Talk:Acme

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

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

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

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

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

Last Action Hero

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]