Anyone here ever heard of the ape index? Neither have I.

All 3 of the references given are dead links. Google shows as its first link (and nearly all the other links) relating to a climbing facility in Arizona. There were a couple of more current links, but this still seems a bit obscure/slangish for a proper WP article.

Perhaps it should be taken to AFD.

Seems to exist, although it's an unusual term. For example, in this book.

We're now in the top ten google results for Ape index: really obscure.

See also: "annual premium equivalent" (APE), sometimes written by financial reporters as "APE index"--more than they've talked about the climbing term, anyway, which is virtually nil.

A smattering of religious folks also refer to "arrogance, pride and egotism" as APE, and sometimes even "APE index."

Marginal all around.

I understand that happens nigh automatically except in articles written by me:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25081
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23758&st=20

Probably doesn't mean anything by itself.

Yes that's really the issue with WP. It comes at or near the top of Google searches even when it's a crap article. if it wasn't Googleable most of the problems would disappear.

Speaking of apes -- what's Tanthalas39 up to?

And by the way -- whose the blonde babe in Jay's avatar? Horsey likes being under that avatar!

Sorry, if it has that effect on you I'll change it.

Oh, don't mind me. I needed to take a cold shower anyway.

Oh looky! Tony Sidaway suddenly decided to AFD it.
And then, Bilby and Cyclopia come in and try to "fix" it.

That article sat there for four years.
I post it on WR, and boy howdy whoopsie, time to clean it up.

You're welcome.

All Wikipedia articles are near the top; I know that. I was saying that this thread was one of the top ten results for "APE Index," although it's now fallen (probably for sliding off the mainpage). If some chatter in a low-profile message board can produce a top google result for a term, it's a pretty marginal term.

I don't know about Tony, but I only come to WR when I have too much time free time in my hands, with the hope that I will find some random interesting topic where I can wikignome a bit or find some sources quickly.

Oh thank you for clarifying. I wouldn't have guessed that's what you meant, actually.

I can't find it but there was a recent discussion in some thread about proper use of the pronoun "we". Let's just say this is related to that.


Don't know who those other people are, but 3–4 years ago when the article was fairly new, it would have been Sidaway trying to save it after somebody else (Brenneman probably) had VFD'd it. So things really do change...

Whatever happened to Brenny anyway? I never thought Tony would outlast him. I do know the continuous bickering between the two of them was leaps and bounds more entertaining than what passes for "wiki-drama" today. It was actually worth reading.

I looked at the page and found it mildly amusing that somebody would say "merge to [[rock climbing]]", the latter being the subject of a spurious VFD in 2007. If I didn't know better I'd say the nominator was trolling. Special thanks to KP for mentioning this one (several times) on the mailing list.

Anyway I think Arm span would be the more obvious place to merge this, as it does to some extent already discuss the ratio to height.

It's looking like a decent article now. Thanks for helping Wikipedia, Eric!

Well, then, it's time to post yet another of the hundreds of thousands
of badly-written articles in this forum.

Here's one - who can find this unreferenced statement;
"... was unfaithful to his first wife, Joan Nicole Prince, cheating on her with their nanny, Joanna Houck. When Joan Prince died of cancer in 2003, Houck attended the funeral while pregnant with Prince's child. Prince and Houck were married a year later."

Absurdly easy. And already removed.

Niteshift36 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a right-wing gun lover, pretends to own this article, and has been fighting with some IP addresses over it. Even so, the general drift of the article's tone has gotten increasingly negative over time.

Mr. Prince is one of America's leading extreme right-wing businessmen, so of course some Wiki-diddlers want to defame him somehow.
(Hell, given his poor public relations lately, I would not be surprised to find that his BLP was very, very positive at one time, because he paid someone to edit it--and the nerds added a more balanced approach. The simple truth is, Prince IS a well-connected maniac.)

Nice going, Tung. You just uncovered another BLP that is being
editwarred by political COI types. We got a million of 'em.

Someone found found it. It has been there a month.