Talk:Mnemonic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Etymology

Are you sure about the etymology from Mnemosyne? I'd say that both just come from the Greek word for "memory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Error (talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 May 2003 (UTC)

According to my dictionary, "mnemonic" comes from the Greek word "mnemon," or "mindful." Also, "Mnemosyne" didn't come from the Greek word for "memory"; it is the Greek word for "memory." However, the article says "mnemonic" "echoes the figure Mnemosyne," so I have no problem with it. CHz 17:31, 30 October 2003 (UTC)

Well said. mnemonic 04:29, 22 June 2004 (UTC)

Richard of york

Does anyone think "Richard of York gave birth in vain" is rude?

I think it belongs in a different section - like dirty mnemonics 16:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Poem/text memory

It would be nice have some informations about the memotechniques used to memorize poem (text) in the memory championship. --GLari 22:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

12 Cranial Nerves

I was taught "On Old Olympus' Towering Tops, A Finely Vested German Viewed A Hawk". Which makes me wonder why it is that in the listed version, there is an A nerve that I know as a V nerve (vestibulorcochlear).

Because it is also called the auditory nerve (for obvious reasons). Shinobu 00:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No. The vestibulocochlear nerve is represented by the word "Vested", it is not represented by an 'A' pseudonym at all. The two As refer to the 'abducens' nerve and the 'accessory' nerve respectively (based on the order in which they appear). I think this may clear it up.

Structuring of the Examples

I've just finished structuring the long list of examples and after reading through the article once more, I think it has been a great improvement.

That being said, I must admit the subheadings have been chosen a bit arbitrarily, so if you think you can improve the structure, please go ahead. Shinobu 02:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Geology

When I did Geology at school we were taught two sayings: Cockney Old Sod Did Contract Penis Tumors Juggling Cold Testicles Quickly - of course that's a little out of date now that Tertiary and Quaternary have been renamed and redivided.

I also remember that Tall Girls Can Flirt And Other Queer Things Can Do, god knows why, but appaernly I'm not the only one (google indicates 2 other people!).

My point is, is it worth adding these phrases that no-one else seems to have heard of? I'd guess not. Paul Weaver 04:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Assembler mnemonics

The article refers here. Should we make it refer back somehow? For example when opening this article one would expect "SUB", "DIV", "ADD" and "MUL" somewhere. Shinobu 13:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added it in it's own section, since it's nature is very different from the other mnemonics. Even in the science section it doesn't fit in, and in any case the mnemonics in that section resemble the ones in the other sections more than they resemble assembly mnemonics.

Note that I've used assembly with an y. Technically assembly is the language, an assembler is the program that converts it to executable code. Shinobu 21:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only one of the various computer systems on which I used assembler had op-code mnemonics that were "usually three characters" (namely the IBM 704x/709x series). With all the rest, the opcode mnemonics varied in length from one to five characters. So I edited that sentence accordingly. --IslandGyrl 23:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but you should know that in my experience most Intel opcodes that one actually encounters are three characters long. Since I'm a personal computer user, you can perhaps forgive me for my Intel-oriented perspective. Shinobu 01:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Electrical Engineering Resistor Colour Scheme?

I added a pneumonic for the resistor colour scheme, only to have someone else delete it under the guise of "fixing vandalism". I was taught this one in night school, and it has excellent staying power in memory. The pneumonic is "Black Bastard Raped Our Young Girl, Bloody Virginity Gone West". Whilst this might be construed as racist, so might half the other pneumonics, and since the article already contains the pneumonic: "Bob Eats Carol's Virgin Pussy In A Big Garage Licking Mostly Her Hot Moist Loins In Out In " I don't think you can say my one is exactly obscene.

I'm putting it back in until I receive a more verbose reason why it should be taken out.

Sure. Just remember that pneumonic is not the same as mnemonic. They're not even pronounced the same, and in any case you should see the Greek roots pneumon and mnemon and know the difference. Shinobu 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Added Oh-Oh-Oh-To-Touch-etc.

Ahmed Sammy earlier on removed a variant of this mnemonic. I added this one from the talk page because I feel this one has the most logical unity of all the ones listed, more so than the one Ahmed removed. I know that some people feel uncomfortable with "dirty" mnemonics, but I don't think that matters. Shinobu 18:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

It seems that none of you have considered the other alternatives and benefits outside of mnemonics: The most obvious handicap is the slowness of increasing the number of steps to get to a given spot in any organization--almost anybody can remember 3.1415926535 faster by 'brute force' than by a rhyme or sentence, especially if the mnemonic is a cipher. (Now, I imagine you could get pretty slick at cyphering, but wouldn't memorization occur naturally as a byproduct?)

It seems to me that it's a crutch, and I think you could get faster by pure 'brute force' practice than by being weaned off a mnemonic.

I remember the first 10 or so digits of pi with brute force. Most of the time I need only the first two, but I encouter pi regularly so it's worth the effort. However, for things that I encouter less often the performance gained by using the brute force method might not be enough to counter for the extra time it takes to learn it that way. Use whatever method you like best I say. Shinobu 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does this mnemonic go?

The start date (Jan. 1, 1970) of Unix time is a Thursday. To remember this, I use this mnemonic: Thor is the Norse god of thunder, and I would assume that by extension he would be the god of electricity. I imagine him providing power to a Unix box. Thor -> Thor's day -> Thursday.

I'd say Science and technology. If more computer related mnemonics appear, it might be wise to create a separate computer science section in Science and technology. Shinobu 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you have a mnemonic for a single word ? "Thor is the Norse god of thunder", has no connection to dates, computers unix - nothing.

Whoa! This article is in desperate need of housecleaning

I hadn't looked at this article in a while. I see it has become a dumping around for a vast number of mnemonics that have no source citations.

These should all go eventually if they aren't sourced, per the verifiability policy linked under every edit box.

It's hard to tell which of these are personal inventions (prohibited under WP:NOR), genuine but unpublished local folklore (prohibited under WP:V), and which are legitimate examples of mnemonics in widespread use, like "On Old Olympus' Towering Top A Finn And German Viewed Some Hops"

I quite agree that almost all of these should be eliminated. They have no place here, and one or two well known examples should suffice to illustrate the idea. DonSiano 18:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. The more mnemonics to facilitate learning the better. You might think they are made up but I am a university/college student and I think they are valid. Do not take them away!

Engineering

Is the last sentence in the Engineering section wrong? Is states that if you turn a screw clockwise you will losen it. Which in my opinion is the direct opposite of what the first sentence states.

Ain't just your opinion, that's cuz u have to fuck a fact.The Dogandpony 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove "unreferenced" tags...

...unless you are, in fact, supplying references. These tags serve several functions.

First, they alert the reader to content that does not confirm with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and may be unreliable. They mark the section as a sort of outline or draft rather than finished material.

Second, they alert any editor who has the page on their watchlist, giving people who submitted material a chance to add references. For example, I added an unreferenced item a long time ago to the article on Harvard University... the one beginning "The social milieu at Harvard is depicted in Owen Wister's Philosophy 4..." I didn't put in a reference at the time, partly because adding references used to be technically more difficult than it is now, but I had one. I was glad an editor had tagged it, and was able to provide the reference promptly. This often happens.

It can easily take a week or more for someone who isn't a Wikipedian regular to notice a change and respond to it. Even when all that's being done is to move content to an article's Talk page, it is important to give people fair notice.

As to the tags being ugly: yes, they are, but they reflect the underlying ugliness the content: many pages of material that does not provide sources and, in this case, is probably is not derived from content published elsewhere, as required by WP:V, but represent something like original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the tags are being overused in this case. In this case, the tags are being used to be helpful for the contributors to the encyclopedia, while serving no useful purpose to the readers.

They serve the reader by cautioning them that the material in them does not meet Wikipedia policy. The alternative would be to remove them from the article immediately. I think it's better to tag them. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the readers should come first, and we should not clutter up articles with drafting comments except when there is something seriously wrong with it. In this case, most of the sections are just giving examples of mnemonics. These are not controversial facts, and while it would be nice to have more sources, it's not like the article is going to libel someone or be held up as an example of poor scholarship. Enchanter 11:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding to what I said earlier, I think that most of the references that have been added to the article add very little to the article.

Citing sources, and providing references, is important to Wikipedia. It provides a way for other readers to check the factual accuracy of claims made in an article. However, the references that have been added support only very limited claims.

For example, take a specific mnemonic here "'OIL RIG:' Oxidation i loss of electrons ('OIL'), Reduction is gain of electrons ('RIG')." If the only claim is that this is a mnemonic that can potentially be used to memorise that piece of information, then I think it is self-evidently true; requiring a citation would be like requiring citations for facts like "fish is a four letter word".

If the claim is that it is in fact a mnemonic widely used by a certain group of people, the citation given does absolutely nothing to support this - all it shows is that that mnemonic was published in one particular publication. The author could have just made it up on the spot.

Don't get me wrong - citing sources and verification are very important policies. However, the way that it is being interpreted here defies common sense. It seems to be saying that if a Wikipedian makes up a mnemonic on the spot and includes it, then it should not be included, but if someone makes up the same mnemonic and includes it in just one citable publication, then that suddenly makes it OK.

"It seems to be saying that if a Wikipedian makes up a mnemonic on the spot and includes it, then it should not be included, but if someone makes up the same mnemonic and includes it in just one citable publication, then that suddenly makes it OK." I believe this to be precisely what the verifiability policy does mean. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This adds absolutely nothing to the factual accuracy of Wikipedia, which is what the verifiability policy is there to achieve.

No, the verifiability policy is not to ensure that facts are "true," but that they are traceable to a published source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

By contrast, if we want to make a statement like "such and such a mnemonic was widely used in 18th Century England", then it could and should be backed up by a source such as, for example, a peer reviewed "history of mnemonics". That would be fine, and would genuinely add to the factual accuracy and verifiability of the article. But such references are rare, and that's not the sort of reference I see being added here.

I think we need to make a choice; for each mnemonic, we need to either tolerate it being in there as "just an example", with no specific claims about who if anyone might have used it, or include a source that specifically comments on mnemonics and how they are used. As such sources are rare, I think many of these mnemonics will remain unsourced and there as examples, and I don't think we should have a big problem with that. The Britannica article of the same title, for example, gives several examples of mnemonics, ranging from some that are well known "thirty days hath September..." and some that look like they were probably made up on the spot "you can remember the name Reagan by thinking of a Ray-Gun". The fact that they are given as examples and are not sourced does not seriously detract from the readability, usefulness, or scholarly integrity of the article.

For these reasons, I think that those "unreferenced" section tags should go. Putting lots of big tags asking for contributions should be a last resort for where there are real problems with an article, and I just don't see that there Indeed, as it stands, in general the referenced sections contain no more factual, verifiable claims than the unreferenced ones. References that don't back up factual claims made in the article in any significant way are just clutter, and shouldn't be encouraged. Enchanter 00:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Wikipedia_Talk:Verifiability, and/or Wikipedia_Talk:No original research, not here. Both of these policies are "non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus," so this page is not the place to discuss them.

I don't think there's any conflict with WP:V here. The issue is whether the references are actually backing up claims in the article, i.e. are they reliable sources? We agree that if you have a cranky theory and put it up on a non-peer reviewed website, then that in itself doesn't make it includable. You would need to get your theory published in a publication with reputation for reliability and peer review. That means that someone will have fact-checked and scrutinised your theory, and endorsed it in some way though publication.

The trouble with mnemonics is that most of the available sources are just sources that mention the mnemonics - they won't have scrutinized them or peer reviewed them in any way. For example, I would suspect that the editors of this source wouldn't have put the mnemonics under any scrutiny beyond saying "That's a cool mnemonic! We'll put it in". This is not much different to the level of scrutiny given to new additions to the Wikipedia article. Similarly, the authors of textbooks and articles can and do just make up mnemonics, so the inclusion of a mnemonic in a textbook doesn't necessarily make it particularly notable.

I have no problem with the principle of referencing where we can find high quality references that genuinely make a statement about when mnemonics are used, such as a survey or history of mnemonics. But I don't think that WP:V should be interpreted as requiring or even encouraging the inclusion of unreliable sources merely to justify the mention of something in the encyclopedia.Enchanter 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think there are valid reasons for articles like this one to contain first publication of oral tradition, or to include individual, original contributions of clever, freshly invented mnemonics, please make the case there and get consensus for the policy change. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

P. S. If the purpose is to give representative examples of how first-letter mnemonics work, we don't need forty-four examples. A handful of most famous, most widely cited, and most familiar would do. This portion of the article is not an illustration of first-letter mnemonics, it is a collectively authored work mixing up familiar mnemonics, oral folklore, and demonstrations of creativity. All intrinsically worthwhile, but not in a Wikipedia article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement that there are many more examples here than are needed to effectively illustrate this article. I suggest that we find an alternative home for them outside the encyclopedia; for example, they could perhaps go in a "mnemonics collection" on Wikibooks, where people could add mnemonics they find useful to their hearts' content (and I would suggest this whether or not they are sourced - at the end of the day, it's not the role of an encyclopedia to be an exhaustive dictionary of mnemonics). Enchanter 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

P. P. S. On the other hand, you make some good points... so I'm inviting other Wikipedians to discuss this (RFC, below). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New Engineering mnemonic

It seems to me that the "rightey tightey, lefty loosey" mnemonic is much more general than a specific engineering application of the mnemonic. Perhaps the mnemonic given should be placed under "mechanical applications" or something of the like.

Also, and more importantly, is it worth noting that a very common electrical engineering method for remembering the color-coded magnitude of resistors utilizes the mnemonic: "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly" for the colors Black Brown Red Orange Green Blue Violet Gray White? The word "rape" is also sometimes stated "ravish" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.12.205 (talk)

I don't think it nececssarily noteworthy, but if you really want it in there, I'd say it's ok, though I would strongly recommend using the "ravish" version, just for the sake of not needlessly offending anyone. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks! B.Mearns^*, KSC 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC: How should WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE be applied to unsourced examples of first-letter mnemonics?

The article contained about seventy-five unsourced examples of "first-letter mnemonics," probably representing a mix of well-known but uncited mnemonics, unpublished orally transmitted folk culture, and original creations. Should the WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR policies be interpreted as allowing such material, on the basis that it is self-verifying (i.e. anyone can see by inspection that the initial letters of "Kinky People Can Often Find Good Sex match those Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species, and the source of the mnemonic is of no practical concern)?

Comment: Two claims attach to the mnemonics listed in the article. First, an explicit claim that they are actual first-letter mnemonics. This is self-verifying. Second, an implicit claim that they are in popular use. The second claim is what requires the citations. For readability, I recommend cutting the list down to 1 to 3 examples, chosen by which have the best citations. -- Alan McBeth 04:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of mnemonic examples definitely needs to be reduced. Also, I think that, while it may be a matter of judgement, non-standard or off-the-top of head mnemonics should not be included. —Centrx→talk • 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How to revert back to previous article? (accidentally truncated it)

Hi guys, Just now I added a mnemonic in Information Systems. But when I refreshed the page, my post truncated some of the article. I did a search on Google and it is said that there is a known bug in Firefox with Google Toolbar installed (I'm using those). My deepest apology on this mistake. Can anyone please revert the article? Because I don't want to add more mess into it.

Thanks a lot guys:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njomany (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

External link issue, Please advice

Hey guys,

I’ve tried to add a link to the http://www.Pmemory.com/book.html (external links) but someone keeps deleting it. I don’t understand the problem. The page is about new/modern mnemonic system which is far more advanced and powerful than any other systems. As I understood the main concern is Copyrights. How can I fix this issue? I am the owner of the website and the system. The book is free to public. I would appreciate your advice.

I also cannot add the "Giordano Memorization System" to the "Other mnemonic systems".

Thanks. Ruslan M.

The World Memory Championship is copyrighted but it is an external link; therefore, it may be that the person who edits this page has another reason for excluding your link; it is puzzling because you are submitting an EXTERNAL link and, therefore, surely, you are not part of the Wiki thingy. (Mike. http://www.NakedScience.com [also missing from EXTERNAL links at this time]). If wikipedia EXTERNALLY links to a BBC news article externally then is that a claim to own the BBC?!! If it EXTERNALLY links to an image of the Mona Lisa then does Wikipedia own the Louvre? So, maybe the editor has another reason.

There are concerns that the pmemory.com link constitutes as external link spamming. Generally, when you are affiliated with such sites it is usually best to leave the placement of sites up to neutral editors who aren't affiliated per concerns at WP:AUTO. It doesn't seem anyone has discussed this, yet, so perhaps now is the time to start ;) Cowman109^Talk 18:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

More posts

There's a system to get the month days using the knuckle. Does that count as a mnemonic? And if it does, does it worth adding? :P

IMHO, yes it does... and it's probably worth adding. Dpbsmith 17:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know this article isn't a list of mnemonics, but, it's easier than the rhyme, so I think it might be nice to mention User:Kieff

It is useful to add this. --Memorymike 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

PI mnemonics: well, doesn't really belong in the article, but:

Now I will a rhyme construct

By chosen words the young instruct;

Cunningly devised endeavour!

Con it and remember ever.

Widths in circle here you see

Stretched out in strange obscurity.

I think I have the spelling of "endeavour" which works here... Dpbsmith 17:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's really cute. Except, "Stretched" has nine letters instead of eight:

3.1415926535897932384626433[8]3279. The only replacement I can think of is "sprawled" though. You know, all this has inspired me to create a page that actually is a list of verbal mnemonics. Uranographer 06:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I am a professional mnemonist. I know little about editing wikipedia but have taught memory tech full time for over 20 years. I am available to help.--Memorymike 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Counting the letters of the words to remember pi is a perfectly valid mnemonic. It is of service to include it. --Memorymike 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

"A reference to this technique survives to this day in the common English phrases "in the first place", "in the second place", and so forth." seriously? could someone check this? Renke

This is a correct reference. --Memorymike 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm 99% certain of it... I'll keep an eye out for a proper reference. Dpbsmith 22:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Political Correctness

I have added the more correct mnemonic for the cranial nerves, which has been avoided probably due to misguided application of principles of political correctness. Before anyone deletes this, please note that the "Finn and German" reference is also subject to PC critique, as for example, it excludes reference to "Faroese, Farmers, Fallujahians, etc." as well as "Granadians, Grannys, Gryphons, ...". The purpose of a mnemonic is to remember, typically the more shocking, the better. Searching for shock value is a standard technique in creating mnemonics. In particular, as regards medical mnemonics, a nurse or doctor should not be squimish.

As an expert, owning an institue that teaches mnemonics since 1975, I would like to speak to this question. The idea of aiding the memory is to assist in recall. The more outrageous, dirty, twisted or wierd the visual image that comes to mind, the easier it is to find the memory file attatched to it.--Memorymike 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Generalized mnemonic

An effective mnemonic called the Journey Method for remembering arbitrary items, such as the sequence of cards in a shuffled deck, exploits the brain's superior capability to remember images. The technique consists of associating images with the items to be remembered and depositing the images at landmarks along an already known journey. Recall consists of retracing the journey. This and a related technique are described at [1]. 4.232.0.196 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dominic O'Brien has published a little book on the journey method. It is one of the oldest methods of memory in use.--Memorymike 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can clean this up for real?

I've briefly looked through this talk page and noticed that there are so many people complaining about how messy this article is and must be cleaned up. I was about to suggest that we should let this article remain as how messy it is, until I noticed the bottom right of the webpage — "Wikiquote" has a collection of quotations related to mnemonics. I almost laughed here, firstly is because of how non-observant am I and I was actually one of those who added a random mnemonic into this article; secondly, I wonder why nobody talked about this. My opinion:

• Some complained that this article does not meet the WP:V / WP:NOR. However, I seriously think that we as students, need more mnemonics for to help us in our studies, the more the better — so that we can choose which mnemonic to remember.
• Yes, maybe 80-90% of them are unsourced, but they're still mnemonics, so I personally don't care as long as they can help in my studies. (and I suppose same goes to other readers, especially the students who need mnemonic the most)
• Solution: Transfer most of the mnemonics, whether they have references or not to the Wikiquote collection of mnemonics, leaving two or three decent mnemonic as examples. Since most of them are already there, so it isn't too difficult to get rid all of them. (edit: actually, it's still hard...... this article is too big anyways)

Anyone agrees? — Yurei-eggtart 09:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave them here. No one looks at wikiquote. As it is, it's an interesting article to run through picking out the odd example that is worth learning. There should be more interesting articles. Let's not dull everything down. RuthieK 12:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's true that nobody really cares about wikiquote. But still, since the bottom right of the page shows that it has a collection of mnemonics, I suppose people would check it out when they feel that they want more examples. Moreover, this article is around 50 KB (WP:SIZE) — it's way too big, and I don't think people enjoy reading something full of words almost endlessly. — Yurei-eggtart 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

it is possible to split it into separate articles for "science mnemonics", "medical mnemonics", whatever other categories, and create a page for each with links from the core article. RuthieK 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That works too. It's actually a better solution O_o — Yurei-eggtart 16:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that most should be moved to Wikiquote. It exists for that reason and if no-one cares, perhaps thats because no-one posts there. We can have a {{wikiquote}} tag in the article so it can be just as easy to get there as to go to a sub-article. Whoops, I see we already do. So lets use it and clear out the examples for here which just makes this article a mess. — Moondyne 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Additions

I think im going to work on this a little bit - it needs to include more mnemotics - method of loci for example. if anyone has suggestions let me know thuglas^talk|edits 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it me or something is really wrong when editing this article?

When I tried to edit it (add a notice for the editors so that they won't add mnemonics here but in the wikiquote instead so this article won't become "List of Mnemonics"), a LARGE part of this article will vanish when I submit my edit -- no I DID NOT purposely/accidently delete all those. Check the history page and look for the part where I reverted my own edit. If this problem is only mine, then please add the following statement into the article (bother me not if you think that it's not neccessary...): <!-- Please add mnemonics that do not have references into Wikiquote's English Mnemonic to avoid this article from being messed up by thousands of random mnemonics. Leave only around 3 or 4 decent mnemonics. --!> — Yurei-eggtart 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're getting hit witht the Windows/Firefox/Google Toolbar bug: Template:Google bug? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been moved to wikiquote and not it is up for deletion. If you want to save it, find it and vote keep. If not, it will probably be deleted.thuglas^talk|edits 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) The time limit seems to have passed. I dont really get it... thuglas^talk|edits 04:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Math>Trig>Quadrants

ALL trig functions are positive in Q1 Sin and its inverse are positive in Q2 Tan and its inverse are positive in Q3 Cos and its inverse are positive in Q4

There isn't a mnemoic associated to this. While it is a nice bit of info, what's it doing here? could anybody explain? (Unsigned)

There are a couple mnemonics for that one; here's the most enduring I can think of:

The CAST rule has you write C-A-S-T counterclockwise starting in the bottom right quadrant; the letters tell you that Cosine is positive in the bottom right, All are positive in the top right, Sine is positive in the top left and Tangent is positive in the bottom left.

This rule is enunciated in MathMatters 4 by Frank Ebos and Barbara Morrison, Nelson Canada 1992, for whatever that's worth. Jasonfahy 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

pmemory.com linkspam - again

They're back. Now spamming from the user Fafans. New user, same spam. --Mwongozi 11:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Planetary mnemonics

Worth adding? For the order of planets: "Mother Visits Every Monday and Just Stays Until Noon, Period." This form has the added benefit of placing the asteroid belt ("and"). Apparently "period" was added when Pluto was discovered, but now perhaps should be deleted given that astronomers no longer seem to think it's a planet. Kelly Bee 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We need some new mnemonics for the planets now that Pluto has been demoted. Any ideas?

For example "Mother Visits Every Monday and Just Stays Until Noon." :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.0.144.75 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ugly pages

How about changing the ugly / pages in the article into this form: mnemonic x system? --maveric149

Either way is fine with me. -- user:Ellmist

Done. --maveric149

Try to use less of the mnemonic stress next time. -- user:JoeAlextheDeceivingShnitzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.1.26 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Weet-bix or Weetabix?

Recently someone changed every instance of "Weetabix" to "Weet-bix". Does anyone know the original version, or why it even matters? Shinobu 06:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Weet-bix is the more commonly used expression.

Wrong: that's USA bias. 87.115.18.52 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Calendar

There is a reference to the "Julius Caesar, and that August is named for Augustus Caesar, both of whom were popular leaders of ancient Rome. Thus, they both were entitled by fiat to have a 31 day month."

What is the fiat and should it really have a link to the Car Company

(Please note that the above is not mineHenrysteinberger (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

ALSO on the topic of the calender mnjemonic in this entry, the choice of -ember months is not arbitrary as noted in the article. The two months used - September and November don't just rhyme - THEY ARE SEQUENTIAL! When we recall this poem September comes first and November next just as they do in the order of months, which makes the exclusion of accidental placement of December rather unlikely if one already knows the sequence of the months.Henrysteinberger (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Geography

How come Naughty Elephants Squirt Water was missed?  :)

Not to mention Never Eat Shredded Wheat :) Destynova 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And "George Evans' old grandmother rode a pig home yesterday" (Geography) was also not included?

What's the point of it...? I've never heard of it, and it seems like a waste of effort to learn the spelling of an easily-spelled word. Destynova 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OOO, months and pronunciation

"On Old Olympus Tiny Top" is so famous that I think it is almost the canonical example of an acrostic-type mnemonic. Of course, most clean mnemonics have dirty versions... in this case, "O! O! O! To Touch And Feel A Girl's Vagina And Hymen."

For the record, one version of the full rhyming mnemonic for the days of the months is: "Thirty days hath September/April, June, and November/All the rest have thirty-one/February stands alone/Having only eight-and-a-score/'Till Leap Year gives her one day more." Once one has the four with thirty days, the rest, for some reason, is easy enough to remember unaided. Certainly the bad rhyme of "one" and "alone" and the archaism of "eight-and-a-score" are not very helpful. Dpbsmith 15:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've never found this at all helpful. I always get "April, May, and November."213.122.22.156 (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd do better with what I suspect is the more popular and less archaic version: ...All the rest have 31/ Save February with 28/ and in leap year 29 - which while not rhyming at all, is still easily appended at the end memorably as the archaic version with its rhyme and addition problem.Henrysteinberger (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to make this a "list of mnemonics," but I wonder whether "i before e except after c" is worthy of note? (..."or when sounded like 'a' as in neighbor and weigh, except seize, inveigle, either, weird, leisure, neither"... and of course a long long list of other exceptions such as "science, caffeine, deity, protein, etc. etc. The curious thing about this and some other mnemonics is that it is genuinely helpful despite being unreliable, because for some reason it is correct in precisely those cases where one is unsure.) Dpbsmith 15:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I always say to myself "I before E except after C when sounded like 'EE'" which usually works, except for, of course, those exceptions like weird and caffeine. ~Rainer~

It says in the article "On Old Olympus" is gaining ground… However "O! O! O!" is much more coherent and easier to remember. ("O! O! O!" stuck directly, while I still can't remember "On Old Olympus" beyond "A".) Hard to remember mnemonics — an infortunate result of being too "clean"? Shinobu 21:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spam again

I see the spammers are back. This article is persistently targeted by sites selling eBooks. --Mwongozi (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't something be done? 99.224.137.2 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mnemonic = Mind

Mnemonic suggest always mind tool. ¿agree? I introduced the word mind in the introduction begging. --Sailorsun (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving unsourced entries here until they can be sourced

In "Cranial nerves" I've retained the (single) sourced entry. The other can be reinserted when and as sources are found. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In "Astronomy" I've removed the whole section. Some of these are surely published and it shouldn't be hard to find sources for them e.g. (Oh, Be A Fine Girl—Kiss Me) but they shouldn't be reinserted without sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of this article doesn't cite sources; a lot of these mnemonics make up a minor kind of "oral tradition".

Yes, that's a problem. Oral tradition can't go into Wikipedia on the basis of editors' personal testimony, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So what makes these two sections worthy of removal, and not others (e.g., "SOH CAH TOA")? What exactly are you disputing? The Dogandpony 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not singling out these two. I'm not disputing anything at all. I'm just working away gradually at labelling unsourced material and removing it if nobody cares to source it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I look at the article again (littered almost to unreadability with requests for sources), and recognize quite a lot of these mnemonics, some from grade school, I wonder, if you're so keen on their primary sources, why don't *you* go find them? The Dogandpony 18:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done so for at least one four of them and I'm looking for others. But in any case, the verifiability policy, which all editors should be familiar with because it is linked underneath every edit box, says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." It took a while for people to add all this unsourced material, and it's going to take a while to remove it. The tags constitute fair notice so that "editors wishing to include the material" have a chance to look for sources. Probably quite a lot of this can be sourced, but that's the job of the editors who put it in and/or wish to keep it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you ARE singling out these two. Why these and not others? The astronomy material is indisputably accurate (vide sub Stellar classification). Look at it from the point of view of a student: is it better not to have access to the material because it is unsourced (for now), or is it better to have a mnemonic without attribution? I assert that you are in fact doing a disservice to the people who will use and need this material most. 129.93.123.27 18:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

1) If the astronomy material is accurate, it shouldn't be all that hard to find a source for it. 2) Please reread the verifiability policy, linked underneath every edit box. This is described as "official policy" and "non-negotiable." 3) Much of this material is valid and valuable folklore, transmitted as oral tradition. However, Wikipedia's no original research policy means that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for first publication of valid and valuable folklore. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Material removed

Astronomy

• Stellar classification uses a peculiar group of letters, easily remembered using the phrase, "Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me." With two new categories L and T for brown dwarfs, the revised version to "Oh Be A Fine Girl/Guy, Kiss My Lips Tenderly." (Sometimes "Right Now Smack Wow." was added at the end, although these classes are not part of the sequence and are no longer current.) Of course, only bored astronomers find gratification knowing mnemonics.
• For naming the planets in order from the Sun, the phrases:
  • "My Very Easy Memory Jingle Seems Useful Naming Planets"
  • "Mary's Violet Eyes Made John Stay Up Nights Proposing"
  • "My Very Eager Mother Just Sewed Us New Pyjamas"
  • "Most Valuable Earth Must Jump Straight Up North Pole"
  • "My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets"
  • "My Very Easy Method Just Speeds Up Naming Planets"
  • "My Very, Eccentric Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets"
  • "Many Vile Earthlings Munch Jam Sandwiches Under Newspaper Piles"
  • "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas"
  • "My Very Easy Method Just Sums Up Naming Planets"
  • "Mom Visits Every Monday, Just Stays Until Noon, Period"
  • "My Very Early Marriage Just Suited Uncle Ned Perfectly"

One particularly good mnemonic for remembering the order of the planets from the sun during the rare years when the orbit of Neptune tracks outside the orbit of Pluto, developed by Oliver Ross Davis, an astronomy student at Millbrook School in 1982, is "Maybe Very Elliptical Motion Just Somehow Usurped Pluto's Novelty."

Chemistry

• The first few elements of the Periodic Table can be remembered with "Harry He Likes Beer But Can Not Obtain Food".
• A longer version, covering the elements from Helium to Potassium, is "Here Lies Benjamin Bold; Cry Not Old Friend; Needlessly Nature Magnifies All Simple People Sometimes, Clots and Kings." Skipping Calcium, the subsequent elements from Scandium to Zinc (the first group of transition metals) can be remembered via "Scandinavian T V Corrupts Many French Coalmen's Nieces and Cousins (Cu Zins)".
• The universal gas constant "PV/T" was remembered in the 1960's by saying "Pee" "Vee" over the "Telephone". Pee Vee was a television character in the 1960s that was always talking on the telephone.
• The Reactivity series can be remembered thus. Poisonous Snakes Can Make All Cats Zippy In The Lost House Capturing Special G Ps

Potassium, Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium, Aluminium, Carbon, Zinc, Iron, Tin, Lead, Hydrogen, Copper, Silver, Gold, Platinum. Or maybe this is too long winded. Alternatively, Lithium and Mercury may also be included: Peter's Simple Little Cousin Met a Crazy Zulu In The Lonely Hut Carrying Money: Silver, Gold, Platinum.

• The three elements that when combined with Hydrogen form Hyrdrogen Bonds, can be memorized by the following saying: "Hydrogens just want to have FON (Flourine, Oxygen, and Nitrogen)" This saying is loosely based off the song "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" by Cyndi Lauper.
• Diatomic elements can be memorized by using the phrase "Count HOFBrINCl" and also by the phrase "Have No Fear Of Ice Cold Beer"(Hydrogen, Oxygen, Flourine, Bromine, Iodine, Nitrogen, and Chlorine).

Computer Science

Mnemonics in computer science tend to be less pervasive as most abbreviations are brief. Some terms still warrant a mnemonic such as People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms (PCMCIA).

One application of a Mnemonic is in embedded systems firmware design where processes that a microprocessor undertakes are shortened for the person who uses them for ease of handling. example: load accumulator A or store accumulator B become the Mnemonics LDAA and STAA respectively

Electronics

To help remember the electronic color code that is used to indicate the values or ratings of electronic components, the following phrase was in common use in electronics training in the US Navy: "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls Behind Victory Garden Walls". The letters correspond to the colors black, brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, grey, and white, which in turn correspond to the digits 0-9.

In the network design OSI model, the seven layers (Physical, Data link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application) can be remembered with the mnemonics:

Please Do Not Throw Sausage Pizza Away

Or in this one (Which starts from Application -> Physical)
All People Seem To Need Data Processing

When wanting to know whether an electronic element in a circuit is a capacitor or an inductor when using AC power and all the information you are given is the phase angles of current I and voltage E, remember the name ELI ICE (Or ELI The ICE Man). This phrase means that your voltage E leads the current I in an inductor L, whereas current I leads the voltage E in a capacitor C. This method is commonly used among the U.S. Military.

The ordering of frequency bands of the radio frequency spectrum are remembered by "Veronica Loves Manipulating Her Vagina Until She Explodes" representing VLF, LF, MF, HF, VHF, UHF, SHF, and EHF.

Biology: Taxa

(The letters stand for Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.)

• "Kings Play Cards On Fairly Good Soft Velvet

• "Kings Play Chess On Fine Green Satin"
• "Knights Play Chess On Fat Glass Stools"
• "Kirsten Puts Cats Over Family Generally Speaking"
• "King Phillip Came Over From Germany Soaked"
• "Kids Playing Carelessly On Freeways Get Splattered"
• "Kinky People Can Often Find Good Sex
• "King Phillip Came Over For Good Soup
• "Kindly Park Car On FG Street.
• "King Phillip Came Out For Gay Sex"

(Current taxonomic systems add Domain, thus Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.)

• "Donkey Kong Pounds Clay Objects Frequently Gaining Sores"
• "Dear King Phillip Came Over For Grape Soda"

External carotid artery branches

(The letters stand for superior thyroid artery, ascending pharyngeal artery, lingual artery, facial artery, occipital artery, posterior auricular artery, superficial temporal artery, and maxillary artery)

• "Some Anatomists Like Fucking, Others Prefer S & M"
• "Some Angry Lady Figured Out P M S"

Cranial nerves

(The letters stand for Olfactory nerve, Optic nerve, Occulomotor nerve, Trochlear nerve, Trigeminal nerve, Abducent nerve, Facial nerve, Auditory nerve, Glossopharyngeal nerve, Vagus nerve, Accessory nerve, and Hypoglossal nerve.)

In the ones marked with a "@", the accessory nerve is referred to by its alternate name "Spinal accessory nerve". In the ones marked with "#" the Auditory nerve is referred to by its alternate name "Vestibulocochlear nerve".

• "Ooh, Ooh, Ooh To Touch And Feel Very Good Velvet. Such Heaven!" @
• "On Old Olympus' Towering Top A Finn And German Viewed Some Hops" @

• "On Old Olympus' Tiny Top A Finn And German Viewed Some Hops", or "On Old Olympus' Towering Top A Finely Vested German Viewed A Hawk" (with variations; some say "terraced tops", "towering top(s)" or "topmost top", and "viewed some hops" is sometimes rendered as "vaulted a hedge").
• "O! O! O! To Touch And Feel A Girl's Vagina And Hymen."
• "O! O! O! To Touch And Feel Virgin Girls' Vaginas And Hymens." #

Another to help remember the types of information these nerves carry (sensory, motor, or both) is thus: Some Say Marry Money, But My Brother Says Big Brains Matter More.
On Old Olympus' Tiny Tops A Friendly Viking Grew Vines and Hops

For Motor/Sensory/Both, the mnemonic of Some Say Marry Money, But My Brother Says Big Breasts Matter More.

Music

• Beginning music students trying to memorize the notes of the staff using the mnemonics "Every Good Boy Does Fine", "Empty Garbage Before Dad Freaks", "Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge" (or, in Britain, "Every Good Boy Deserves Favour" - also the title of a play with music by Tom Stoppard and Andre Previn), and "FACE" for the lines and spaces of the Treble Clef respectively. The Bass Clef equivalents are "Good Boys Do Fine Always" or "Good Boys Deserve Fine Apples" or "Great Big Dogs Fight A lot" for lines, and "All Cows Eat Grass" or "All Cars Eat Gas" for spaces.

  Note: This method of "remembering" note positions on treble and bass clefs will lead to problems later on in music study. It is much better to learn the note positions on the grand staff as a whole and regard the treble and bass clefs as markers.

  The mnemonic for the lines in tenor clef are the word D-FACE (deface), what a musician wants to do with the music if a tenor clef rears its ugly head and would rather continue to see the music written in bass clef. Nevertheless, take the above note into consideration. Ed (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The strings on a six-string guitar with standard tuning can be remembered using the mnemonics: "Elephants And Donkeys Grow Big Ears" or "Eat All Day, Get Big Easily",
• The circle of fifths can be remembered using the mnemonic Forty Cats Going Down An Empty Barrel, Fred Can Get Drugs At East Boston, Fat Cats Go Down Alleys Eating Birds or Fat Cicks Go Dancing At Every Bar.
• The spelling of 'Rhythm' can be remembered as "Rhythm Helps Your Two Hips Move."
• If the student wants to remember the order in which sharps go, i.e. F# then F# and C# then F# and C# and G#. The mnemonic is "Father Christmas Gave Dad An Electric Blanket". Similarly if they wish to remember the order of the flats, the mnemonics -"BEAD Glass Cuts Fingers," "Blanket Explodes And Dad Gets Cold Feet" and "Battle Ends And Down Goes Charles' Father", are used. Handily, when reversed, this creates the sharps list.

Superior Orbital Fissure

The old favourite for the order of structures moving through the superior orbital fissure was Luscious French Tarts Standing Naked In Anticipation for Lacrimal Nerve, Frontal Nerve, Trochlear Nerve, Superior Ophthalmic Artery, Nasocillary Nerve, Inferior Ophthalmic Artery, Abducent Nerve. In New Zealand this became Little French Terrorists Sink Nukeprotesters In Auckland.

Telecommunications

• The 25-pair color code used for telephone wiring can be memorized using the following mnemonics:
  • Ring colors: Bell Operators Give Better Service
  • Tip colors: Why Run Backwards? You'll Vomit

nakedscience.com

In the past, I tried adding:

• A peg system loci example of about 50 places

I looked at wikipedia's rules on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

 section:
 Advertising and conflicts of interest
    And, in fact, I shouldn't add my own site to the external links.

I would like the administrator to get in touch with me and we can iron out what is wrong with my site as an external link. Unlike the first external link currently live, I don't seek donations to maintain my site but hope to get a trickle of money from google ads; and I am identifiable and so you can tell if I am a conflict of interest or not. . I don't think I am a 'bad guy' in all of this. My site points people towards others' work and I believe it is a useful resource.

Oh, yes you are, yes you are, yes you are a bad, bad, guy, you are. You left out the four little squigglies (tildes) after you said all those things you said! Look at me, I'm obeisant, I do the squiggly things, which somehow, I learned about. Here: Unfree (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See how the marvelous software converts them?!:(And proper punc. is crucial.): Unfree (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Why, you could be Michael Curtis, for all we know, and I amn't yet very pleased, though hopeful, to greet you, but if you were Harry Lorayne, on the other hand, why, I'd go out of my way! Here's how I tag on my smiley: :) Unfree (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

menmonic-device.eu

As far as I can see there is no conflict of interest on this proposed external link. Please tell me what's wrong with it. Regards Pj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjotrw (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the spelling. We don't want to encourage the misspellation gags, do we? Do we? Like Dont Get Perconel with a chikken? Not that I'm objecting, mind you, but what of all those heads they go over?

(Never mind, this one's falling flat as a pancake, a raw one emergent from a clothes wringer without syrup and damn little butter anyhow.) Regard the fine query as wind chimes a year, dangling untolled by sweet absent zephyrs. Unfree (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus, it doesn't work unless it's fixed: mnemonic-device.eu, Mnemosyne's having a fit! :) Unfree (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a very fine site, though I didn't realize esa was the opposite of esta, just using them without giving it a second thought. I thought it was aquello! I guess eso's contrasted with esto, too. But mnemonics must be handy at first. I still don't get the Wikipedia article's "BANGS" thing for French, which is not only not French, but reminds you of English words. What if you're Portuguese, and at sea? And a French pirate arrives? And all you can remember is bangs? Why, your grammar might turn out atrocious! And he could be a pirate king, for all you know. Unfree (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

mnemonic-device.eu

what's wrong with this link? why does anyone delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.164.214 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See below, s.v. menmonic-device.eu, a misspelling. Unfree (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrariness

Not remotely widespread, and in no way worthy of being added to the article - but I remember the beginning of the periodic table through the catchy mnemonic 'aitch-hellybeb-kernoff-knee'. H-He-Li-Be-B-C-N-O-F-Ne indeed, and a demonstration of quite how utterly awkward and meaningless mnemonics can get while still being useful... 91.86.28.176 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I like to break it up into decades, and enounce "Hi" for Hydrogen, just for panache. Then I conjoin a few letters, ignore capitals, stick in a few, etc., and it comes out (the whole table, though the lanthanides and actinides are separate ditties): "Hi, Helibeb Cnof!" (That's the first nine.) "Ne nam" (like "me name") "Galsips Clark". (A good name; the second ten) "Casc tiv, crmn feconicu" (Each evening, crewmen do something-or-other Romanian, possibly fecal.) "Zn gage asse brkrrbsry." (Don't ask.)

And so on and on. It's Timmy Blue that I like, but it's another story! Disney, too.

Being in decades like that, you've got the first digit of the atomic number at the tip of your tongue, and how can you forget, for example, the elements surrounding rubidium? Just conjure up "brkrrbsry": Br Kr Rb Sr Y (IIRC): Bromine, Krypton, Rubidium, Strontium, Yttrium!

But be careful with that imagination of yours; it gets racy, what with the incest, etc. But I didn't write it, I just discovered it. It's just waiting to be mulled over and over, quite repetitiously, and preferably with a modicum of glee. I'd pluralize modicum if I could, to modica, but not glee, or even ghee.

Why, it's all quite elementary, dear user 91.86.28.176. But it's also a bit too original, "customized" like that. Leave it to Dalton, or whoever found it in the plain vanilla.

If I ever get bored, an unlike story, I'll slap it up on my blog, "Marshall Price of Miami" for all the world to see, but nobody will, but you, and it'll soon slip forgotten, into the archives. Unfree (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just search that site for "helibeb", for if I ever mention it, I won't do it again. I'm too prolix a fellow for that. That's why things zip right along into archives before I even know what hit them. "Prolixious" oughta be a word, doncha think? Just for fun? It's wordliness-worthy enough, eh? Unfree (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. I never said "Sin: sib takes sex! Bala!" That was the Creator, not I, so don't pin it on me! Unfree (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pmemory.com linkspam - now "School of Phenomenal Memory"

Can someone do something about those guys? They keep adding the link, now they call it "School Of Phenomenal Memory".

Why those nasty guys or gals, I bet they only want to hurt you! You go ahead and get even, you hear me? You just sock it to them, without even mentioning my username, okay? I'd like to watch from the bleachers. Unfree (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles, California, Downtown Streets Mnemonic

This whole section just seems weird... talking about people, and their families, and just parts of random people's lifes? Shouldn't it be deleted? Matt 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but wouldn't it be neat to remember the streets of downtown New York City, for instance? Gee. I bet 45 thousand million people would soon be singing that, to "Dixie"! "In Dixieland I'll take my stand, to live or die...." And what if it rhymed, and the initials spelled out "Dixie", too? And even told where the street numbers appeared, and whether north, south, east, or west, in the middle of a block, how the sun shines, etc.?! Imagine the hacks' (cabbies') delight! Imagine Seinfeld's delight! Unfree (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Humor

How remarkably funny! Are there any other articles like this? Unfree (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC) ????????????:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.212.51 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

pmemory.com linkspam

I am tired of removing the external spamlink to pmemory.com, as it keeps coming back. Even the spam template and a temporary partial protection didn't help. I give up. --Mwongozi 22:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the (or at least some of the) instances it was added? If it is being added by multiple IPs/accounts, it may be a good candidate for the blacklist. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mwongozi - Why you are trying to remove it? It's a link to the free ebook about Mnemonics. This entire article is about mnemonics, so what exactly you don't like? Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

It's a PDF that's heavily-laden with promotional material. WP is not here to promote a product. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan, let’s be realistic here. Just read the content of the book. There is no promotion at all. The book is about memory, mnemonics and memorization techniques. The book is the property of the School of Phenomenal Memory, so what? This is the promotion you are talking about? I don’t understand why you judge the book without reading it? The information that is provided in there cannot be found anywhere else and you can ask any memory specialist about value of this article. It has no value at all just some random peaces of information without proper scientific explanations. The book I was trying to link is based on the science and all of the mnemonics techniques also.

Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

I did peruse it. Every section that I looked at found a way to tie in the topic to the GSM system. It's like an infomercial - maybe they will show you a new way to bake bread, but they're going to show you how to do it with their new Bread-o-matic 9000, and convince you how you can't bake bread without their Bread-o-matic 9000. The overwhelming theme of the book is that you must buy into the GSM system. That is exactly the sort of material we seek to avoid here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan, are you kidding me? What is that for the argument? GMS is Giordano Memorization System. What is the problem with that? When you write about Loci Method you use “Loci” word all the time, so what? And again take a look at the rest of the links in the “external links” area; they are useless and all commercial. I don’t see any legitimate arguments from your side what so ever. Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

Please note the title of this article: "Mnemonic". It is not titled "Girdano Memorization System". We need information specifically on this topic, not a sales pitch for a system related to the topic. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow Dan! You are providing more and more ridicules arguments. GMS is a modern mnemonics. It is based on the classical and modern mnemonics. What you have in the article is just a few OLD mnemonic examples which equivalent ALSO can be found in the book I tried to link. Basically this article should be renamed to “mnemonics examples”, because it has nothing to do with the mnemonics mechanisms what so ever.

Hey, you provided a great example with the bread. In the beginning I thought it was a joke but if you want to use such a childish example, sure. (It is great to talk with person who is such a great memory specialist) First of all GMS IS FREE. Pmemory.com does not sell it. So your example about “bread thing” falls apart here. They sell training, nothing else. And the link I tried to post was not about their training it was about how memory works and modern mnemonics.

Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

That's right - they sell training. That's the purpose of the website. All of the material I've seen on the site urges readers to utilize those services. That's simply not the sort of information we're looking for here at Wikipedia. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about training? I’ve been using the material from the GMS Manual for my diploma work and I haven’t participated in their trainings. I don’t need that. It is all about legitimate information about mnemonics which is free. I don’t think you know what sort of information we are looking for here. The article is about mnemonics but I don’t see history of mnemonics. I don’t see mechanisms of mnemonics. I don’t see why mnemonics works. I don’t see which mnemonic methods can work and why. I don’t even see legitimate examples. This is WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR and it is available in the free eBook. It is amazingly hard to find legitimate information about this subject in the internet. Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

Ok, I am not 100% sure what that book says, or whether or not it is true or not. The fact of the matter is that the book does not have citations as to where that infomation is comming from. Just becuase someone wrote a book does not mean it is true. Where did this infomation come from? An alternate site.

• A history of memnonics

I can google for some more later, but this is all I have time for. Basically, I don't know if the infomation in the free e-book matches that of that website or not. But I am more inclined to trust that website becuase it is citing where it got it's infomation. Also there is much less commercial advertisement for training courses or other items. Frankly I think that we should simply remove all the bare external links and use those that are good enough as Citations. We can't even cite that e-book as it is not a Reliable source. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. pmemory.com has no place as an external link in Wikipedia. -- Moondyne 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care. If you don't see what I am saying it is your problem. I am tired of this ridicules discussions. It is useless. peace out! Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

Hmm...... looks like as if this is an arguing section. Well, I don't know if it is a good external link or not, nor I'd bother to read it, but since everyone urges to remove it than letting it to stay there, then just ignore it. Why bother to argue? Having one less website won't matter that much anyways, unless you can prove to us that this particular website can help a lot -- you can do this: try editing this article and add up some important information (useful too) in that eBook and cite it with that website. You can hope that nobody will revert your edits. — Yurei-eggtart 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

jhvfybdhhesxsrxces.......knjbvygtvrcccfff..........kool:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.212.51 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

JogLab.com as External Link

Would editors support the addition of my (non-commercial) mnemonic creation website http://www.joglab.com or the page: http://www.joglab.com/Mnemonics.htm in the external links section? I feel it would be useful and interesting to users of this article. Wovenone (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a repository of "useful and interesting" links. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My Japanese teacher used to use phrases which related to pictures which you could imagine within the Japanese characters. Examples I can remember were "Nu" looked like a pair of chopsticks holding "NOOdles" and there is another character which is very similar, but without the noodles: it's "Me" which is when you dropped the noodles and made a "MEss" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.109.200 (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Physically Enacting New Verbs & possibly Metaphors too-what kind of memory? Episodic Memory for Actions?

Any idea where physically enacting new words such as when learning a foreign language would fit in with menemonics? I'm doing research on this. I think this menemonic strategy also would fit with episodic memory, as well as memory trace theory, but am not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.132.135.16 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I will point out that anything that goes into a Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable using reputable published sources. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Figure showing knuckle mnemonic is not described in the text

The figure should be changed or a description of the mnemonic added to the figure legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.204.174 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

REWRITE -- after the intro, this whole article is arbitrary [DONE]

Like the rest of the article, the section Arbitrariness of Mnemonics is arbitrary. AoM is one long arbitrary opinion on one specific mnemonic and appears to be rather culture-specific. To say there are no surnames of Biv is wholly ignorant. I know two different and unrelated Biv families. And the rest of the section is meandering gibberish and may be helped with more examples and less argument as to the breadth of its arbitrariness.

If arbitrariness is even going to be discussed, why not focus on the arbitrary content within the article? Other than the intro, each section seems to be pet content with no rhyme or reason as to its inclusion given the exclusion of what suggested content exists in Discussion.

Then again after just now reviewing the whole article and the entire discussion page, this article is easily up for the Razzie equivalent for a wikipedia article. Wikiguin (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can see your way to making any of the improvements you suggest, please go for it. Wikipedia articles are written and maintained by whoever steps up to do it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Major rewrite completed. Article still needs sources and I think it could be fused with Art of memory. Also, watch out for the diverse people adding their advertisements in the article, I removed quite a few nonsensical links/additions. --Blaukraut (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Four score and seven years ago ...

This article begins "mnemonic device, is ANY learning technique that aids information retention." The learning techniques that aided me in retaining "Four score and seven years ago ..." included 1) my learning the language the information was transmitted in and 2) learning the writing scheme {alphabet in this case) for that language.

All of which is to say that "any" might be a wee bit too broad for a definition.

And 3) learning (technique) to use a computer aided my information retention. Now "Four score and seven years ago" is all I have to retrain, translating it, when needed, to "Google it". Possibly "Google it" should be listed as the "universal mnemonic". 76.103.213.6 (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Great article

This article has got 638 links from other articles right now (a total of 990 links). And got a rank of 9901 in article traffic stats! Still far from GA?···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 14:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well.. you know, popularity and quality are not always the same... However, what's stopping you from critically reading the article, making some edits and nominate it as a good article? Lova Falk talk 14:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what is preventing me... but hope to make it. This article made me familiarize with WP (In fact, mnemonics created me here). You see, I created an article, my first article, named chemistry mnemonic; it is in a miserable condition. Perhaps, I need to learn the art of writing good articles. And never to lose the spirit in midway. Thanks for your thoughtful message. Regards,···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 19:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Spam Spam Spam Spam

I think that this is one of the most-spammed articles on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure every single one of the "external links" is selling something. Can we have some agreement on whether all external links should be removed/banned from this article please? --David G (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Most-spammed? There are only three external links. On the first and the third (font99 and Collection of...) I can check for different mnemonics without getting ads; the second one doesn't add much new information and could go. Just my Lova Falk talk 17:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

Any statement about mnemonics originating in ancient Egypt would need to be supported by a reputable scholarly source; see WP:RS. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Trimming needed

Once again, the list of examples is getting excessive, and needs to be trimmed down to just a few illustrative items. The only reason I am not cutting immediately is that I will try to move any content and refs worth salvaging to the List of mnemonics article (which has its own issues, which need to be dealt with there).

I have added a hidden editorial note to this article, to try to divert most new additions off to the List article.

Also, this Talk page needs to be trimmed. I will try to activate a bot to archive old posts automatically. Reify-tech (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yah, methinks I weedwhacked the excessive examples once many a year ago, but the weeds grew back. Whack,whack, whack I go again. Here's a diff if you see a need to pull the deleted ones out later. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Link to German version

We tried to link to the German version located at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemotechnik , however it was not possible. The error shown was: "The link dewiki:Mnemotechnik is already used by item Q13461032. You may remove it from Q13461032 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic."

How to resolve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.67.120 (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@84.46.67.120, the article first must be deleted from the old Q-number.

I see some other problems here as well:

• mnemotechnic d:Q13461032 „learning technique that aids information retention”, „La mnémotechnique est l’ensemble des méthodes permettant de mémoriser par association d’idées, (chacune d’elles étant appelée mnémonique).”
• mnemonic d:Q191062 „phrase for remembering”, „mnemonic device”, german: „Merkspruch”
• Method of loci d:Q1758418 „a mnemonic device adopted in ancient Roman and Greek rhetorical treatises”, „L'Art de mémoire (Ars memoriae), appelé aussi méthode des loci ou méthode des lieux, est une méthode mnémotechnique pratiquée depuis l'antiquité”, german: „Loci-Methode”
• Art of memory d:Q16243122 „The art of memory (Latin: ars memoriae) is any of a number of a loosely associated mnemonic principles and techniques used to organize memory impressions, improve recall, and assist in the combination and 'invention' of ideas. An alternative and frequently used term is "Ars Memorativa" which is also often translated as "art of memory" although its more literal meaning is "Memorative Art". It is sometimes referred to as „mnemotechnics”.”

Karmela (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

why no mnemonic for mnemonic ?

I think the article lacks the obvious example of a mnemonic for spelling mnemonic; e.g. Memory Never Ever Means One No's (sic) If Correct. M@T arragano m@T arragano

Where did you hear this? do you have a source? (see RfC subtitle above)

Someone has posted a mnemonic for mnemonic at the end of the lead section. I think the example of a mnemonic for mnemonic should be moved to the Applications and examples section instead of at the end of the lead section.Redmach197 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Reify-tech (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Effectiveness Section Confusion

"Mnemonics were seen to be more effective for groups of people who struggled with or had weak long-term memory, like the elderly. Five years after a mnemonic training study, a research team followed-up 112 community-dwelling older adults, 60 years of age and over. Delayed recall of a word list was assessed prior to, and immediately following mnemonic training, and at the 5-year follow-up. Overall, there was no significant difference between word recall prior to training and that exhibited at follow-up. However, pre-training performance gains scores in performance immediately post-training and use of the mnemonic predicted performance at follow-up. Individuals who self-reported using the mnemonic exhibited the highest performance overall, with scores significantly higher than at pre-training. The findings suggest that mnemonic training has long-term benefits for some older adults, particularly those who continue to employ the mnemonic.[20]," 

I believe the paragraph above is a bit confusing and doesn't flow very nicely. I believe a more succinct and concise summary of the study can be written that explains the study in a more clear manner. Qharris232 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect section placement of paragraph

In the lead section of this article, there is a paragraph that starts with, "Ancient Greeks and Romans distinguished between two types of memory." I think this is valuable information, but perhaps not in the most appropriate section. I think it could possibly fit well in the history section of the article. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospring1234 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Good idea.Redmach197 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is not very relevant to what the opening paragraph talks about Qharris232 (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

minor fix

I would suggest adding can before you say aid with memory becuase mnemonics may not work for everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbere43 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Elaborative encoding, images, retrieval cues

In the lead section I think there is something missing having to do with the three principles of which mnemonics take advantage. There is nothing about elaborative encoding, imagery, not retrieval cues. I think this should be included and has a place in the lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospring1234 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the three principles that mnemonics take advantage of should be included in the lead section. Zoeberk (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree; I think the imagery-meaning-cue principles need to be clearer. Elizareader (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Mnemonic lead section suggestion

My suggestion refers to the following sentence found in the lead section: "Mnemonics aim to translate information into a form that the brain can retain better than its original form."

I would consider this sentence to be a bit misleading in the sense that it gives the idea that the original form is being changed. The original form of whatever is being memorized is not being changed at all, rather it is being associated with something more meaningful. I would recommend this sentence be changed to something along the lines of: "Mnemonics aid original information in becoming associated with something more meaningful, which in turn, allows the brain to have better retention of the information."

Zoeberk (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Zoe

I agree with this, not only is it misleading, but it is also vague. Ceckersley (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with these comments Elizareader (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening Section Citation Needed

Because the sentence "Even the process of learning this conversion might aid in the transfer of information to long-term memory." lacks a citation I feel it should be removed. It seems to be more helpful to say that the process of encoding for meaning or rehearsal while translating it can help retaining the specific information, or to say that learning a specific system for creating mnemonics will aid in using them in the future. The way the sentence is written now it seems to imply both and also neither at the same time.

Courtney Crump (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Courtney

Also, I'm not sure I'd consider a memory device to be a mnemonic. Normally mnemonics are internal memory aids. Elizareader (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Astronomy

Mother Very Thoughtfully Made A Jelly Sandwich Under No Protest (Mercury, Venus, Terra, Mars, Astroids, Jupiter Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto). Comes from a SF-book, I think - Have spacesuit - Will travel - Heinlein. I'll check it and report back. https://books.google.nl/books?id=BG3SjVi5AvAC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=mother+very+thoughtfully+made+a+jelly+sandwich+under+no+protest&source=bl&ots=ghwq01Bl2L&sig=G8Ed9rZk9Njcd4uqRss6FYJ26qU&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN09-g0enOAhXH1hoKHe1PDUkQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=mother%20very%20thoughtfully%20made%20a%20jelly%20sandwich%20under%20no%20protest&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.111.65 (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Organization

I feel as if the organization of the page is exceptional. Every topic leads to another and feeds off each other. Also another great thing they accomplished was assisting the reader to other sources that were mentioned throughout the page. This was located under the "See Also" link and led readers to pages that help understand Mnemonics and what it consist of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ3Rahming (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that the organization is very easy to follow. I would also consider adding something about the use of mnemonics in memory competition. This is not mentioned in the section about use. I think this is important since mnemonics are so integral to the success of these memory athletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmbradshaw12 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

While it flows well, I think the language is a little to florid for an encyclopedia. For example "In accordance with said system, if it were desired to fix a historic date in memory, it was localised in an imaginary town divided into a certain number of districts..." and "Among the voluminous writings of Roger Bacon is a tractate De arte memorativa. Ramon Llull devoted special attention to mnemonics in connection with his ars generalis." Spiffulent (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Examples

The use of "i before e except after c" is a very bad example. There are many words that do not follow that mnemonic. I would suggest removing it and finding something else. Dont ask me what though : Tanis8472 (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)