1001 Edward I
1001-1045 Arthur I
1045-1066 David III
1066-1070 David IV
1070-1071 William I
1071-1087 Anastia
1087-1105 Arthur II
1105-1167 Edward II
1167-1180 Richardon
1180-1190 Osmon
1190-1213 Arthur III
1213-1221 Edwarden I
1221-1240 Edwarden II
1240-1249 Arthur IV
1249-1269 Arthur V
1269-1284 William II
1284-1297 David V
1297-1320 Samond
1320-1321 Edwarden III
1321-1359 Arthur VI
Kings of North Acme Kings of South Acme
1359-1372 Constants I 1359-1386 Marcos
1372-1380 Arthur VII 1386-1396 John I
1380-1405 Edwarden IV 1396-1403 Daniel I
1405-1439 Paul 1403-1452 William III
1439-1472 Mary 1452-1457 David VI
1472-1502 Constants II 1457-1470 William IV
1502-1520 Arthur VIII 1470-1505 John II
    1505-1520 William V
Kings of Acme
1520-1558 Daniel II
1558-1590 Constants II
1590-1594 Edward III
Kings of North Acme Kings of South Acme
1594-1600 Arthur IX 1594-1602 Daniel III
1600-1607 Anne 1602-1607 Fredrick II
Kings of Acme
1607-1639 Anne & Fredrick II
1639-1670 Henry I
1670-1671 Edward IV
1671-1690 David VII
Kings of North Acme Kings of South Acme
1690-1730 Henry II 1690-1696 Andrew
    1696-1730 William VI
Temporary Ministers of Acme
1730-1733 Paul Andrews
1733-1736 Mark Peel
1736-1739 Robert Ducan
1739-1742 Henry Rivert
1742-1745 John Sanding
1745-1748 Robert Hassing
1748-1751 Daniel Malcom
1751-1754 Anne Greenfield
Kings of North Acme Ministers of South Acme
1754-1779 Daniel IV 1754-1766 David Fredton
1779-1820 Aruthur X 1766-1778 George Stevens
1820-1833 Harold 1778-1790 George Jackston
1833-1834 John III 1790-1802 Thomas Hill
Ministers of North Acme 1802-1814 Edward Kings
1834-1840 Fredrick Cook 1814-1826 David Lilstone
1840-1846 Simon Willis 1826-1838 Andrew Aling
1846-1852 Arthur Smith 1838-1850 Henry Tompson
1852-1858 Mary Adent 1850-1862 Robert Jilson
1858-1864 Paul Balto 1862-1868 Fredrick Sinford
1864-1870 Daniel Mills 1868-1874 Martin Bendep
1870-1876 George Missle 1874-1880 Robert Farthink
1876-1882 Peter Frogstill 1880-1886 John Redhill
1882-1888 William Potter 1886-1892 Thomas Lough
1888-1894 James Carton 1892-1898 William Hill
1894-1900 Charles Smitton 1898-1904 Anne Queenstant
1900-1906 Andrew Sykes 1904-1910 Alexander Patson
1906-1912 George Coope 1910-1916 Henry Jolts
1912-1918 Elizabeth Coope 1916-1922 Benjamin Daniels
1918-1924 Arthur Laston 1922-1928 John Sykes
1924-1930 Alan Martins 1928-1930 Richard Oakwood
Head Ministers of Acme
1930-1935 James Beepred
1935-1940 Stephen Arnolds
1940-1945 Edward Peel
1945-1950 Edward Nocktons
1950-1955 Peter Southwood
1955-1960 Nicholas Vinton
1960-1965 Martin Hews
1965-1970 Richard Balistone
1970-1975 Paul Jaferson
1975-1980 William Kranat
1980-1985 Edward Balistone
1985-1990 Tony Longstern
1990-1995 Sarah Martins
1995-1997 Thomas Cloudfern
Head of North Acme Head of South Acme
1997-2002 Mark Richards 1997-2002 George Jolts
UNU Ministers of Acme
2002 Michael Ironfield

hmmm well do you know what seacrh engien you used?

I'm still getting only this page on google for "acme Daniel Latson". The names in the above table I've tried produce no results. Who put this table in anyway? Whoever you are, rather than tell us about the things within this fiction, please tell us where this Acme appears -- in which books / films / television series etc. If it only exists in the imagination of a single person, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -- Tarquin 20:43 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

My this is confusing Wiz!

Acronym

[edit]

I was surprised to see "American Corporation Making Everything" as the expansion of the acronym, never having heard that before. Google has 4 results for this. The standard expansion, "A Company that Makes Everything," shows up 150 times. --Yath 12:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A joke. I've substituted

"The origins of the term are obscure, but if not the Latin word acme meaning high point or best, it would probably be derived from an acronym. The most common is "A Company that Makes Everything."

for this

"The origins of the term are the Latin word acme "high point" or "best."'

No problems, I hope. Wetman 01:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I do not think that John Doe is the 'usual' name in English speaking countries. Indeed, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/John-Doe lists 5 English speaking countries, and only the USA uses John Doe.

---

What about the people who own acme.com?

---

Erm it now appears to say that ACME has been given the backronym mentioned above, but that the backronym is in question. I'm not sure how a backronym can be in question, as by using it on this page it is now a backronym that is in use. Triangl 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Non-wikilinked Entries

[edit]

At the moment, three of the first four entries don't contain any wikilinks to relevant articles. One (the international e-journal for critical geographies) contains an off-site link while the other two don't contain any links at all. I was under the impression that a disambiguation page was supposed to differentiate between Wikipedia articles, not provide a text list of absolutely everything a word could refer to. I think that if any of the non-wikilinked entries are subjects that should be covered by Wikipedia, they should be converted to red links. If they're not suitable for encyclopedia articles, they should be removed. Blackeagle 07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Sandiego

[edit]

Didn't the "gumshoes" at Acme Detective (?) always hunt down Carmen Sandiego on the TV show of the same name? --206.54.145.254 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acne

[edit]

I removed the entry below as it's probably baloney. The Acne vulgaris describes the etymology quite differently. Geira (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Acne vulgaris, a skin condition originally called acme in Greek, but whose spelling has been corrupted

Hi GB fan, as you request on your home page, here my reasoning for the mention of the movie:

I watched the movie (Last Action Hero) a few days ago, and then came here to Wikipedia to learn what the word "ACME" means. From the perspective of the movie, this decoration on some of their props is "trivia" (as it might be mentioned on IMDB (I am not a user there and am not planning to)). Each movie got hundreds of props, so no reason to mention ACME for the movie, because this is an ecyclopedia, not a movie-fan-place.

Yet, from the perspective of the entry "ACME" it is still relevant to mention the use of this term in a major movie production. Especially as Looney Tunes is already mentioned and it is clear that Last Action Hero wanted to send them a greeting.

Now, proof is in the movie itself, but I would need your help please how to cite that. I did link to the article about the movie, so that people can verify that the movie is real and can find enough detail to go and rent and watch the beast. What more do I need to do? Do I need to cite a time-reference within the movie (minutes and seconds or what)?

Consider this: Somebody has put reference to Looney Tunes a long time ago. They did not even link to that fine article. (I did look it up.) The Looney Tunes article also does NOT mention the term ACME. And there is not need, as I have explained above. It is just a great, typical, useage of that term. You did not delete the reference to Looney Tunes (and you should not, even with your logic "not in the article"). But you deleted mine, with an unsatisfactory explanation.

You can see that I am a new user; I like Wikipedia and I try to make rare contributions when I see something "missing". I want to contribute, not just to take out. Now it feels like when I try, there is some veteran lurking with a robot and they quickly delete rather than talk issues or make entries better. Please do not just delete again but give a genuine reasoning. Thanks. --Bassilois (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns the entry below.

  • Last Action Hero, The movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger is showing several props (dynamite boxes...) marked ACME, probably as a nodd to Looney Tunes
This page is not an article, it is a disambiguation page. We have a manual of style on disambiguation pages, it can be found at WP:MOSDAB. So all entries are supposed to follow the guidance given on that page.
In the section about individual entries it says that each entry will have only one blue link, your entry has two.
In your entry you say that it is "probably as a nodd to Looney Tunes" That is an opinion not supported by any reliable sources and as this is not an article this page is not the place to provide those sources. As it also says in the individual entries section, "References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles."
Now, does it even belong on the page? The first paragraph of WP:MOSDAB says:
Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term, as described in the Disambiguation guideline. Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching.
In the editing guideline on disambiguation, Wikipedia:Disambiguation in a subsection of Disambiguation pages titled What not to include it says:
"Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. (For example, the Set disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for Volleyball.)"
Based on the manual of style for disambiguation pages and the editing guideline on disambiguation the entry does not belong. I see you have added a second blue link to another entry. That does not belong either according to the manual of style. GB fan 16:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]