text:
Talk:Impact event

Miscellaneous 2004-2006 comments
Great work on the merge Bryan! --mav

 * Thanks. :) Bryan

Note the recently raised possibility that the Permian and Cretaceous impact objects causing extinction events may have been massive molten rocks ejected from the flood basalt events which occurred at the same times rather than asteroid impacts -- Derek Ross

 * I'd need some pretty good external references before I'd consider that a plausible theory, personally. Basalt flood eruptions are relatively sedate for their size, not like explosive volcanos. And the impacts proposed for these events are huge; Chicxulub Crater is either 180 or 300 kilometers in diameter (jury's not entirely decided yet) and the Bedout is about 200 kilometers in diameter, both of which suggest impactors about 10 kilometers across. An explosion that would hurl a mass that big out of Earth's atmosphere would be about as energetic as the explosion that would result when it falls back in, and I don't think anyone's ever proposed a volcanic eruption anywhere near that violent. The basaltic flood eruptions were dramatic enough as it is without proposing continent-sized explosions accompanying them. Bryan 07:37, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

There's no doubt that it's speculation at the moment based on computer modelling of the mantle. However the modelling has shown that the titanic explosions required to launch these huge masses are possible under the right circumstances (in the model at least). And there is some physical evidence to follow up. See New Scientist (8-May-2004). I just thought that I should make everyone aware of a possible alternative to the asteroid theory, so that we don't start saying is when we should be saying is thought to be. I'm certainly not saying "Drop the asteroid theory. Here's something better". It's early days yet for the "verneshot" theory and, as you say, it involves a major rethink on flood basalt eruptions. -- Derek Ross 19:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a great article, and I'd like to see it nominated for feature status. There are however a few things that appear to be in need of elaboration; in particular, there ought to be some more info on the direct consequences of a major collision (some of which is mentioned in e.g. crater but should also be covered here).

Thoughts? Fredrik 12:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it would need a better description of the first 4.5 billion years of Earth's history than "The current traditional Biblical view of history held that the Earth was created 6,000~10,000 years ago" Astronaut 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

regarding Derek's first comment above - what about the reverse possibility? - that flood basalts have been triggered by impact events? valkyree 00:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

This is Correct
I would have to say that, scientifically this assumption is correct. And can also be proven.

Ha! You senile liberals on the Wiki are a funny lot.

Partner, this absurd theory was debunked over the past two years. Despite all the lurid magazine covers, it was a rubbish idea and has been abandoned. The dinosaurs were not killed by an asteroid impact. Very theatrical stuff, though - unfortunately not science.

It is also unfortunate that Alvarez and Gould attacked half the scientists in the country who criticized the notion, destroyed their careers and got them dropped from tenure for daring to oppose the screamin' Alvarez brothers. What a shame. (Anonymously contributed by Anonymous User:211.27.137.236 whose contribution can also be enjoyed at Talk:Stephen Jay Gould.)

There is no solid evidence of impacts leading to the four other major mass extinctions, though many scientists assume that they are at least related to impacts. No, this is not a scientific assumption. Even a quick read through Wikipedia entries on Extinction events will correct this impression. I haven't removed this text, however. --Wetman 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rate of earth impacts
This information is a bit out of date:

The late Eugene Shoemaker of the US Geological Survey came up with an estimate of the rate of Earth impacts, and suggested that an event about the size of the nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima occurs about once a year.

[re: Tunguska] Shoemaker estimated that one of such magnitude occurs about once every 300 years.

See, for instance, Tunguska-type impacts less common than thought (no more than 50 metres in diameter). The quotes below are from _The flux of small near-Earth objects colliding with the Earth_ Brown et al. Nature, Volume 420, Issue 6913, pp. 294-296. (2002)

"The Earth is struck by an object with the energy of Tunguska (assumed to be 10 MT) every 1,000 years."

"We estimate that the Earth is on average struck annually by an object of energy ~5 kton (with a possible range of 2-10 kton), and struck each month by an object with 0.3 kt of energy. Every ten years, an object of energy ~50 kton impacts Earth."

--Mu301 14:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps kinetic energy 50kt[x J] is dissipated in upper atmosphere before anything reach surface. If otherwise - seen in news ? :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Impact Events in Fiction
I completely re-wrote this section in an effort to make the media references more mainstream and more centered around the books and movies which are specifically about impacts (also more consistent with other Wikipedia articles). One thing which is missing, though; I'm sure there are early sci-fi stories (in Astounding, etc.) about impact events, but I've not been able to find a specific citation. Could someone who collects 30's and 40's science fiction help out with stories of historical note? (i.e. the "first" impact story) Jberkus 18:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive
Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

War, near misses, etc.
This makes for a good story, but I doubt it is really true:

 * It is very likely that a great many more near misses occur but are never detected. In addition to the danger of a strike, the possibility of war at a time of international tension due to a near miss triggering attack early warning systems, or a strike, is very real.

How would one estimate near misses that are never detected? Seems like a hard problem, and frankly I would be surprised if there are "many" near misses by hazardous asteroids (i.e. >100 m). Also, as there has never been a war by asteroid, and the things have speeds and trajectories much different than missles, I honestly think it unlikely that modern surveillance would have a "very real" risk of mistaking an asteroid for an attack to the point of creating an international incident. Please provide sources for both claims. Dragons flight 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Attention
I have added the attention tag, particularly re the section on mass extinctions, but some concerns are of more general relevance. Most fundamentally, the article needs to directly cite assertions made in the text- including a (small) number of references at the bottom without direct links is not enough. Some of the key points made (ie the discovery of the Chicxulub crater) are at best only partially correct, and a general expansion is very much in order. The selection of material currently seems to be a little bit patchy and incomplete; it is not even approaching a holistic treatment of the subject. The article does currently read a bit like a school essay project (although to be fair I would probably give it a C+, or even a B!). Cheers, Badgerpatrol 16:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I fixed the majority of what I could based on what I think you meant was wrong with the article. I added some references, cited some, added some footnotes; I don't know if I did everything you wanted so please explain in detail if more is needed! For now, I'm going to remove the "cleanup tag" Kosmkrmr 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

point of confusion
The article states, "In the past 600 million years there have been five major mass extinctions that on average extinguished half of all species. The largest mass extinction to have affected life on Earth was in the Permian-Triassic, which ended the Permian period 250 million years ago and killed off 90% of all species. The last such mass extinction led to the demise of the dinosaurs and has been found to have coincided with a large asteroid impact; this is the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) extinction event. There is no solid evidence of impacts leading to the four other major mass extinctions, though a recent report from Ohio State scientists stated that they have located a 483-km diameter impact crater beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet which may date back about 250 million years, based on gravity measurements, which might associate it with the Permian-Triassic extinction event."

Back in 2001, the AP reported, "The Permian-Triassic impactor, either an asteroid or comet, left behind subtle deposits of buckminsterfullerenes, or 'Buckyballs,' a form of carbon shaped like a volley ball with a hollow cage-like cavity inside" Recer, 2001). Is this research not yet deemed "solid evidence"? If it were, shouldn't this entry state that there's evidence (in additon to the Antartic crater, of course) that two out of five extinction events were caused by a large asteroid or comet?

List of doomsday scenarios
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional impact events worth noting
These three already have articles and should probably be mentioned here: -- nae'blis 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cando event
 * Vitim event
 * Eastern Mediterranean Event

 * Do we need to include every impact event? There are more than 120, not counting the meteorites and airbursts that happen once a month or so. The article is in danger of turning into a list. Pretty soon it might be appropriate to discuss which ones are significant enough to mention specifically and discuss generalities instead of listing the rest. Geogene (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass Extinction Events
It is not neseccary to assume that impact events are directly responsible for mass extinctions, only that they are seemingly corilated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC) here's the problem:East Antarctic Ice Sheet which may date back about 250 million years, based on gravity measurements, which might associate it with the Permian-Triassic extinction event.

Which is presently melting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that there's very little evidence in the article of a causal link between impact events and mass extinctions; the subject is still very much under discussion. Furthermore, the vast majority of of impact events have not caused mass extinctions or indeed had any long-term far-reaching effects on our planet's ecosystems.  For these reasons I feel that dedicating 50% of the lead to a largely speculative link between impacts and extinction gives undue weight to the subject, and I have deleted the reference and moved the "mass extinction" section down the article to a position below the more factual discussions. -- Timberframe (talk)

What if impact effects
A highly simplified calculation can be made using the web-based program by Collins et al. . This table assumes a density of 3.4 g/cm3, entry angle of 45 degrees and an entry velocity of 15 metres per second (can be from 11 to over 40 km/s):

-84user (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hypothesis -> Original Research
Would it be appropriate to include my hypothesis entitled The Impact And Exit Event on this page? It can be 'googled', so if anyone could take a look and let me know I'd appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.157.48 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many editors will thank you for asking first. The short answer is "no, not yet".  A self-published web site or book is a "primary source" - it comes from the originator.  Until there are reliable sources, secondary sources independent of the originator, then any hypothesis would be considered original research and is therefore not (yet) acceptable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  Depending how long it takes to get reliable sources, you may need to be patient on the scale of years before Wikipedia is ready for a currently-self-published hypothesis.  For now, make the most of your own web site and any ongoing effort you can use to further develop your research.  I can provide a relevant example - I have not posted/submitted/etc on Wikipedia some research of my own about a possible remnants of a mostly-eroded impact crater at Nevada's Black Rock Desert, because it is still original research under Wikipedia's rules.  Discover Magazine had a blurb about the research in an article about various research projects by amateur scientists the Dec 2008 issue.  But that isn't a result - it just says the research is happening.  Until the research progresses to a definitive result and that result is published in a reliable source, it won't go into Wikipedia.  And even then, in my case I should provide it to other editors via a talk page because it would be a conflict of interest to add my own research myself.  To me this isn't a problem - I'm not trying to promote this project any more than letting potential participants know about it.  We have more than enough circumstantial evidence now to know we just need to keep looking. Ikluft (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that as of |this edit the original research has been inserted without citation. Since in the absence of citation the original objection to its inclusion is still valid, I am removing it. 174.114.6.39 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit was automatically reverted. Somebody else can see to this if they wish. 174.114.6.39 (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed that section again - it helps to give a clear edit summary to justify the removal of material or you will likely have your edit reverted. Mikenorton (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Science Fiction?
Is it necessary for the second sentence in an article on a scientific subject to mention that the topic has been used in SF? What does that have to do with geology? Astronomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The lead should summarise the article, and the weight given to each aspect of the article in the lead should reflect the weight given in the article's main body gives.  In this case more than 50% of the words in the lead are given over to the SF aspect while in the article it constitutes only some 15% (rough estimate by screenfuls). If nobody else raises any adverse comments here over the next few days I suggest that you act boldly and remove the SF reference from the lead; you could also consider bolstering the lead with a few more pertinent facts from the article. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoolkid Hoax
I removed the part about the German schoolkid that claims to have been hit by a "pea-sized" meteorite travling at "thousand of kilometers an hour" that grazed his hand, causing a scar, then hit the ground behind him, creating a crater four feet across. Oh, and his friends heard a sonic boom.

It was sourced to the Telegraph, but I deleted it on the grounds that it is physically impossible, for reasons that should be obvious.Geogene (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Even though the details may have been muddled by the reporting, Ansgar Korte, director of Germany's Walter Hohmann Observatory, confirmed chemically that the rock which hit him really was from outer space.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Angsar Korte has denied having seen the alleged meteorite, as reported on Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" blog at Discover Magazine. The MSNBC piece says Korte was mistranslated and he merely said it would be valuable if a real meteorite, and (MSNBC) quoted a meteorite expert who said that the scenario presented is physically impossible and that the kid is not telling the truth. It is a physical impossibility that a meteorite the size of a pea, having a density between 3 and 5 g/cm^3 will be traveling at hypervelocity five feet off the ground. The pictures in the papers are not consistent with either a small hypervelocity crater or of the sort of gash somebody would get from something traveling many, many times faster than a rifle bullet. The "crater" shown in photographs is not a crater, but a worn spot on the pavement. . What else can be said? Obvious Hoax is obvious? The media should try fact-checking before they mindlessly spread such nonsense. Geogene (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend deletion of this non-event from the article. Geogene (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed and removed. Vsmith (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I again removed the reference to a German school kid being hit by a pea-size meteorite. This was discuss at length on the Meteorite-list -- Meteorite Discussion Forum and the consensus was this reported incident was an obvious hoax.Paul H. (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Impact event on Jupiter last Sunday
Apparently something hit Jupiter last Sunday night, CNN, SpaceWeather.com, New Scientist, and Skypub.com (Sky & Telescope magazine's site) are reporting a single, massive black spot (like those after SL9) that is bright in thermal infrared and contains a spectroscopic signature of ammonia, a gas normally found in deeper layers of Jupiter's atmosphere. It was first seen Sunday by an Australian amateur, now confirmed by JPL.

Apparently SL9 is an example of a recurring phenomenon. There's an old magazine (S&T or Astronomy) article somewhere about black spots appearing on Jupiter before. Geogene (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI - proposed renaming for Category:Craters hierarchy of 76 impact crater-related categories
FYI - see the CFR renaming discussion. 76 categories with "craters" in their names, all part of the Category:Craters hierarchy, have been proposed to be renamed to use "impact craters" in their names. All the higher-level categories in the hierarchy have text instructions that they are for impact craters, not craters of volcanic or explosives origins. The renaming is intended to make their purposes more obvious and lead to less confusion. Ikluft (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Caption for File:Impact event.jpg
The caption for File:Impact event.jpg, the file used at the start of the article, currently reads: "Artist's impression of a major impact event. The collision between Earth and an asteroid a few kilometers in diameter may release as much energy as several million nuclear weapons detonating, one after another." Would it not be more accurate to say: "as much energy as several million nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously" or "as much energy as the simultaneous detonation of several million nuclear weapons"?

Also, the comparison with the energy released by "several million nuclear weapons" seems to be quite non-specific. The explosive yield of a nuclear weapon can range from 0.01–0.02 kt (see Davy Crockett (nuclear device)) to 50 kt (see Tsar Bomba), which is 5,000 times greater. Could a different comparison be used, or perhaps even a different point emphasized?

Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * As no one objected, I changed the caption (diff) to use "simultaneously" instead of "one after another". -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do some work on this article
Tonight I plan to use conversion templates, putting metric system first and change US to U.S. Bettymnz4 (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete two subsections?
For me the article is not easy to read. It doesn't seem to stay on topic.

I'm wondering about completely deleting the "Modern impact events" because these events did not create impacts. Is there an article on near misses? Perhaps this information should be moved?

I'm also wondering about deleting all except this paragraph (in "Close approaches and forecasts):

 * In 2004, a newly discovered 320 m (1,050 ft) asteroid, 99942 Apophis (previously called 2004 MN4), achieved the highest impact probability of any potentially dangerous object. The probability of collision on April 13, 2029 is estimated to be as high as 1 in 17 by Steve Chesley of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, though the previously published figure was the slightly lower odds of 1 in 37, calculated in December 2004. Later observations showed that the asteroid will miss the earth by 25,600 km (15,907 mi) (within the orbits of communications satellites) in 2029, but its orbit will be altered unpredictably in a way which does not rule out a collision on April 13 or 14, 2036 or later in the century. These possible future dates have a cumulative probability of 1 in 45,000 for an impact in the 21st century.

from the article. Again, in general, this section does not talk about actual impacts. The above paragraph seems relevant to me. Perhaps all except the one paragraph could be move to Near-Earth object?

If I don't hear from anyone within a couple of weeks, I'll be bold and take care of this (I'll leave plenty of documentation on the discussion page). Bettymnz4 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I need to refresh my memory on the article before I do anything!!

 * I did copy-and-paste the "Close encounters and forecasts" to the discussion page of "Near-Earth object". The text is available if someone wants to incorporate into that article.

 * I've finished my (modest) goals for this article. I did copyediting, removed one non-relevant section (discussion above), used the convert template, moved one sentence to lead and removed some overlinkings. There remains quite a bit of work to bring this up to standard, but several of us have a start. Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Asteroid impact simulator
The folks at Purdue University have put together a really outstanding asteroid simulator. May be worth adding to the article somehow, external links or otherwise. I'll leave that to the authors who better know this page. Here's the link: [ImpactEarth Asteroid Impact Simulator]. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.223.27.80 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reported..
"The only reported fatality from meteorite impacts is an Egyptian dog that was killed in 1911 by the Nakhla meteorite, although this report is disputed. The meteorites that struck this area were identified in the 1980s as Martian in origin."

Only scientifically confirmed, perhaps; not the only reported. See Rain of Iron and Ice -- it strongly contests the 'no human fatalities' thing. Vultur (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A fragmented comet that nearly hits Earth
Guys,i think we should add this into the article. Here's the info: Interpretation of the observations made in 1883 in Zacatecas (Mexico): A fragmented Comet that nearly hits the Earth -- Dino-Mario (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Problematic Definition used in Lead Paragraph
The current definition in the lead states:

 * An impact event is the collision of a large meteorite, asteroid, comet, or other celestial object with the Earth or another planet.

The problem I see with this is that it is too narrow for the scope of the article.

Reasoning is that the following things mentioned in the article do not fit the current definition:
 * 1) Comets plunging into the Sun are not "impact event"s as the Sun is clearly not a planet
 * 2) The Giant Impact Hypothesis was not an "impact event" as according to the theory the Earth was not at that time a planet (ie. it was a either a protoplanet or dwarf planet as it shared its orbit with the protoplanet Theia and therefore had not cleared its neighbourhood)
 * 3) P/2010 A2 with a smaller asteroid (this is clearly not an "impact event" as neither are planets)
 * 4) Major impact events occur on other objects.  Rheasilvia, like the Giant Impact theories for example represents an "impact event" on a non-planetary object as does the South Pole–Aitken basin and the Big Spat theory of the lunar highland formation.

I propose that the reference to "another planet" be replaced with "another large celestial object".

It could possibly say "another celestial object" to include asteroid impacts, although this could probably broaden the scope too much.

Discuss ... --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird IP edit
Can this be right? 22:26, 14 January 2013 24.62.244.94 (talk). . (46,815 bytes) (-4,501). An IP editor removed a whole section of the article? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Good catch. I have reverted the edits. -- Kheider (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Split article into sections about impact events involving Earth and other bodies
I propose creating a section to deal with the history of impact events with Earth and a section dealing with impact events elsewhere. Currently the article suffers from schizophrenia jumping around the Solar System and beyond, whereas the majority of the content is written in the context of Earth. I understand that impacts with Earth are the priority due to the threats they pose to life on our planet, but the subject should be considered holistically, from the context of their bearing on the history (and future) on planetary systems as a whole. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Argentina’s Chaco province 4,000 years ago
Add Campo del Cielo (Heavenly Field), that got pelted by a major meteor shower some 4,000 years ago.—Pawyilee (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Campo is a pre-historic meteorite fall of no geological or cultural significance. Geogene (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have to agree with Geogene here, that doesn't really count as a notable impact event. Mikenorton (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Campo impact occurred in the Holocene, and at roughly the same time as the one in Australia, to which you have not yet objected. It was certainly "historic" to inhabitants of both regions, who made note of it in their origin legends. It was also "historic" when Spaniards investigated it as a source of iron, and a current event which brought me to this article, when police arrested smugglers trying to steal same. −Pawyilee (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But which I might object to if asked about it. But to Henbury's credit, it did form some modest craters. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Modern era
"Modern era" is the definition of Holocene; we should change that sub-section to 20th Century. Since "Early Earth impacts" is similarly tautological. we should change that to Earth Impacts, with subsections Pleistocene, Early Holocene, 20th Century and 21st Century. Also need to insert section hatnote that generates "This section is incomplete; you can help by adding to it." Clicking on "Edit" should then reveal an otherwise hidden editorial note recommending how future editors should go about it. −Pawyilee (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree up to the point about encouraging further additions, I feel that this should not contain a complete list of every impact event...that would soon consume the article. Geogene (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Going by other articles of this sort e.g. earthquake and landslide, there will become a need to create a list article, list of impact events like lists of earthquakes and list of landslides. Mikenorton (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a separate list article would be appropriate. The article here should only list some major events as examples, and not attempt to list all known events, which would make the article too long. Reify-tech (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an extremely slow Internet connection, likely to to heat, so when while it was cool yesterday, I made the changes I thought most essential. I do agree with the proposal to create an event list. —Pawyilee (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

20th Century impacts
This section opens with the best-known event, but after that is a missmash. My laptop CPU is over 70C, so I have to quit for now. −Pawyilee (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Impact event lists
There's a few list article of interest to impact events. There's List of meteor air bursts, List of impact craters on Earth (20 km diameter cutoff), List of craters on Mars: A-G, List of lunar meteorites, List_of_Martian_meteorites....so far there doesn't seem to be a list of large meteorites. Using a cutoff of something like 1 ton total known weight this would be feasible. Geogene (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Chance of Death
The article says that "the chance of a single person born today dying due to an impact is around 1 in 200,000". How can this be possible, given that the article also states that "no human is known to have been killed directly by an impact"? The odds would suggest that over 35,000 people have died from impact events. Additionally, the word 'today' is even more confusing. Why would the chances be any greater of being hit by an asteroid today be any different from the chances of being hit by one fifty years ago?

Jacob S-589 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Have not studied the per-person odds lately, but impacts in the last 70000 years from objects ~150 meters in diameter could easily wipe out thousands at a time. -- Kheider (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The chance of death mainly comes from a low risk of a massive event. The most likely value is zero (or some very small number), but millions of deaths are possible with a non-negligible risk. We have roughly a 1-in-a-million risk of something like this event which could potentially kill billions. The chance was the same 50 years ago, plus or minus some impact from a better health system now. --mfb (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Hasn't this gone down since the > 1 km size class is mostly accounted for? Geogene (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Not really. We have known roughly how many 1+ km NEAs there are for many years. It is the <200 meter class that we are still trying to get a good count on. -- Kheider (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Only those with orbits in the inner solar system - sure, all we found won't hit earth soon, which lowered the risk a bit. There is no way to find most long-periodic comets with current technology. --mfb (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Say so if i'm being dense, but isn't "the chance of a single person born today dying due to..." at least needlessly confusing, if not literally ambiguous? It seems to me that
 * 1: Given a single person, determine the probability of them dying so.
 * 2: Determine the probability that even one among the billions currently alive, will die so.
 * are both invited, and that the enormous gap between them has the effect of be-boggling the task of considering whether there might be other (presumably intermediate) ways to construe it. --Jerzy•t 02:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Impact event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100730135923/http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/canup_Moon_Nature_01.pdf to http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/canup_Moon_Nature_01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150501003224/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/mars-dynamo-death/ to http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/mars-dynamo-death/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141008080600/http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/handaxe-and-tektites-bose-china to https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/handaxe-and-tektites-bose-china
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090831183851/http://imca.repetti.net:80/metinfo/metstruck.html to http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150512055255/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/meteorite/ to http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/meteorite/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141020110541/http://www.space-frontier.org/PROJECTS/ASTEROIDS/aclarke_address_may26-98.html to http://www.space-frontier.org/PROJECTS/ASTEROIDS/aclarke_address_may26-98.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputed theoretical limitation on terrestrial coesite petrogenetic mechanism
Coesite is found in deep mantle rocks having equivalent lattice deformation and planar deformation as material produced from known impacts (in certain cases ancient impacts may have contributed to its presence, but such an event is not necessary), through atomic blasts, and - it is almost certain - from fulgurites. Experimental and theoretical parameters have been modeled, and currently, many fulgurite samples are being analyzed to search for the presence of this non-unique HPHT SiO2 polymorph, along with stishovite and seifertite.Thaddeus Andres Gutierrez 10:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulguritics (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 September 2015
 * Is this the only disputed aspect of the article? Geogene (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed by removing wording that excludes fulgurites, added new citation to paper mentioning shocked quartz in fulgurites but also says that coesite is normally associated with impact events. The point: sources support that most coesite is associated with impact events. Geogene (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Although no human is known to have been killed directly by an impact" - not true
This discussion is rather old. There is a good recent article in Astronomy with many historical accounts of death by impact. Given the number (7) of them, you can surmise that at least one of them must be true. https://astronomy.com/news/2020/05/death-from-above-7-unlucky-tales-of-people-killed-by-meteorites

I know this is often said in astronomical news articles about meteorite impacts. But it's not based on actual research but is more of an urban myth which astronomers have come to believe through repetition in many news stories.

There are several historical records of humans killed by asteroid impacts, in the small field of papers and one book that studies death by meteorite. Some are more dubious than others but there are some that are well attested to. For instance, two reindeer herders were killed by the Tunguska impact. I mention some of them with cites to the literature about them here:

Robert Walker (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Our article on the Tunguska event says (without citation) that no one was killed. Your Quora link says two people were killed but then only cites our Wikipedia page which contradicts that.  Other recent reports also repeat the no fatalities claim, e.g. .  That might be incorrect, but I'd like to see it clearly documented.  Same for other claims of impact related deaths.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree we need reliable sources. I believe that it has never been confirmed that a meteorite impact was the cause of death. It is obvious that air bursts have killed in the past. -- Kheider (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice the reply. My quora link does give many sources. I know the no fatalities claim is often made but there are academic papers and sources to back up the historical fatalities. Academics do sometimes just repeat claims like that without checking them - especially a negation like that is hard to prove.

I have updated the link to make the sources clearer.

The eye witness reports for Tunguska all seem to cite this rare book:

"Krinov, E. L. 1966 Giant Meteorites (London: Pergamon Press)", some screenshots here but sadly not about Tunguska and Google books snippet view here. He seems to be identical to Yevgeny Krinovby his list of books here

Anyway I don't have access to this book. But one of the deaths in the Tuguska event is described here, which lists that book as a source: :

 * ‘Probably the closest observers were some reindeer herders asleep in their tents in several camps about 30 km (20 mi) from the site. They were blown into the air and knocked unconscious; one man was blown into a tree and later died. "Everything around was shrouded in smoke and fog from the burning fallen trees."’ 1908 SIBERIA EXPLOSION: Reconstructing an Asteroid Impact from Eywitness Accounts by William K Harman, artist, who cites Krinov, E. L. 1966 Giant Meteorites, a Russian paper with interviews with eye witnesses - and quotes from it so I think these quotes are from that source. The original is behind a paywall for me:

Lewis, 1996 writes (page 54)

 * “The place of fall of the Tunguska object was of course random. By good fortune it struck in a very remote area, where there were no more than twenty people within fifty kilometers of ground zero. All of those were injured, and two were reportedly killed.” Quote from Lewis’s book Rain Of Iron And Ice: The Very Real Threat Of Comet And Asteroid Bombardment

Then this is a summary of material in Lewis’s book and also in the book Rocks from Space which I don’t have yet.

 * "Thousands of reindeer were killed, as well as some dogs. One elderly man was thrown against a tree during the blast and later died, presumably from his injuries, and another old man died of shock. Another man was thrown to the ground and bit off his tongue. Several people were knocked unconscious, and one family’s hut was blown into the air, causing bruises to all inside “

On the hut carried away, then Lewis includes the description of that too. But the other details aren't in it as far as I can see so must be in the other book. I found this summary here: Meteorite Impact Structures Student Research

I give many other sources there for deaths by meteorite which I think fit wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.

,, , , and this one collates several newspaper accounts of meteorite deaths worldwide in the twentieth century

I've done a new quora answer based on the previous one answering the question "Has anyone died from being hit by an asteroid" here:

Robert Walker (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impact event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://collection.europarchive.org/nli/20110222085928/http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/qq5un1810k7605h5/fulltext.pdf to http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/qq5un1810k7605h5/fulltext.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Asteroid impact prediction
Hi, nice article! The draft of Asteroid impact prediction has just been moved to the main article space. One of the reviewers (Jim.henderson) asked for an Asteroid impact prediction sub-section to be added below the Holocene section in this article, which I have now done. Please feel free to improve the text and/or associated article, which is only ranked C class at the moment. In particular the main article is lacking a history section describing the early days of impact prediction when kilometre class asteroids were the only objects of interest.Rafflesgluft (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
Question: is there a Wikipedia article about the asteroid collision described in this article, which is supposed to have taken place 466 million years ago? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not a dedicated article, because it's new science. There's a small mention of the Ordovician fossil meteorites at Meteorite and there's an article for Ordovician–Silurian_extinction_events. Geogene (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thread on Gomorrah
https://twitter.com/BadAstronomer/status/1440856303509770242 -- Kheider (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Impact event


text:
Talk:Réunion

Preview Image
The page preview image for this article (unlike for pretty much every other country and territory) is the location of Réunion on the map. This is ugly.

Could an administrator change it to show the coat of arms? (I assume there would be objections to using the unofficial flag, though that is used in lists.) Rxtreme (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Réunion


text:
Yom Tov

Yom Tov or Yom-Tov may refer to:

Judaism

 * Jewish holidays, lit. "Good Day" in Hebrew
 * Yom tov sheni shel galuyot, a concept in halakha
 * Yom Tov Torah readings

People

 * Chananya Yom Tov Lipa (disambiguation) (name of two rabbis)
 * David ben Yom Tov, medieval Catalan Jewish astronomer and astrologer
 * David ben Yom Tov ibn Bilia, medieval Portuguese Jewish philosopher
 * Jacob ben David ben Yom Tov, medieval Catalan Jewish astronomer and astrologer
 * Yom Tov Asevilli (1250 – 1330), medieval rabbi and Halakhist
 * Yom Tov Ehrlich (1914 – 1990), Hasidic musician and composer
 * Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller (1578 – 1654), Bohemian rabbi and Talmudist
 * Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin (1846 – 1876), Lithuanian Jewish mathematician and inventor
 * Yom-Tov Lipmann-Muhlhausen, medieval Talmudist, kabalist and philosopher
 * Yom Tov of Joigny (d. 1190), medieval French-born rabbi and liturgical poet
 * Yom-Tov Samia, Israeli general
 * Yom Tov Tzahalon (1559 – 1638), religious and legal scholar

title: Yom Tov


text:
Talk:Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States

Trump's denomination
In this article: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/10/24/trump-confirmed-presbyterian-now-identifies-non-denominational

they say Trump is a Nondenominational Christian, so why does it say in the table that he is a Protestant? איתן קרסנטי (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Error in a paragraph
This article states that Protestants are the "predominate" religious group, yet then states that the "most prevalent" religious groups are Episcopalians and Presbyterians. "Predominate" and "most prevalent" mean the same thing.

Do a search and see these are all different groups. Episcopalians describe themselves as "Protestant, yet Catholic." But that does not mean that they are either one. That means that they might share some ideologies or beliefs with both. I would not place Episcopalian under the umbrella of Protestantism. Why would we when it also takes ideas from the Catholics? I suppose we could say it is some sort of child of both -- some sort of offspring (I'm not sure). But for sure, it is its own thing. An Episcopalian says they are Episcopalian -- not Protestant. Or some say, "Protestant, yet Catholic," just so other people get an idea of what they believe; sometimes it is good to speak on something familiar to someone to describe something unfamiliar to them. MusicHuman (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I need support from other Wikipedian.
I am new as a Wikipedian and can embarrass myself. Not really having tried to edit a topic yet. Remember this as you evaluate my example of improvement. Two or three rejection I can deal with though I dislike.

In one Biblical Church the saved were called Christian. The meaning of Christian inhabits that of meaning Christianity as if it were member being in the Church within their church building. Unless other than the nature of things "Christian" has a general meaning most read and most accept as common. When referring to the occupation of the title existing along side the title President ( and here in this article many different title are used side by side which bothers me as to it's truthfulness ) as either occupied or not there is a better word to be used than Christian. When a title in a persons past life explains past and present ( and may be explains future ) circumstance a person commits to being this. Any person can commit even when that person is smaller than any title offered and has no title. A person commits to a title making a person committed to and carrying out all work associated with this title by the person accepting this title which proves the person with the title. Past present and future, the meaning is the same for as long as the title sticks when the title is kept.

I am not saying that there is no need for denoting reference to single or multiple belief, only that calling this Christian is not a correct way of having this done. "Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States" being the topic. ( "Commitments of presidents of the United States" being a better title. ) ( This is not to disgrace those who are Christian. ) In stead I am suggesting that as one choice we use the word and meaning "commitment" in place of "Christian" with it's better meaning, removing Christian as a try. "Commitment" is a larger and more enveloping meaning to what any "commit" to. ( and since Christian are protected in the United States Of America from any type of harm, mind, body, and soul, it is not only wrong to use Christian in this sense but also punishable. An example of this punishment is comparable with a member having said or done some small wrong within the large Church, catches hell outside the church. This being offensive to the person harmed is by Church decision to be refunded to the offended in the manner agreed on by both. Christian is a title only, and one people in the United States Of America take seriously. The Wikipedian who used "Christian" here has to some degree, small or large, offended the Christian. If small enough, a simple "I am sorry, I apologize" after fixing the problem,  often makes things right.

An example of the finished work will look like this: 11 | James K. Polk |commitment | Protestant | Methodist | Methodist | 1845–1849 | Never baptized until on his deathbed. Formerly more or less affiliated with Presbyterian churches. He eventually received a deathbed Methodist baptism by Methodist preacher John Berry McFerrin.[24]

I question many other title word definition such as "Protestant" "Methodist" and "Methodist" ( from the example I gave ) only will leave this for a future date when with help I can start to correct any mistake. At the moment the title "Christian" with it's use bothers me. I respect our President. Leroy 11-28-1952 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

James Monroe
The section titled Nonreligious Presidents explicitly describes zero evidence for Monroe's religious thoughts. And yet, the list of Formal Affiliations had him listed as an Episcopalian. That is an example of apologists at work. I have altered the list to the proper information, i.e. None Specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.21.168 (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 * You should have checked instead of assuming a negative and deleting it. I checked and according to PBS he was raised in the Anglican Church and it's unknown if he left or not.
 * https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/godinamerica-white-house/
 * You should undo your edit. He does has a formal connection according to a US government source. Odeaser (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Catholics not Christian?
Why does the affiliation totals table treat Roman Catholics as not Christian? This seems odd to say the least. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I agreed. Catholics are most definitely Christians by all accounts of legitimate religious studies sources. The only sources that say Catholics are not Christian are Protestant sources which obviously have a bias against Catholics. Our own Wikipedia says as much. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church Odeaser (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Lincolns section Contradicts his page
On the page about Lincoln's religious view it says while he had skepticism early in his life it goes on to say he moved away from that and that "He frequently referred to God and had a deep knowledge of the Bible, often quoting it. Lincoln attended Protestant church services with his wife and children." I'm not really sure what threshold is being placed but if actively attending church and referring to God and the Bible isn't Christian, it's to high. Odeaser (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Here is the page I am referring to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Abraham_Lincoln Odeaser (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:List of tunnels in the United Kingdom

What about the 7,652 yards long Rivelin Tunnel?
The http://www.sheffieldhistory.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=7453 website has an article that first appeared in the Transactions of The Hunter Archaeological Society and is reproduced by kind permission of the Society. The tunnel also gets a mention on the http://research.ncl.ac.uk/hydroinformatics/rbhd/derwent/upper.html page and the http://www.jnbentley.co.uk/345/rivelin.html page (but they call it the Dewent Tunnel; I have emailed them with a suggestion they correct their page). It deserves a mention in the list, but where should it be placed? It starts in Derbyshire but the outfall is in South Yorkshire. I am sure other tunnels connect different counties. Is 'county' a good choice for a table column?

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Data dumps - to be added to article.

→==Road tunnels== Tunnel	               Length          Road Mersey Queensway      3237 m           Thames                 2930 m Mersey Kingsway        2483 m Limehouse Link         1800 m Rotherhithe            1705 m Tyne                   1645 m          A19 Dartford	       1436 m          A282 Hatfield              1400 m          A1 Blackwall              1362 m          A102 Worthing-Lancing      1200 m          A27 Conway                1089 m          A55 Meir                  1000 m          A50 Pen-y-Clip            930 m           A55 Cargo                 885 m	 Ramsgate               800 m Clyde                  760 m           A739 Medway                725 m           A289 Bluetown              715 m Holmesdale             650 m           M25 Penmaenbach           642 m           A55 Heathrow airport      628 m Epping	                600 m           M25 Queensway             548 m Central Library        500 m Bell Common            450 m           M25 St.Helier             420 m Cuilfail              420 m           A26 Manchester airport    400 m           A538 Southwick Hill        390 m Saltash                370 m           A38 Westgate              367 m           A58 Roundhill             365 m Strand underpass       365 m Brynglas               362 m           M4 Chestfield             320 m Park Lane              314 m Woodpecker             298 m           A58 Meir                  280 m           A50 Fort Regent           253 m Hanger Lane            241 m           A40 Victoria avenue       237 m           A658 Lancaster Circus      197 m           A34 St. Chads Circus      192 m           A38 Gibraltar Hill        185 m           A40 Matthew Murray        160 m Well Hall              156 m           A2 Bluewater Quarry       75 m East India Dock

Railway tunnels
Abbotscliffe 1 mile, 182 yards (1776m) Anderston 1 mile, 1010 yards (2533m) Belsize Fast 1 mile, 11 yards (1619m) Belsize Slow 1 mile, 107 yards (1707m) Blea Moor 1 mile, 869 yards (2404m) Box 1 mile, 1452 yards (2937m) Bradway 1 mile, 267 yards (1853m) Bramhope 2 miles, 241 yards (3439m) Caerphilly 1 mile, 173 yards (1768m) Channel Tunnel 31 miles, 635 yards (50470m). Up tunnel is 50.448km (31m 611yds) Chipping Sodbury 2 miles, 924 yards (4064m) Clay Cross 1 mile, 24 yards (1631m) Clayton 1 mile, 499 yards (2066m) Corby 1 mile, 160 yards (1756m). Freight only Cowburn 2 miles, 182 yards (3385m) CTRL London Tunnel East 6 miles, 293 yards (9924m). Under construction, no official name CTRL London Tunnel West 4 miles, 1209 yards (7543m). Down tunnel is 7.529km (4m 1194yds), under construction, no official name Disley 2 miles, 346 yards (3535m) Dove Holes 1 mile, 1224 yards (2729m). Freight only Ffestiniog 2 miles, 338 yards (3528m) Glaston 1 mile, 82 yards (1684m). Freight only Kilsby 1 mile, 666 yards (2218m) Liverpool Central 1 mile, 1172 yards (2681m). Excludes spur from Paradise Junction to Derby Square Junction Llangyfelach 1 mile, 193 yards (1786m). Freight only Lydden 1 mile, 609 yards (2166m) Mersey 4 miles, 462 yards (6860m). James Street-Birkenhead Park via loop. Merstham Old 1 mile, 71 yards (1674m) Moorgate 2 miles, 572 yards (3742m) Morley 1 mile, 1609 yards (3081m) Newton Street 1 mile, 351 yards (1930m) North Downs Tunnel 1 mile, 1738 yards (3199m) Oxted 1 mile, 501 yards (2067m) Patchway New Tunnel 1 mile, 0 yards (1609m) Penge 1 mile, 381 yards (1958m) Polhill 1 mile, 851 yards (2387m) Ponsbourne 1 mile, 924 yards (2454m) Quarry 1 mile, 353 yards (1932m) Sapperton Long 1 mile, 100 yards (1701m) Sevenoaks 1 mile, 1693 yards (3157m) Severn 4 miles, 628 yards (7012m) Sough 1 mile, 255 yards (1843m) Standedge 3 miles, 64 yards (4887m) Stansted Airport 1 mile, 184 yards (1778m). Also known as Coopers Lane Strood 1 mile, 569 yards (2130m) Summit 1 mile, 1125 yards (2638m) Sutton 1 mile, 176 yards (1770m) Thames Tunnel 1 mile, 990 yards (2515m). Under construction Totley 3 miles, 950 yards (5697m) Watford Fast 1 mile, 55 yards (1660m) Watford Slow 1 mile, 230 yards (1820m) Wymington 1 mile, 110 yards (1710m). Freight only, also known as Sharnbrook

Railway tunnels
I've added (above) all railway tunnels greater than 1 mile, according to my own data, and put the distances on the article page for tunnels already listed. This may disagree slightly with distances quoted within the articles - I haven't checked these. I've done a bit of tidying, and tried to get a consistent presentaion, however this is crying out to be put in table format, if anyone has the knowledge and time to do this. Sadly at the moment I have neither!--Tivedshambo (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Change heading
If nobody objects i'm going to change the 'transport type' to just 'type', as some of the tunnels are used for telephone exchanges and air raid sheleters... Williams119 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists put into talk
The article is now flagged as incomplete. I was minded to make a new template saying "singularly incomplete". All the stuff above should be in the article or in a sandbox, not in this Talk. "history" suggests some of the lists have sat here for a considerable time.--SilasW (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate metric and imperial columns
If nobody objects, I propose separating put metric and imperial measures. The metric column will be sortable and will be strictly in metres, the imperial will be non-sortable and will have miles or miles and yards as appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup required
I've been making some changes to this page, but it raises some issues in my mind to make the page both accurate and useful. I will continue to update. I have a separate list of tunnels that I will compare. welsh (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to be definitive. I have found some gaps, but I suspect there are many more.
 * The fields need populating
 * County names are innaccurate, especially for Wales
 * Spliting into the constituent nations would aid navigation and checking
 * We need a way of dealing with tunnels which quite frequently have ends in different counties

Coords
I've been playing with coords on this article, as has Andy. Couple of questions: I decided to tag a London Heathrow tunnel with two coords, one for each portal. And then Norwood in Derbyshire with 3 coords. And I'm using small coords, AndyM is using normal sized (and has decided views on these things ;). What do we make of either of these things? If we have tunnels that are difficult to figure out from a centrepoint, should we use the two portals and maybe the centre point? Or does that make the page too lengthy? But then, couldn't we find three short lines of text to describe each tunnel? Is small an accessibility sin, and if so, why? Infoboxen seem to have smaller text in them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 * If we are going to have coordinates, then we need to use a small script - I don't thuink that anybody will actually read the coordinates, but they might well click on them. I agreee that the number of coordinates poses a problem, possible the mid-point between the portals (which is not neccessarily the midpoint of the tunnel - the Hindhead Tunnel for example follows a 60o arc. One could of course log the midpoint and either the approximate direction of the portals (N,S) or the direction of the tunnel in the range 0o to 180o. This would enable the user to find the portals using the midpoint info. Martinvl (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Revocations of 29 January 2013
I revoked User:Stevo1000's changes for the following reasons: Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * HS2 tunnel under Manchester - This is still WP:CRYSTAL - it needs to pass the public inquiry and a government bill needs to be passed before work can begin. I do not think that this tunnel should be included in this list until the government is committed to its construction.
 * Channel Tunnel - I have added a note stating that a significant part of the tunnel is actually in France. If we want to include numbers, then we should include the sections under the sea as well as the sections under land - which is what we do with the Severn Tunnel. BTW, is the Severn Tunnel in England or in Wales?
 * The Severn estuary is in Wales - England's side is just mudflats. Because the navigable channel, 'the Shoots', is close to the Welsh side, the tunnel is quite asymmetric. It has to go deep only just offshore from Sudbrook, Wales, but the English side is so shallow that it once broke through at wading depth. To maintain a reasonable railway gradient, the Welsh side thus needs a fair length of landward tunnel (and a substantial cutting) and even then it's much steeper heading that way than the other. As is infamously well-known, digging the landward tunnel caused (and still does) much more trouble than the underwater section did.
 * The tunnel does join England and Wales though, unlike the Severn Bridge (and the Severn Railway Bridge) which run (or ran) from England to England. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The point that I was making is that we include the whole length of the Severn Tunnel in the, we don't list the Welsh part under Gwent and the English part under Gloucestershire. Likewise, we should list the whole of teh Channel Tunnel, not just the part that is in UK territory (including territorial waters) and even less just the part that run under under English dry land.
 * Martinvl (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Mersey rail tunnels
The longest tunnel on the Merseyrail metro runs from Birkenhead Park under the river, through Liverpool's centre and south to Brunswick station. It must be between 5 to 6 miles long. The Victoria/Waterloo tunnel is over 2 miles long while the Wapping tunnel of 1829 is 1.25 miles long. The article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.105.195 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 * This needs to be in the article. 152.37.91.195 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Victoria/Waterloo Tunnels
These are one tunnel separated by an air shaft. Two separate names were given each side of the air shaft. I have made it into one tunnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.105.195 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tunnels in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012101727/http://www.towpath.org.uk/tunnel.htm to http://www.towpath.org.uk/tunnel.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318034456/http://www.northwales-tra.gov.uk/index.php?id=329&L=0 to http://www.northwales-tra.gov.uk/index.php?id=329&L=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tunnels in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820115052/http://www.barham-kent.org.uk/World%20War%20II.htm to http://www.barham-kent.org.uk/World%20War%20II.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of tunnels in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080610124107/http://www.cybertrn.demon.co.uk/guardian/ to http://www.cybertrn.demon.co.uk/guardian/
 * Added tag to http://www.localdetails.co.uk/yacs/articles/view.php/84/bypassing-baldock-the-a505
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221002843/http://www.arup.com/tunnels/project.cfm?pageid=5045 to http://www.arup.com/tunnels/project.cfm?pageid=5045
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620190526/http://www.chesterfield-canal-trust.org.uk/index.shtml to http://www.chesterfield-canal-trust.org.uk/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wye Valley Railway Tunnels
Suggest adding the following 2 railway tunnels mentioned in Wikipedia "Wye Valley Railway", but not listed.

Add to Gloucestershire: Tidenham Tunnel 1088m 1190yds Opened Nov 1876; closed to passenger traffic Jan 1959, freight Dec 1981  Reopened as cycleway and footpath Apr 2021 .

Add to Gloucestershire: Tintern Tunnel 166m 182yds Opened Nov 1876; closed to passenger traffic Jan 1959, freight Jan 1964. Portals now gated / bricked up.

86.138.41.184 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

❌ The first statement is cited to a charity, which is not a neutral source and therefore not a WP:RS. I suggest finding a better source like a news article or academic journal. The second statement does not have a citation, so it is not added. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

query about the criteria for inclusion
Given that some of the tunnels on this list are... not very long at all - and aren't worthy of articles of their own - what do people think of a minimum tunnel length of criteria for inclusion? I quite like following the info at the top of the page (0.1miles/160m), but I think I'd be okay with a minimum of 100m. (Obviously tunnels that are well referenced and verified enough for an article but are shorter than this length would remain in the list) What do people think? Turini2 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave it 2 months - removed any tunnels shorter than 100m that do not have a valid wikipedia page. Turini2 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Table heading
'County' as a heading is too ambiguous being less specific. Will change to better fitting location. 188.213.137.9 (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Following comments by @ Ehrenkater, I think that's a reasonable change. I would not be supportive of changing locations to exact places (e.g. Birkenhead) rather than general regions, counties etc (e.g. Merseyside). That detail would sit best in the individual article about the tunnel in question. Turini2 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Ideally, it would be informative to show the exact location in the table rather than just the county (especially in parts of the UK where the county has changed several times and there are principal areas, regions etc.) However I realise that

 * that would be quite a lot of work;
 * in some cases, there would be no obvious location to put in.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


text:
Sir John Acton, 6th Baronet

Sir John Francis Edward Acton, 6th Baronet (3 June 1736 – 12 August 1811) was a French-born English gentleman who served as Commander of the naval forces of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and later as Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Naples under Ferdinand IV. He served at Naples during the turbulent times when French Revolutionary fervour under Napoleon was sweeping across Europe and threatening to extinguish the monarchy he served.

Origins
John Acton was born on 3 June 1736 at Besançon in France, the son of Edward Acton, an English-born physician who had settled in that town, the great-grandson of Sir Walter Acton, 2nd Baronet (1623–1665) of Aldenham Park, Morville, in Shropshire, England. In 1791, aged 55, John succeeded his second cousin once removed as 6th Baronet.

Service in Tuscany
He served under his uncle in the navy of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. In 1773, while serving as Captain of the Tuscan frigate Austria, he destroyed several vessels in the Gulf of Tunis. While cruising off Tetouan he was informed that two Algerine xebecs and five Salé Rovers were about to enter the Mediterranean. On 14 October he observed off Cape Spartel, two vessels making for the straits; one hove to under the Cape, apparently awaiting her consort with whom she was exchanging signals, but a thick fog concealed her for three hours: when it cleared off she was nearly within gun-shot, the Salé flag flying, a signal up, and everything ready for action. Acton immediately ran her within half musket-shot and poured in a fire of all arms; she struck her colours and was taken after a feeble resistance without aid from her consort. She mounted 24 guns, and the remains of her crew, amounting to 80 prisoners, were sent to the Austria.

After securing this prize Acton gave chase to the second frigate and ran her ashore near Algiers, but in waiting for a favourable moment to complete his work another Salé frigate and two xebecs bore down on him. After a short chase the frigate was driven ashore by the Austria and destroyed with two broadsides. Acton then chased one xebec off the port of Larache and opened fire, but under cover of the batteries she got safely in. The second frigate was also of 24 guns, the xebecs of 23 and 16 guns each, but the second escaped while the other was engaged with Acton. He afterwards discovered that they formed one squadron, and had left Larache to capture the Austria, but not a single Tuscan seaman was killed or wounded throughout the campaign.

In 1775 he commanded the Tuscan frigates in the Spanish-Tuscan Invasion of Algiers along with Irish general Alejandro O'Reilly. Concerning the calamitous disembarkation in which the Spanish were drawn into a trap by the feigned retreat of the Algerines, the travel writer Henry Swinburne wrote that the Spaniards would have been "broken and slaughtered to a man ... had not Mr. Acton, the Tuscan commander, cut his cables and let his ships drive in to shore just as the enemy was coming on us full gallop. The incessant fire of his great guns, loaded with grape-shot, not only stop't them in their career but obliged them to retire with great loss."

Service in Naples
In 1779 Queen Maria Carolina of Naples persuaded her brother the Grand-Duke Leopold of Tuscany to allow Acton, who had been recommended to her by Prince Caramanico, to undertake the reorganisation of the Neapolitan navy. The ability displayed by him in this led to his rapid advancement. He became commander-in-chief of both the army and the navy of the Kingdom of Naples, minister of finance, and finally prime minister.

His policy, devised in concert with Sir William Hamilton, the English ambassador to Naples, aimed at removing Spanish influence from Naples and replacing it with that of Britain and Austria. The policy led to open opposition to France and the French party in Italy.

The Neapolitan fleet, which when Acton entered the service of Naples had been practically non-existent, he had built up by 1798 to 120 ships with 1,200 cannon, while the land forces had increased fourfold from 15 to 60 thousand. Unfortunately in no degree were the interests of Naples promoted by the vainglorious policy thus inaugurated, which speedily resulted in disaster. Although Acton had aimed to extend the commerce of the country by increasing the facilities of internal communication and restoring some of the principal ports, the increased taxation required to support the army and navy more than counter-balanced these efforts and caused acute distress and general discontent. The introduction of foreign officers into the services, which had aroused the resentment of the upper classes, was further augmented when the fleet was placed under the orders of the British Admiral Horatio Nelson.

Although Nelson and the British fleet had extinguished French naval power in the Mediterranean by his victory at the Battle of the Nile in August 1798, thereby saving the Kingdom of Naples from naval conquest by Revolutionary France, the French armies entered the north of Italy, where they met successes. In response in December 1798 the King and Queen, together with Acton, Hamilton (and his wife Lady Emma Hamilton), by order of Nelson were evacuated from Naples on board HMS Vanguard to the King's Sicilian capital of Palermo. Thereupon, freed of the royal presence, the Neapolitan citizens and nobles sympathetic to the ideals of the French Revolution promptly established the short-lived Parthenopean Republic, with the aid of the French. However the monarchy was restored in Naples five months later with the help of a Calabrian army, called the Sanfedisti, led by Cardinal Ruffo. To re-establish order and with the consent of the Queen and the help of Ruffo, Acton established at Naples the Junta of State, a reign of terror during which many prominent citizens were thrown into prison or executed.

In 1804 Acton was removed from power, on the demand of France, but nevertheless advised the king, who had agreed to an alliance with Napoleon, to permit British and Russian troops to land at Naples. Acton was granted a pension of 3000 ducats and was created Duke of Modica, which he later renounced. Shortly afterwards the minister was recalled, but when the French entered Naples in 1806, he together with the royal family again took refuge in Sicily.

A letter of 25 July 1809 reported that Acton had "returned a few days since from the baths of Termina, not in the least benefited by their waters. The painful effects of a paralytic stroke, and a severe fall last year, are now aggravated by a nearly total deprivation of sight."

Succession to baronetcy
In 1791, aged 55, he succeeded to the Acton baronetcy and estates on the death of his second cousin once removed, Sir Richard Acton, 5th Baronet of Aldenham Park in Shropshire.

Marriage and issue
On 2 February 1800, at the age of 63, he married his 13 year-old niece Mary Ann Acton, the eldest daughter of his younger brother General Joseph Edward Acton (1737-1830). The marriage appears to have been made for dynastic purposes to keep control of the family's wealth and required papal dispensation due to consanguinity. On hearing the news Nelson commented "it is never too late to do well" and following his arrival in Naples threw a party for the newlyweds aboard his flagship, the Foudroyant. "By raising the awning twenty feet, removing the guns, and robing the masts in silk, two spacious rooms were given, and these were most splendidly decorated; and when lighted up in the evening, really presented a fairy-like appearance, while the music that floated over the calm waters of this beautiful bay was softened. All the nobles of the court, with the exception of the king and queen, were there". The festivities were somewhat marred when a drunk English Lieutenant accidentally knocked an Italian princess into the water (on emerging she furiously demanded he be hanged from the foreyard arm).

By his wife he had three children:
 * Sir Ferdinand Richard Edward Dalberg-Acton, 7th Baronet (1801–1837), eldest son and heir, whose son was John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli.
 * Charles Januarius Edward Cardinal Acton (1803–1847)
 * Elizabeth Acton (1806–1850), who married Sir Robert Throckmorton, 8th Baronet, of Coughton Court, Warwickshire, and had issue.

Death, burial & monument
He died at Palermo on 12 August 1811, aged 75, and a "magnificent funeral was prepared for him; but during the procession, so tremendous a shower of rain came on, that the body remained abandoned in the street for a long time."

Acton was buried in the church of Santa Ninfa dei Crociferi, where survives his wall monument, displaying sculpted (all in relief) his bust within a laurel circlet and antique trophy of arms above a pedimented sarcophagus in the form of a double-bodied winged Sphinx, inscribed in Latin as follows:
 * DOM hic jacet Joannes Acton Angliae dynasta vere egenorum pater. Obiit pridie idus sextilis Anno Domini MDCCCXI aetatis suae LXXV ("To the greatest and best God. Here lies John Acton, from a dynasty of England, truly the father of the needy. He died on the first day of the Ides of the Sixth Month (i.e of the Roman year commencing in March, thus August) in the year of our Lord 1811, (in the year) of his age 75").

title: Sir John Acton, 6th Baronet


text:
West Coast

West Coast or west coast may refer to:

Australia

 * Western Australia
 * West Coast of South Australia
 * West Coast, Tasmania
 * West Coast Range, mountain range in the region

Canada

 * British Columbia Coast

China

 * Huangdao District, literally as West Coast New Area, also known as Qingdao West Coast
 * West Coast Economic Zone

Gambia

 * West Coast Division (Gambia)

Germany

 * West Coast, Germany

India

 * West Coast of India
 * Malabar coast, south-western India
 * Western Coastal Plains

Indonesia

 * West Coast Regency, Lampung

Isle of Man

 * West Coast Marine Nature Reserve

Malaysia

 * West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia
 * West Coast Division, Sabah, east Malaysia (on the island of Borneo)

New Zealand

 * West Coast Region, a region in the South Island

Singapore

 * West Coast, Singapore
 * West Region, Singapore

South Africa

 * West Coast District Municipality
 * West Coast, Western Cape

Sweden

 * Västkusten, the Swedish West Coast, located in Skagerrak and Kattegat and including all of the coast of the provinces of Västergötland, Halland and Bohuslän and part of Scania

United States

 * West Coast of the United States
 * Western United States (by extension of the above)

Education

 * West Coast Baptist College, in Lancaster, California
 * West Coast University, a health-care oriented university in California and Ontario
 * West Coast University (Panama)

Government

 * West Coast (New Zealand electorate), a former parliamentary electorate, 1972–1996
 * West Coast Council, a local government area of Tasmania, Australia

Music

 * West Coast (album), a 2006 album by Swedish electronic band Studio
 * "West Coast" (G-Eazy and Blueface song), 2019
 * "West Coast" (Lana Del Rey song), 2014
 * "West Coast" (OneRepublic song), 2022
 * "West Coast", a song by Coconut Records (musician)
 * "West Coast", a song by Crazy Town from their album The Brimstone Sluggers
 * "West Coast", a song by Imagine Dragons from their album Origins
 * "West Coast", a song by Ketty Lester, 1965
 * West Coast hip hop, a subgenre of hip hop

Transport

 * West Coast Air, a scheduled and charter airline based in Vancouver
 * West Coast Choppers, a company selling chopper-style motorcycles in Texas (originally based in California)
 * West Coast Customs, a car remodeling company in California

 * Rail
 * Florida West Coast Railroad, a railroad running from Newberry to Trenton
 * West Coast Railway (disambiguation)
 * West Coast (train), former passenger train from Los Angeles to Portland, Oregon
 * West Coast Express, a commuter railway in British Columbia
 * West Coast Main Line, one of the main rail corridors in the United Kingdom
 * Avanti West Coast, current operator of the West Coast Main Line
 * West Coast Railways, a British railway charter train operator based in Carnforth, Lancashire
 * Western Railway zone, operating in parts of western coastal India

Other

 * Qingdao West Coast F.C., a Chinese association football club
 * West Coast Eagles, an Australian rules football club, also known as West Coast
 * West Coast (horse), an American racehorse
 * West Coast (TV series), a Canadian variety show

title: West Coast


text:
List of tunnels in New Zealand

This is a link page for railway, road and waterway tunnels, including hydroelectric intakes and tailraces and gun battery tunnels. It includes artificial chambers but excludes New Zealand caves and New Zealand mines.

For hydroelectric usage

 * Manapouri Power Station – Machine hall 111 m long, 18 m wide, 34 m high, and road access tunnel 2040 m long, 6.7 m wide and high, with a semi-circular arch roof.
 * Manapouri Tailrace – 2 tunnels – original tailrace tunnel 9817 m long, 9.2 m diameter horseshoe section, commenced 1964, breakthrough 1968 drill-and-blast construction, 16 deaths. Second tailrace tunnel 9829 m long, 10.05 m diameter, circular section, commenced 1997, breakthrough 2001, commissioned April 2002, tunnel boring machine construction, 0 deaths.
 * Tongariro Power Scheme. The scheme includes numerous canals and ten tunnels, the longest of which – the 19.2 km Moawhango-Tongariro Tunnel – is the country's longest.

For Wastewater usage
Currently under construction for Watercare Services Ltd, est completion 2026
 * Central Interceptor Point Erin to Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant, Auckland

4.5 m diameter, length 16.2 km

two connecting link sewers of 2.1 & 2.3 m diameter, length 4.3 km

For military usage

 * North Head tunnels, Auckland
 * Whangaparaoa Navy Camp, two sets of tunnels, Auckland
 * Stony Batter, Waiheke Island, Auckland
 * Wrights Hill Fortress, Wellington
 * Cracroft Caverns – Chamber, Christchurch
 * Godley Head, Christchurch
 * Cashin Quay – Extensive network in midway hillside, Lyttelton
 * Taiaroa Head and Harington Point, Dunedin

For air raid shelters

 * Albert Park tunnels, Auckland – built to shelter civilians in the event of an air raid

Rail tunnels
From longest to shortest.
 * Longest bored tunnels
 * 1) Kaimai – 8879 m – opened 12 September 1978 – near Apata on the East Coast Main Trunk railway line to Tauranga, the longest rail tunnel in New Zealand.
 * 2) Rimutaka – 8798 m – opened 3 November 1955 – between Upper Hutt (Wellington) and Featherston (Wairarapa), replaced the Rimutaka Incline, a Fell mountain railway, the longest tunnel in New Zealand that carries regular passenger trains.
 * 3) Otira – 8566 m – opened 1923 – between Arthur's Pass and Otira, in the Southern Alps on the transalpine Midland line – continuous 1 in 33 grade – electrified until 1997.
 * 4) Tawa No 2 – 4324 m – opened 1935, goods on one line, 1937 all traffic – longest double-track tunnel in New Zealand. Between Ngauranga (Wellington) and Glenside (Tawa). With the Tawa No 1 Tunnel (1238 m), part of the Tawa Flat deviation.
 * 5) Tikiwhata – 2989 m – opened 1943, between Wairoa and Gisborne.
 * 6) Lyttelton – 2596 m – opened 9 December 1867, between Heathcote Valley (Christchurch) and Lyttelton.
 * 7) Turakina – 2091 m – opened 1947, between Marton and Whanganui.

 * Shortest bored tunnels
 * 1) A 39.83 m long tunnel – opened 1906, between Staircase and Avoca, Midland Line.
 * 2) A 42.05 m long tunnel – opened 1891, near Woodville, in the Manawatū Gorge – was daylighted in 2008.

 * Other rail tunnels
 * Purewa Tunnel, an 800m tunnel on the Eastern Line in Auckland
 * Poro-O-Tarao Tunnel an 1,272m tunnel on the North Island Main Trunk line in the King Country (replacing an 1880s tunnel)

 * Disused rail tunnels, North Island
 * On the Wairarapa Line before the opening of the Rimutaka Tunnel in 1955:
 * Cruickshanks – opened 1 January 1878, between Mangaroa and Upper Hutt.
 * Mangaroa – 152 m – opened 1 January 1878, at Tunnel Gully recreation area, Te Mārua, Upper Hutt. Now a walkway.
 * Summit – 584 m, and three shorter tunnels (Pakuratahi, Siberia, Prices) :opened 12 October 1878 on the Rimutaka Incline. On the Rimutaka Rail Trail.
 * Okaihau – on the never-opened extension of the Okaihau Branch to Rangiahua, unused but can be walked through – easily spotted from SH1 passing Okaihau township. This tunnel is part of the Opua to Horeke Cycleway
 * Parnell Tunnel – single track, on the Newmarket Line, adjacent to the current double-track tunnel. Closed, with no public access.
 * Karangahake – 1100 m, in the Karangahake Gorge, on the former East Coast Main Trunk, closed in 1978. Now a combined walkway and cycle path (part of the Hauraki Rail Trail).
 * No.8 tunnel bypassed in 1985 by the Mangaonoho Deviation of the North Island Main Trunk. (The first seven tunnel numbers are from the Johnsonville Branch, the former NIMT line.)
 * No.19 tunnel daylighted in 1972, on the section of line bypassed in 1985 by the Mangaonoho Deviation of the North Island Main Trunk.
 * No.9 tunnel opened out (day-lighted) at the west end of the Makohine Viaduct in 1984, on the North Island Main Trunk.
 * No.10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, 10F tunnels bypassed in 1981 by the Mangaweka Deviation of the North Island Main Trunk. All are on private land.
 * No.11 tunnel south of Taihape bypassed in 1985 by a deviation of the North Island Main Trunk.
 * No.12 (Hedgehog) tunnel north of Taihape bypassed in 1985 by a deviation of the North Island Main Trunk. Adjacent to State Highway 1. Tunnel no longer exists after a realignment of SH1.
 * No.15 tunnel bypassed in 1987 by the Ohakune-Horopito deviation of the North Island Main Trunk. Accessible from one end only. (A total of 12 tunnels have been removed from the NIMT from Mangaonoho to Ohakune. The total length of these removed tunnels is 2,612 metres.)
 * Poro-O-Tarao Tunnel – 1071 m, replaced by new tunnel on a deviation in 1980.
 * Four tunnels on the closed Moutohora Branch, lengths (Nos 1 to 4); 185m, 258m, 45m, 90m. One tunnel is accessible on a public walkway, the others can be viewed from public roads.
 * Historically one or more tunnels may have been built on the closed Ngatapa Branch but no trace exists today.
 * No 24 tunnel on the Palmerston North – Gisborne line – 123 m long (collapsed).
 * No 12 tunnel – 27m, on the Wellington & Manawatu Railway (now Kapiti section of NIMT) between Paekākāriki and Paraparaumu – abandoned in 1900.
 * No. 3, 4 and 5 tunnels on the Palmerston North Gisborne line were daylighted in 2007.
 * No.4 (Kai Iwi) tunnel on the Marton New Plymouth Line was bypassed in 2008.

 * Disused rail tunnels, South Island
 * Hunts Road – former Catlins River Branch, 221 m long. Public walkway access. This was the southernmost tunnel in New Zealand.
 * Glenham Branch, 301 m long. Possible public access. The second most southerly tunnel.
 * Spooners Range Tunnel – 1352 m long, on the closed Nelson Section. Accessible by public walkway, this is the longest disused rail tunnel in New Zealand.
 * Kawatiri Tunnel – 185 m long, also on the closed Nelson Section. Accessible by public walkway.
 * No 4 Tunnel – south of Oaro township on the Main North Line. Access on foot south of township via a railway bridge.
 * Chasm Creek – former Seddonville Branch. Accessible by public walkway.
 * Charming Creek – former private coal railway. Accessible by public walkway.
 * Former coal tramways at Stockton and Denniston. Public access.
 * Cape Foulwind – former quarry line. Public access but tunnel has largely collapsed.
 * Rewanui Incline – two short tunnels now used by access road.
 * Puketeraki – 157 m long. Line deviated around in a cutting. Partly collapsed and ends have been fenced over. Abandoned about 1936
 * Roseneath, Dunedin – 101 m long, line deviated through new tunnel. Status unknown. Appears to have been filled in at entrances.
 * Caversham, Tunnel History Dunedin – 865 m long, line deviated through new double-track tunnel. Public access to both ends but it is quite muddy. The access down the steps between intersections with Ensor Street and Townleys Road has been fenced off, but easy to get under, on the opposite side of the road to the Caversham entrance of the current tunnel. The old tunnel has been suggested as a possible cycle route linking central Dunedin with its western suburbs.
 * Chain Hills (Wingatui) – 462 m long, line deviated through new double-track tunnel.Tunnel Images Tunnel gated shut both ends and on private land.
 * Three tunnels on the Otago Central Rail Trail (former Otago Central Railway), ranging in length from 152 to 229 m. All have public access.
 * Three tunnels on the former Roxburgh Branch ranging from 226 to 443 m. Tunnel No 1 is in public reserve, appears to be no access to others.
 * Rakis and Tapui Tunnels on the former Tokarahi Branch. Can be seen from roads, on private land.
 * Conical Hill – 71 m long, on the former Tapanui Branch. Public access through walkway.
 * Tunnel Hill Historic Reserve – between Balclutha to Owaka, 200 m long, public access through walkway.
 * No.22 Tunnel on the Main North Line. Daylighted in 1981.
 * No.23 Tunnel on the Main North Line. Daylighted in 1979.

Road tunnels

 * On State Highways
 * Arras Tunnel – on SH 1 underneath the Pukeahu National War Memorial Park in Te Aro, Wellington, three lanes northbound. Opened 29 September 2014. The tunnel is named after the town of Arras in France, under which the New Zealand Tunnelling Company dug tunnels during the First World War.
 * Awakino Gorge Tunnel – on SH 3 between New Plymouth and Te Kūiti. Single lane. This tunnel was permanently closed in mid-2021, and has been bypassed by two bridges across a corner of the Awakino River, on the other side of the river to the tunnel.
 * Homer Tunnel – on SH 94 between Hollyford Valley and Milford Sound, Fiordland, 1200 m long. Completed 1953, opened 1954, Mean altitude 945 m. Unlined rock.
 * Johnstone's Hill Tunnels – twin tunnels on SH 1 Auckland Northern Motorway extension (Toll) near Puhoi, 340 m long. Opened 25 January 2009.
 * Lyttelton road tunnel – on SH 74 under the Port Hills between Lyttelton and the Heathcote Valley in Christchurch, 1900 m long. Opened 1964.
 * Moki Tunnel – on SH 43 between Whangamōmona and Taumarunui, approx 200 m long. Single lane, uses wooden shoring.
 * Mount Messenger Tunnel – on SH 3 between New Plymouth and Te Kūiti. This section of State Highway 3 will be bypassed by about 5 km of new highway alignment that will include a short tunnel, east of the present tunnel. NZTA 2017
 * Mount Victoria Tunnel – on SH 1 under Mount Victoria, 623 m long, opened 1931.
 * Paratitahi Tunnels – twin tunnels on SH 1, 11 km south of Kaikōura.
 * Raramai Tunnels – twin tunnels on SH 1, 14 km south of Kaikōura.
 * Terrace Motorway Tunnel – on SH 1 under The Terrace, Wellington, 460 m long. Opened 1978, three lanes (two northbound, one southbound),
 * Victoria Park Tunnel – on SH 1 in central Auckland, 440m long, 3 lanes of northbound traffic (none southbound). Opened 14 November 2011. The positioning of the tunnel allows a southbound tunnel to be built in the future (project yet to receive construction funding).
 * Waterview Tunnel – on SH20 from Mt Roskill to Point Chevalier in central Auckland. At 2,400m it is the longest road tunnel in New Zealand. It opened on 2 July 2017 as part of the Waterview Connection, carrying three lanes of northbound and southbound traffic as part of Auckland's Western Ring Route.
 * On other roads
 * Okaihau, a short tunnel north of Okaihau constructed for the Okaihau Branch railway, which is now part of the Opua to Horeke Cycleway.
 * Huntly, a short tunnel just outside of Huntley on Rotowaro Road constructed under a mine-site road.

In rural Taranaki, all single lane: There are 3 other tunnels on tracks in the Taranaki area; Aukopae (closed), Graylings cattle tunnel, Waikawau beach tunnel.
 * Huinga Tunnel, near the village of the same name, provides access to an isolated valley.
 * Kiwi Road Tunnels: the eastern one on Kiwi Road, the western on Moki Road, near Uruti Road.
 * Makahu Tunnel on Brewer Road, providing access to the small village of Makahu (white hawk).
 * Matau Tunnel on Mangaoapa Road, connecting Matau and Douglas via Kiore.
 * Moki Stock Tunnel, hidden away in the bush to the east of the Kiwi Tunnels.
 * Okau Tunnel, approximately 100 m long, on the Tongaporutu-Ōhura road 4 km from SH 3, which is unusual in that it abuts directly to a bridge.
 * Tangahoe Tunnel in South Taranaki – was re-opened in 1997.
 * Tarata Tunnel on Otaraoa Road, about 30 m long, built as the hill above was unstable.
 * Te Horo Stock Tunnel, near the Whitecliffs Walkway
 * Uruti Tunnel on Uruti Road, connecting the Pehu Valley with SH 3. It is both the longest (at about 200 m) and least stable tunnel in Taranaki. It took seven years to construct and opened in 1923.  Signs at each end recommend not walking through it and stopping is prohibited.  It looks like a mine shaft with its inverted V-shaped top, has a wooden ceiling, and reinforcing planks along its walls.
 * Whangamōmona Road Tunnels, two short tunnels, 4WD only
 * Fraser Smith Road Tunnel. Short tunnel on gravel road near Awakino. Not to be confused with the Awakino Tunnel on State Highway 3. Provides access to nearby farms.

In Wellington:
 * Hataitai bus tunnel – 388 m long, single lane – under Mount Victoria; opened 1907 as a tram tunnel.
 * Karori Tunnel – 74 m long – between Kelburn and Karori; opened 1900.
 * Moa Point Tunnel – under the safety zone at the south end of Wellington International Airport's runway.
 * Northland Tunnel – 90 m long – between Northland and Karori, opened 1927.
 * Seatoun tunnel – 144 m long – between Strathmore and Seatoun, opened 1907.

Road

 * Kaimai road tunnel – A tunnel through the Kaimai Range in order to provide a better roading connection between the Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions has been proposed. One option for this tunnel includes building it near the existing Kaimai Rail Tunnel.
 * Wainuiomata Tunnel, part of a proposed road link between the Hutt Valley, north of Wellington, and Wainuiomata. Eventually completed as a utility tunnel.

Rail

 * Auckland City Rail Link, Auckland. These are paired 3.5 km rail tunnels under construction beneath the Auckland CBD between Britomart and Mt Eden. Construction began in 2016 and is scheduled to be completed in 2025.

Mixed Use

 * Second Harbour Crossing in Auckland, likely to be a tunnel option that could incorporate the Victoria Park Tunnel. While historically a road tunnel was seen as a priority, the present plans are likely to prioritise rail first due to capacity issues of the Northern Busway.

title: List of tunnels in New Zealand


text: Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation


text:
Talk:Play (theatre)

Script redirection?
I don't see why script doesn't get its own page. A script is a bit more than just the performed play. A quick search finds that Screenplays don't redirect to Movie. 66.119.27.235 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Playing vs. Play
A search of the word "play" takes the user to this page rather than the Disambiguation page. This should be corrected. soverman 15:52 23 Aug 2005

Hmmm, I could well see another article on children's play happening. Abkmdkmsfk cjnxjvnfjnvjfdjvnkndkuirtugufdnvmxnmvnutunvnnnbblah blah blah ny suggestions for a title for such an article? -Robert Merkel

 * I think that information might be under "Games" unless someone has research on play as a developmental science, in which case I think it ought to be right here. It might be better for "play" as a work of drama to be moved into the body of "theatre" in any case, with a notation here. BarkingDoc

ahh, did not see there was a discussion. I added a starter entry on play in the sense of 'to play' or 'playing'. In this context games are a sub-type of play so it should have conceptual primacy, which defintion is prime i guess depends on which disciplin one comes from, i left the drama one at the top simply as it was first and added the music heading simply to generate the TOC which seemed to make things easier.

I made some changes as well. I added examples of comedies, historicals, and etc. I didn't cite these sources because the information is common knowledge (this is also why I did not add hyperlinks). According to Wikipedia's policies and terms of use I have fulfilled all my criteria's as an offline editor.

Play already has Play (disambiguation). play should be an article about a single sense of play. I welcome someone to be bold, but otherwise, I will. -Acjelen

- please note there is now an article play (activity) which should satisfy. Fififolle (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive been BOLD and made the primary reference for the word Play now go to Play (disambiguation)! I think that helps everyone's referencing. This page now exists under Play (theatre) which also makes it more specifically referencable. I also tidied the intro to the Play disambiguation page to be more encompassing of both main types of play. --Evolve2k (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

wow
The way this very important article dealing with a very basic concept is structured is totally unacceptable! I don't know about others, but for me, as a writer, actor and performance artist myself, and regular contributor to wikipedia, this insults me. We need desperately to work on this! Kiko 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I defenitely think the same as kiko this article is totally unacceptable you need to rewrite it is an insult for theater experts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.168.249 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: I am moving this comment by 189.141.168.249 from Talk:Play/to do so that it is not transcluded in the to-do list at the top of this page. -- Black Falcon 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I just went through the history. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be an unquestionably better version to revert back to.  WP:AID perhaps?  Jkelly 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, Britannica has us beat on this one. They have 8,193 words. Captain Zyrain 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Offline edit
How long is this article being edited offline? The tag has been in place for at least a week, and I don't see any major edits (if there are any edits at all). Anthony Rupert 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Scope and Plan ?
I am curious about the intended scope of and plan for this article. The genres section seems misguided and redundant. See the far more developed List of "types" on the theatre article.

My suggestion is that this article deal more intimately with the written/published work. Specifically the history section should deal with the rise of printed plays as a commodity and the development of intellectual property licensing. The Samuel French article has some information. (here's another source).

Maybe I'm way off base here, but if anyone has any insight comparing and contrasting this article with Theatre, History of theatre, Playwright etc. I'd feel better about going forward. Thanks! ._- zro tc 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Architecture?
I believe that the large text beginning with "As a process, architecture is the activity..." was inserted by mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.187.94 (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing keywords

 * Act, scene ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Being WP:Bold redirected to Theatre. See Talk:Theatre
Being WP:Bold redirected to Theatre. See Talk:Theatre so that we can reach a WP:Consenssu (though I half expect my edit to be reverted before rather that after a consensus). --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention
I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
— Assignment last updated by DanielleMargarite (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Play (theatre)