text:
Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders

Welcome to Wikipedia, noder! Like Everything2, Wikipedia is a collaborative online project. However, there are major differences between the two, so this guide has been put together to help you. Our general Help and FAQ pages are also at your disposal.

First, you may want to look at an E2 writeup about Wikipedia and a Wikipedia article about E2.

Cultural differences
Wikipedia is entirely focused on making an encyclopedia. Unlike E2, there's not a lot of unrelated socializing; almost all of Wikipedia's chat is about improving specific articles or the project as a whole. Wikipedia doesn't have song lyrics, poetry, or fiction either; it's not a primary-source repository. (But see Wikisource for published sources.)

Anyone can edit any article here. Everybody's a Content Editor. Your contributions will be edited, rearranged, re-worded and expanded, and you shouldn't be shy about doing the same to other people's work. Be bold in updating pages!

Wikipedia is self-moderated and relatively anarchic, rather than having moderation imposed upon it. See Power structure for details. Most Wikipedians try to avoid personal attacks and to spread WikiLove wherever they go :-). If you say something you regret, just apologize and delete it. If someone offends you, we have some advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

We don't have a voting system or experience measure—be assured that Wikipedia is more than addictive enough without it.

The relative advantages of E2 and Wikipedia are summarized in an exchange on E2's Editor Logs. In December 2003, (former) E2 editor gn0sis cited reasons for "Why I'm Moving To Wikipedia". In response, Lucy-S defended the virtues of E2.

Moving content from E2 to Wikipedia
Please copy your good encyclopedic content from E2 to Wikipedia! Don't forget to search for related Wikipedia content first—like E2, Wikipedia has full-text search, and if Wikipedia already has an article on the subject, just merge your own content into it: be bold!

Legal issues
You can move any of your own E2 writeups to Wikipedia. Mention on the Wikipedia article's talk page (click "Discuss this page") that you originally wrote the material for E2 and link to your E2 homenode (like this: yerricde ), so that nobody thinks you're committing plagiarism. You can even do this if your node has been improved by an E2 content editor. For other noders' writeups, you will need the permission of all major contributors (see Copyright).

Any contributions you make to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License. However, you retain the copyright to your own work and are free to modify and redistribute it in any way you wish.

Changes to make
Content needs to be converted from E2 markup to wiki markup. For the most part, wiki markup resembles that of E2's auto-formatting tool, but there are a few differences. Generally it's easiest to copy and paste the text and add markup rather than copying the E2 markup. Wikipedia titles are generally shorter, so phrases like "how to" should be removed, and most titles should only have lower-case letters. See the naming conventions for all the details.

Wikipedia also has some technical features that E2 lacks. For instance, Wikipedia allows links to external web pages. Because you can upload image files, you do not need to convert images to ASCII art. You don't need to use  markup to generate tables; you can use standard HTML   markup instead, as well as Wikipedia's concise table markup. Though you can use HTML entity escapes for '[', ']', '<', and '>', you don't need to; Wikipedia has the tag to suppress interpretation of control characters as markup. In fact, Wikipedia has tags that can be used to enclose a fragment of a computer program.

Wikipedia has a different manual of style from E2. However, if your article doesn't match that style, someone will change it so it does, so don't worry too much. It's easy to link something by putting it in square brackets, and pipe links work here too, but remember that two pairs of brackets surround a link in Wikipedia. Don't forget to add links from other articles to yours, where it's appropriate; Wikipedia has no "soft link" functionality. On the other hand, E2 articles tend to be somewhat more heavily linked, and E2 noders often put links around phrases to emphasize them. This is uncommon here: links should be only created around words and phrases where encyclopedic articles exist or can realistically be written. Wikipedia articles usually try to cover a subject in depth instead of concentrating on a single aspect thereof. What may be a perfectly acceptable write-up on E2 may well be a stub on Wikipedia that can only be fixed by merging it into a larger article.

On E2, noders will often quote from private messages sent by other noders in response to a writeup. On Wikipedia we try to quote opinions from people who are influential, or have some special expertise, and the best people for that generally won't be Wikipedians. We have a policy called the neutral point of view (NPOV). It is similar to E2's deprecation of "getting to know you" nodes, subjective list nodes, and bullshit (called patent nonsense here), but there are subtle differences in the two policies. Wikipedia's policy is stronger; when expressing opinions (such as in Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act), we turn them into facts by stating that a group holds such opinions. Similarly, an article should at any time look like an encyclopedia text, even if it is only a very short one. Comments should be put on discussion pages, or if absolutely necessary, within the text, enclosed as HTML comments. It may take you a little time to get used to the Wikipedia approach, but don't worry too much about it.

Anyone can fix your mistakes while you're getting the hang of things. But always keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—if you want to keep an online diary or write down your personal opinions, E2 and other wikis are probably a better place. Of course, we would like to encourage you to post encyclopedic material here, and non-encyclopedic material elsewhere.

Some E2 users don't like long writeups and show their displeasure. On Wikipedia, we tend to aim for larger articles, on average, though we still have many stubs. See Page size for some rough guidelines.

Moving content from Wikipedia to E2
Moving articles from Wikipedia to E2 is very easy. All you have to do is reformat the content appropriately (E2's text formatter makes it easy) and follow the GNU Free Documentation License. Damian Yerrick (yerricde on E2) has provided an example of how to do this in his writeup in bullshit, which was derived from Wikipedia's article on bullshit.

Whatever Wikipedia's policies for disseminating its content may be, E2 discourages the posting of material not substantially authored by the user posting it (regardless of the impression that a perusal of some of E2's older content may give). E2 does not have formal policy, but one popular view holds that a writeup without attribution to another source carries an implicit claim that the user who posted the writeup is its author. The fact that Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively makes their posting on E2 problematical.

At some point in the past, a few users created the everyone E2 account to upload content without taking personal credit for it. The everyone account still exists on E2 and may occasionally be useful for adding Wikipedia content, especially if it is content you are not substantially responsible for. For access to the everyone account, contact dann''.

The user who wishes to move Wikipedia content to E2 has three other alternatives:

1. Some E2 usergroups have control of anonymous accounts for the posting of general interest writeups. If you are an E2 user who is a member of such a usergroup, you may be able to convince the group to allow you to copy Wikipedia material to that account.

2. With editorial permission, post the content under your own name.

3. Create a new account and post a clear claim on its homenode that it is used to post content not authored by its owner. Do not use this account to node your own material or to influence the E2 database by voting or using other features that one gains as one rises in level.

Whatever you do, you must attribute the material to Wikipedia, and link to the GNU Free Documentation License as well. An italicized paragraph at the top stating  This article/writeup is released under the [GNU Free Documentation License], and is a verbatim copy/modified version of an article from [Wikipedia] at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_name as of mm/dd/yyyy, as allowed by that license  should satisfy E2 policy on the matter. (Don't accept this as authoritative until I get concurrence from dem bones - Casu Marzu)

Final words
We hope you find working on Wikipedia to be fun and rewarding. If you have questions that you can't find the answers to, drop by the village pump and ask away. Chances are a friendly Wikipedian or three will have some answers for you.

This article was originally based on an analogous guide for h2g2 Researchers.

title: Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders


text:
Alan Civil

Alan Civil OBE (13 June 1929 – 19 March 1989) was a British horn player.

Civil began to play the horn at a young age, and joined the famous Royal Artillery Band and Orchestra at Woolwich, while still in his teens. He studied the instrument under Aubrey Brain, father of Dennis Brain in 1943, and later with Willy von Stemm in Hamburg.

Civil was engaged by Thomas Beecham to play second horn to Dennis Brain in the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, and when Brain left for the Philharmonia, Civil took over leadership of the section. In 1955, Civil joined the Philharmonia himself, becoming principal horn player when Brain died in a car crash in 1957.

In the 1960s, Civil became the first non-German to be approached by the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra to become a member. Civil stuck with the Philharmonia however, who were reshaping themselves into the New Philharmonia. In 1966 he became principal horn of the BBC Symphony Orchestra, remaining there until his retirement in 1988.

As a soloist, Civil recorded the horn concertos of Mozart (with the Philharmonia, under Otto Klemperer, 1960), and his recording of Benjamin Britten's Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings with Robert Tear is also quite well known. He also played chamber music in the Alan Civil Horn Trio.

As well as his work in classical music, Civil played the horn solo on The Beatles' song "For No One" from the album Revolver and was one of only five session musicians to get a named credit on a Beatles recording. Civil was also part of the orchestra crescendo in the song "A Day in the Life" from the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Civil taught at the Royal College of Music. Among his pupils is Timothy Brown. He was appointed President of the British Horn Society in 1979, and was awarded an OBE in 1985.

Civil died of liver and kidney failure on 19 March 1989 at King's College Hospital in London. He was 59 years old.

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

title: Alan Civil


text:
Marvin (comic strip)

Marvin, later called Marvin & Family (and Marvin and Staff on Sundays in October 2020), is a daily newspaper comic strip created by cartoonist Tom Armstrong and distributed in the U.S. by Hearst's King Features Syndicate. Debuting in 1982, it revolves around the life and times of a young baby boy named Marvin, along with his parents, Jeff and Jenny Miller, and their dog Bitsy. In 1989, CBS aired a special, "Marvin, Baby of the Year."

Publication history
Cartoonist Tom Armstrong debuted the seven-days-weekly comic strip Marvin on Sunday, August 1, 1982. Originally distributed by North America Syndicate, it later went through Hearst's King Features Syndicate. (There was an earlier strip named Marvin, which was created by Pat Moran and syndicated in 1973.) The strip revolves around the life and times of a young baby boy named Marvin, along with his parents, Jeff and Jenny Miller, and their dog Bitsy.

On March 10, 1989, CBS aired a half-hour animated special, Marvin, Baby of the Year. It has never been released on home video.

The location is not explicitly defined. In 2012, in honor of the strip's 30th anniversary, it spoofed Back to the Future where baby Marvin meets himself as a full-grown man. The 30-something Marvin tells his baby self what awaits for him.

A few flashback episodes showed Marvin as an unborn fetus, in imitation of Eggbert, a strip by LAF.

Recurring characters
Other major characters include Megan, Marvin's cousin; Janet, who is Megan's mother and Jenny's sister; Ming Ming, Janet's adopted daughter from China; Bea and Roy, Marvin's maternal grandparents; and Doris, Marvin's paternal grandmother. Megan's father has not been seen (the strip indicates Megan's parents are divorced). Minor characters have included Bea and Roy's toy schnauzer named Junior; Roy's friend Bernie; and Marvin's friends Jordan, Warren (who is a genius,  with a 174 IQ ), Kyle, Gerald and Will, a child prodigy who spelled "prodigy" at five months. Jeff has a macho friend, Ted who in June 2024 dated Janet. Jordan has a girlfriend Shillina. Marvin's goldfish are Finn and Gill. As of 2022 Jordan has a baby sister Lici. Marvin's paternal grandfather has a cat named Clawfull. As of 2024 Marvin has a classmate named Wayne Johnson who can lift heavy things.

Prior to 2013 the strip's name was simply Marvin.

Continuity
Continuity is similar to that of Garfield in that milestone events affect future storylines but dramatic events occurring in one day's strip may be ignored in the next: in the strip that ran on October 4, 1982, Marvin shaves his head with his father's electric razor, but the next day his hair is back to normal. The strip's characters age irregularly, as is common in comics and other media (see soap opera rapid aging syndrome). Marvin is identified as less than 1 year old in the December 16, 1999 strip, where he states it is his first Christmas, but in later strips  he states he is two years old. He learned to walk all at once on July 16, 2003.

In earlier strips, the baby characters did not speak, save for occasional crying, but were capable of understanding each other telepathically, an ability seemingly lost by adulthood. Animals shared this power to communicate without spoken words, communicating both with each other and with the babies.

Early strips often featured puns; in later strips, much of the humor comes from the babies' limited understanding of the world around them. For example, Marvin wonders about an approaching winter by thinking to himself "Why is now the time when people put their clothes on..." then looking out the window at a tree with shedding leaves "...And trees take theirs off".

Suspension of disbelief
Events in Marvin are portrayed as real, no matter how fantastic; there is never a story in which a baby's dramatic experiences are shown in the end to be ordinary happenings when seen by an adult's wiser eyes. These storyline elements include the frequent appearance of Santa Claus around Christmastime along with in-universe parallels of contemporary happenings; for example, one baby made hundreds of millions of dollars operating a website called cryspace around the time that MySpace was most popular among readers of the strip, and his fortune generates plot elements in later strips.

Fourth-wall breaking
A few story arcs involve fourth wall breaking, such as appearances by other King Features Syndicate characters, and even those from other strips such as Garfield. On June 24, 2016, Marvin and his best friend Jordan are shown reading Marvin's personal blog, and followers of that blog share the names of some of the then-active commenters on the Marvin comic's website.

Milestone events
Some events in the history of the strip are reflected permanently in the future strips.

Bea and Roy Arnold lost their retirement savings in the 2008 recession and had to move in with Jeff and Jenny; Janet did not have enough room. As of 2021 the grandparents are no longer living with the family.

In 2010, the Millers got new neighbors, the Purfects, who are so perfect they make the Millers feel inadequate. Rodney Purfect has a PhD and is a company president, has won the Heisman Trophy and climbed Mount Kilimanjaro. He is six feet five inches tall and very manly. Barbie Purfect is a blonde housewife who attended cooking school in Paris, was a cheerleader, class president and sorority president. Rodney Purfect II is two and a half years old but reads at a third grade level, performed his piano composition for Queen Elizabeth II and was potty trained at 6 months. He also has blond hair.

In 2005, Marvin guest starred in the comic strip Blondie for its 75th anniversary.

In 2019, Jeff's mother was kicked out of her retirement home and moved in with the family.

title: Marvin (comic strip)


text:
Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)

Lead
I don't believe this lead is very good (its waffling has annoyed me for a while) so I'm just going to list why I made these changes and maybe we can find some compromise Second paragraph Third paragraph' Fourth paragraph ilil (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First paragraph, per MOS:BEGIN, should introduce and summarize the most important points of an album's notability. This means a brief explanation of critical/commercial reaction and historical significance. Revolver is not notable simply for having "diverse sounds" and for those three arbitrarily-chosen tracks. I also don't understand how it's never mentioned in the lead that Revolver is one of the most acclaimed works in popular music.
 * Removed "and the increasing sophistication of the Beatles' lyrics to address themes including" simply because it's a jumbled phrase, and we don't need to repeatedly state "the Beatles are improving as artists" anyway.
 * Added a mention of Emerick and Martin as part of the album's key production staff since the album's production and engineering is integral to its historical significance.
 * Removed "particularly ADT" because I couldn't find a source in the article that states ADT is more prevalent than close audio miking. Not only is it a questionable claim anyway, it's not much of a valuable point to measure the ubiquity of these practices against each other, they're obviously all very common techniques now.
 * Changed "varispeeding" to "varispeed" because I'm not sure "varispeeding" is a real word.
 * Revised "Together with the children's novelty song "Yellow Submarine", "Eleanor Rigby" became an international hit when issued as a double A-side single." because the syntax is just poor.
 * Considering the lead is already pushing its length, I don't believe it's crucial to note that the album was the last Beatles album to have a modified track listing in the US. It's enough to simply state that it was modified; the only point that matters is that American and British audiences initially got different versions of the album. Likewise, it's doubtful that the 1987 CD issue was as earth-shattering to listeners as suggested by a handful of critics. It's not like Americans were hearing those three tracks for the first time.
 * Swapped out "compositional form" with "production techniques" because there is no discussion of Revolver's innovations in compositional form.
 * Removed "surpassing Sgt. Pepper's" because it's redundant; we just finished saying that critics recognize Revolver as the best Beatles album, yes, of course that includes Sgt. Pepper.
 * Condensed the details about certifications because why does it matter that BPI certified the album platinum in 2013, and really, why does this part of the lead need to be almost 40 words long when it's easily summarized in 14?

 * Well, I hope you apply the same level of discernment regarding points being overstated and concerns over length to lead sections such as Pet Sounds.
 * If anything's overstated or repetitious, of course it should be fixed. Leads are very tricky, and part of the problem relates to that first issue – how the opening paragraph should introduce and summarise the most important points of an album's notability. Personally, I don't agree that giving UK and US chart peaks there is a must. It's something I'd expect to read about after an overview of the album's content and recording.
 * To dismiss the significance of the international standardisation with an assumption that Americans knew the tracks anyway completely misses the point that for over twenty years, American listeners viewed them in the context of Yesterday and Today. As no end of sources state, each Beatles album was a key event in listeners' lives; in their minds, each song was welded to the tracks around it. The 1987 CDs demanded a recalibration in the way the band's contemporary US audience heard albums like Revolver. That point was underplayed in the main text, admittedly, and I've since added more from Riley and Everett. But, you know, if you're going to work on what you consider "doubtful", it would help if you had some knowledge in depth. I rarely find you do when it comes to non-Beach Boys music articles, so the more you push your understanding of a subject, the more it reveals a basic lack of competence. JG66 (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Here, There, and Everywhere
As a musician, I don't buy the claim that the opening of this song changes time signatures from 9/8, 7/8, to 4/4. The phrase is clearly just a free time musical introduction. It's silly to try to count this out in the manner the author presents. In fact, I can find nothing, anywhere, to corroborate this piece of misinformation.

Jaco66 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 * The "9/8 to 7/8 to common time" changes are supported by the source (Kenneth Womack), but then the rest of the sentence is sourced to Walter Everett, who's eminently more qualified and refers to the opening portion as a "tonally mysterious and tempo-free introduction", with no mention of time signatures. (As far as I'm concerned, it's only the brief landing on 7/8 that in any way registers.) I'll check in a couple of others sources, but if no one else identifies the 9/8 bit, particularly, I guess we can remove and go with the free-time description. JG66 (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Background Section: Paul McCartney and LSD.
Paul's own statement in his semi-autobiography Many Years From Now, that he first took LSD in 1966 with Tara Browne, and George's Anthology statement that the others had been trying to make Paul take it for about eighteen months, seem to support the idea that Paul was the only Beatles member not having taken the drug during the recording of Revolver.

The BeatlesBible's History entry for 13 December 1965 tells a different story, however, with people present at the Browne residence, such as wife Nicky and Viv Prince as sources: <>

If Paul first took LSD eighteen months after John and George, it would have been weeks or just days before Tara Browne's death[18 December 1966], which itself would have been noteworthy. And Paul doesn't go into much detail about his feelings towards Tara's death, which at least suggests they didn't spend much time together during Tara's last few months. Paul's moped accident in Liverpool on 26 December 1965 was also in the company of Tara.

It took a further 15 months before Paul took LSD with any of the other Beatles, nearly two years after John and George were spiked by their dentist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.22.129 (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Back in 2016 when I was working the article up for its GA nomination, I was intrigued about this issue. Steve Turner's Beatles '66 came out towards the end of that process (from memory), and his statements about the date of McCartney's first LSD experience were contrary to every other reliable source I'd come across discussing, variously, Revolver, the Beatles' drug use and other sources of inspiration, and their career and private lives generally over this period. So it was difficult to know what to do. I mean, within this sea of literature – dozens of sources, easily, perhaps a hundred – Turner's contention barely registers as a blip with regard to WP:DUE.
 * As Turner acknowledges, his conversation with Viv Prince contradicts what McCartney himself said to Barry Miles for the authorised biography/McCartney autobiography Many Years from Now. But it goes wider than that – it contradicts everything McCartney has ever said about succumbing to peer pressure and first trying LSD, and it contradicts Miles' writings elsewhere, when recalling a period in which he seems to have been a near-constant companion to McCartney. In the 2006 Mojo piece used as a source in this article, for instance ("Revolver: The Tripping Point"), Miles describes the London underground scene and McCartney/the Beatles' interaction with it; not only does Miles again give late '66 but he makes a point of saying that social activities would typically descend into "the two Johns" (Lennon and Dunbar) going off and taking acid, and he and McCartney leaving them to it and finding some cultural event or happening to attend. Miles comments on McCartney's continued aversion to trying LSD. Elsewhere, I've seen September or October 1966 – post US tour, and when Lennon and Harrison are abroad pursuing individuals interests – as the date. This would make it three months or so before Browne's death on 18 December.
 * Beatles Bible is not a reliable source, and it has to be said that the author there has woven descriptions and quotes together to support the December date. By that I mean, Nicky Browne doesn't offer a date (I think her entire input/presence is actually via McCartney's recollection of the party, not her own?), the only person who does is Prince, and the date he offers comes via interviews with Turner, seemingly decades after the event.
 * I think the best we can do is add a footnote that gives Turner's point but also makes it clear that it's very much WP:FRINGE territory. JG66 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Less so in the US"
I have read the critical reception of the US publications in the article, and they all seem to be very positive. I don't think that the "less so in the US" is accurate. Isaacsorry (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The context is set up under Release that "In the US, the album's release was a secondary event to the controversy surrounding the recent publication there of Cleave's interview with Lennon ..."
 * Then, in Contemporary reviews, the article states:
 * "Due to the controversies surrounding the Beatles during their tour, critical reaction in the US was muted relative to the band's previous releases."
 * "KRLA Beat reviewer described Revolver as 'a musical creation of exceptional excellence' while lamenting that, amid the continued acclaim for Rubber Soul, 'it is receiving only a fraction of the attention and respect due.'"
 * "According to Turner, the album's combination of novel sounds and unusual subject matter 'challenged all the conventions of pop' and it was [only] the upcoming generation of writers who 'got it immediately'."

 * Then, under Ascendancy over Sgt. Pepper:
 * "Sheffield cites the album's 1987 CD release, with the full complement of Lennon compositions, as marking the start of a process whereby Revolver 'steadily climbed in public estimation' to become recognised as the Beatles' finest work. Everett also attributes the 'problem' regarding the album's standing in the US to the 'inferior track listing' available to Americans until the CD release."

 * So I'd say that the lead's point that "Critical reaction was highly favourable in the UK, but less so in the US" is quite accurate and supported in the article. JG66 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Leslie "live" vocal effect versus pre-recorded
(Response to this revert) I do understand your point, and it'd be correct to state that TNK may have been the first track recorded with a "live" Leslie vocal, however, Babiuk isn't making the distinction that you're suggesting here.

The description of Emerick's technique ends there. Nothing about these steps in the process would've changed had Lennon pre-recorded his vocal. If he had, Emerick still would've needed to route a dry signal to be played out of a Leslie's rotating speaker and then captured with a microphone. The distinction between a live performance and a pre-recorded track is clearly not factored in Babiuk's analysis – and really, why would it? Does anyone care about the first times that bands used an effect like flanging live-to-tape versus pre-recorded? No, that's just pedantry... The only argument he's trying to make is that TNK was the first recorded use of Leslie'd vocal sounds, and we know he's wrong! ili (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * He is making the distinction – "One of Emerick's ideas for a new vocal sound was to run a microphone through a Leslie rotating-speaker cabinet". The Lambert source you linked to for the 1964 recording (that I've seen fully in an Amazon.com preview) merely talks about sound treatment. I suspect (but no more than that) that Emerick's account cuts short because he doesn't know, and it was actually another Abbey Road engineer who did the work. (Which is in keeping with the me-me-me aspect for which Emerick's autobiography has received some criticism, and the reality that Ken Townsend was EMI's resident problem solver/gadget guru/tech manipulator.)
 * But this goes back to where we were years ago on this talk page. You don't feel it's significant that the recording of TNK, the first song taped for Revolver, saw Lennon's vocal signal being routed directly into/through a Leslie speaker. A reliable source dedicated to the Beatles' recording career does. The point is mentioned in the section discussing the album's innovative studio techniques, and the text begins with a reference to the band using the studio as a musical instrument. In your view, there's no difference between the Leslie's use in TNK and the 1964 Lou Adler production; I'd say it's the epitome of the studio being "played" as an instrument in 1966 – it's not (just) treatment, it's studio trickery set to tape.
 * Sorry, but I seem to need to remind you of this at every WP The Beatles page: This article's about the Beatles' Revolver and seeks to reflect what authoritative sources say about the album. The article is not stating that "Tomorrow Never Knows" was the first example of a Leslie rotary effect being used for vocals in rock/pop, but you're choosing to take it that way. It's stating that one of the "new recording techniques created for and first used by The Beatles" was to "run a microphone through a Leslie rotating-speaker cabinet". Again, that's a not-insignificant aspect of the album's recording, and part of the band's desire to break established rules. JG66 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I see now. It's even more nuanced than I thought. I know it's not explicitly stating that TNK has the first Leslie vocals, but virtually every layperson will get the impression that it is saying that. I'm not sure you appreciate how utterly specific this detail is. "Authoritative sources?" Is there really more than one source that credits the band for being the first to connect a microphone into a Leslie rather than simply stating they were the first to adopt a Leslie vocal effect? ili (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Love You To
I find "Made with only minimal contributions from Starr and McCartney, ". So, what contribution did Lennon make? Carlm0404 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi : Ian MacDonald doesn't list him among the personnel at all, while John C. Winn writes this: "John doesn't seem to have participated in the song at any point, unless he played the fuzz guitar." Everett meanwhile says the fuzz was played by George (which is already cited here), so I've added a mention that John likely did not participate in the recording.  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Crediting Harrison in Track listing section
Hi there! In the "Track listing" section, edits from various IP addresses have been reformatting the way Harrison is credited as a songwriter, and I've been reverting them. I don't want to be edit warring, so I'm coming here to try to gain consensus for how the section should be formatted. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi 'Bat. When the article made GA in 2017, Track listing handled this issue in the way the recent IP(s) want to see it done. So, strictly speaking, consensus still favours the asterisk approach. When I nominated the article, I think I saw the sense in this approach, because Harrison writing 3 songs is actually quite substantial when one considers that the remaining 11 tracks are written by two writers (meaning, halve that and it's 5.5 to Lennon and 5.5 to McCartney). I'm not overly bothered, myself, and perhaps that's not the way to look at it anyway. JG66 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the article history and in fact the asterisked approach was in place from early 2017, at least, until December last year. An IP user changed it on 1 December. JG66 (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For consistency are we going to do the same on other Beatles albums? Though admittedly most of them don't contain as many as three Harrison compositions. MFlet1 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Box set
According to Variety, there seems to be a Revolver box set coming this fall. Giles Martin has publicly acknowledged it on Twitter, so I think there’s a fair chance of it being true. blueskiesdry … (cloudy contribs…)  12:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 reissue
The 2022 reissue needs to be discussed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I leave here some sources:
 * Official announcement at the Beatles website, with all the details and the confirmation of 28th October as the release date
 * Review at Rolling Stone magazine
 * Article at the Guardian
 * Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

✅ I have added a section linking to its corresponding article. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

How does one "reissue" something that hasn't previously been issued?
Just read the entry for 'Reissues.' I believe this sentence is incorrect:

"In 2009, Apple and EMI reissued remastered versions of the Beatles albums on CD."

The 2009 release wasn't a reissue of remastered versions of Revolver; it was an initial issue of a newly remastered version of Revolver. I suggest replacing "reissued" with '...issued remastered versions....'

Or am I just being a nitpicking ass? 🤡 Smbrannon (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Done, this was changed to "released".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Just a bit nervous to edit such an important page. 🙂 Smbrannon (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Change the title to simply “Revolver (album)”
There’s obviously simply really no other album named “Revolver” that’s famous just as this one. So, there’s really no need to add the fact that this is a Beatles album in the title since the reader will probably Already know that. Plus, if someone was to type in simply “Revolver (album)”, it would feel redundant due to the need of writing an extra “Beatles” and this page’s title already, although literally with just 3 words, could be arguably a bit wordy. Please do NOT change the article’s title until further discussion. Will post this again in case any1 misses it. Please chat/discuss or contact me!!!!!!! A banner on the article should appear as usual about this. Tengoritmo (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least without more justification. Consider Revolver (The Haunted album), Revolver (T-Pain album), Revolver (EP). Sundayclose (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Photo caption inaccuracy
George Harrison (third from left) is seen holding a transparency of the controversial "butcher cover" for Yesterday and Today.

No he isn't. He's holding a coloured filter (gel) for the lights on the photo shoot. You can see all of the Beatles playing with these more clearly in other photos from the same shoot, e.g. in the 2022 CD booklet. Robert Whitaker's transparencies for the Yesterday and Today cover were ordinary photographic diapositives, I'd imagine. 176.85.135.222 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. The discussion has only been open for a day, but the consensus seems pretty clear already, so I'm withdrawing this proposal per WP:RMCI. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Revolver (Beatles album) → Revolver (album) – I believe this album to be the primary topic for the title "Revolver (album)".This article was originally moved to its current title following an RM in June 2013, which was largely based on the argument that the title "Revolver (album)" is incomplete disambiguation. However, in the time since that RM, the relevant guidance has changed: a 2019 RfC found that incompletely disambiguated titles can still have primary topics (see WP:PDAB for more discussion). PDAB does note that the standards for partially disambiguated primary topics should be stricter than those for standard primary topics, but even so, I believe that this album meets those criteria. Primary topic status is measured along two criteria: In summary: current guidance allows for partially disambiguated titles when one topic is primary by a sufficient margin, and I believe this album has met that threshold. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * 1) Usage. There are three studio albums titled "Revolver" that have their own Wikipedia articles: this album, Revolver (The Haunted album), and Revolver (T-Pain album). Pageview analysis (|Revolver_(The_Haunted_album)|Revolver_(T-Pain_album) linked here) shows that the Beatles album receives 19.9 times as many average monthly pageviews as the other two albums combined. This is admittedly a narrower margin than many of the ratios listed at WP:PDAB, but I believe it's still wide enough to justify a primary topic claim.
 * 2) Long-term significance. The Beatles album is considered by many to be among the greatest albums of all time, a reputation that the album's article discusses in well-sourced detail. Conversely, the Haunted album does not appear to have attracted significant attention outside of metal-focused publications, and the T-Pain album received mediocre reviews. In my view, the Beatles album has a clear lead in significance over the other albums sharing its title.
 * Oppose I don't think a lead of less than 1 in 20 is nearly enough for partial disambiguation. Yes that's generally plenty for a basename primary topic though. Partial disambiguation is rarely a good idea, disambigators should generally be unambiguous.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's definitely on the narrow side, but it's not unheard of - WP:PDAB lists other PDABs that with similar pageview ratios, such as Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) (6:1), Asuka (wrestler) (10:1), Vanity Fair (magazine) (21:1), or The Bees (band) (22:1). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As said above, partial disambig is not a good idea. I don't think leaving it like it is will make any difference in how readers access the correct article. Sundayclose (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As above, partial disambig is not a good idea, see WP:CRITERIA and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. There's no shame in a (Beatles album) being title (Beatles album) when there are other albums. Removing Beatles from the title helps no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. If it ain't broke don't fix it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Like everyone said, the current level of disambig is ok.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Definitely not a "Thriller (album)"-caliber situation. Steel1943  (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Revolver (Beatles album) → Revolver (album) – Reviving PDAB discussion as this album taking ~97% of the pageviews to albums titled "Revolver" (a ~28:1 pageview ratio to both Revolver (The Haunted album) and Revolver (T-Pain album) combined) and this album's long-term significance strongly suggest WP:PDABPRIMARY. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject The Beatles has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose No evidence anything has changed since the previous RM above. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The pageview ratio has increased by ~8 since June 2023. User:Crouch, Swale doubted in that discussion that a lead of less than 1 in 20 is nearly enough for partial disambiguation; however, that should not apply here as it is now ~28:1.
 * Also per User:ModernDayTrilobite above, WP:PDAB lists several examples of smaller pageview ratios than this. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. When I launched the previous RM last year, I believed that the gap in pageviews and significance was enough to justify a PDAB. Since then, the pageview gap has only widened (and the significance argument is effectively unchanged), so I believe the case for a PDAB is now even stronger. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Revolver (T-Pain album) charted in multiple countries; its single 5 O'Clock (T-Pain song) did as well, going as high as #10 in the US Billboard charts.  It is not an insignificant topic.  Is it as significant as the Beatles album? No, it isn't, but we shouldn't intentionally introduce ambiguity into an article title when there is a legitimate second topic. 162 etc. (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Pageviews clearly shows that this dwarfs any other album with the same name. However, unlike What's Going On (album) which was just moved to the Marvin Gaye album due to the other albums with the same name being extremely obscure, that T-Pain album does seem like a legitimate reason not to move this. SailorGardevoir (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:TITLE, current title is ok.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No reason to hide the Beatles' involvement when there are other Revolvers out there.  —  AjaxSmack  01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No reason to change. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)


text:
User:Ensjo

Emerson J. S. da Costa, Brazilian, born 1973.

See http://ia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usator:Ensjo.

title: User:Ensjo


text:
Convertible

A convertible or cabriolet is a passenger car that can be driven with or without a roof in place. The methods of retracting and storing the roof vary across eras and manufacturers.

A convertible car's design allows an open-air driving experience, with the ability to provide a roof when required. A potential drawback of convertibles is their reduced structural rigidity (requiring significant engineering and modification to counteract the side effects of almost completely removing a car's roof).

The majority of convertible roofs are of a folding construction framework with the actual top made from cloth or other fabric. Other types of convertible roofs include retractable hardtops (often constructed from metal or plastic) and detachable hardtops (where a metal or plastic roof is manually removed and often stored in the trunk).

Terminology
Other terms for convertibles include cabriolet, cabrio, drop top, drophead coupé, open two-seater, open top, rag top, soft top, spider, and spyder, although companies use many of these terms interchangeably. Thus, nomenclatural consistency is rare. The term cabriolet originated from a carriage cabriolet: "a light, two-wheeled, one-horse carriage with a folding top, capable of seating two persons"; however, the term is also used to describe other convertibles.

In the United Kingdom, the historical term for a two-door convertible is drophead coupé, and a four-door convertible was called an all-weather tourer.

History

Most of the early automobiles were open-air vehicles without any roof or sides. As car engines became more powerful by the end of the 19th century, folding textile or leather roofs (as had been used on victoria or landau carriages) began to appear on cars. Examples of early cars with roofs include the phaeton (a two-seat car with a temporary roof), the brougham or a coupé de ville, having an enclosed passenger compartment at the rear, while the driver sat in front either in the open, or the landaulet, where the driver has a fixed roof and the passenger compartment has a folding roof. Less expensive cars, such as the runabouts, sporting roadsters, or sturdy touring cars, remained either completely open air or were fitted with a rudimentary folding top and detachable clear side curtains.

In the 1920s, when steel bodies began to be mass-produced, closed cars became available to the average buyer, and fully open cars began to disappear from the mainstream market. By the mid 1930s, the remaining small number of convertibles sold were high-priced luxury models. In 1939, Plymouth introduced the first mechanically operated convertible roof powered by two vacuum cylinders.

Demand for convertibles increased as a result of American soldiers in France and the United Kingdom during World War II familiarizing themselves with small roadster cars, which were not available in the United States at that time. These roadsters included the MG Midget and Triumph Roadster. The convertible design was incorporated into the mass market unibody by Hudson in 1948. United States automakers manufactured a broad range of convertible models during the 1950s and 1960s – from economical compact-sized models such as the Rambler American and the Studebaker Lark, to the more expensive models, such as the Packard Caribbean, Oldsmobile 98, and Imperial by Chrysler. Automakers often included a convertible body style as an available body style in a model range.

Convertibles in the U.S. market peaked in sales around 1965, and fell in popularity over the next five years. Optional air conditioning was gradually becoming more popular, and the availability of sunroofs and T-tops limited the appeal of the open body style. Noise, leaks, and repairs associated with fabric tops also contributed to issues that many customers had. The popularity of convertibles was reduced by the increased travel speeds on roads (resulting in more wind and noise for occupants) and the emergence of more comprehensive vehicle crash safety standards in the United States.

The market share of convertibles fell to two or three percent of total sales and the U.S. automakers discontinued the body style from their lineups. American Motors stopped making convertibles after the 1968 model year, Chrysler after 1971, Ford after 1973, and most divisions of General Motors after 1975. Cadillac held out until 1976, when they made about 14,000. The last 200 had a red, white, and blue motif and a dashboard plaque. The very last was offered to the Smithsonian Institution, whose trustees turned it down as it was not at that moment a historic artifact, "Though it might well be in three generations ... or at the Tricentennial." After the last Cadillac Eldorado convertible was made in 1976, the only factory convertibles sold in the United States were imported. Making convertibles on the assembly line was both expensive and time-consuming, thus not worth the problems needed to sell the limited number of cars.

Specialized coachbuilders were contracted to make dealer-available cars such as the Targa top versions of the AMC Concord and Eagle "Sundancer" as well as the Toyota Celica "Sunchaser" as specialty models. American Sunroof Company (ASC), which was responsible for popularizing the sunroof option for regular body styles, converted a Buick Riviera into a full convertible that compelled General Motors to market it as part of the 1982 Buick models. Chrysler Corporation also introduced a convertible body style in its 1982 lines that was based on the K-Car. These models were the LeBaron, produced under Chrysler, and the 400, manufactured under Dodge. Ford reintroduced a convertible Mustang for 1983, while American Motors Corporation (AMC) added a convertible version of the Renault Alliance in 1984.

In 1989, Mazda released the first generation Mazda MX-5 (called "Miata" in North America), which has become the best-selling convertible with over 1 million cars sold. Also in 1989, Toyota released the Toyota Soarer Aerocabin, which uses an electrically operated retractable hardtop roof. A total of 500 were produced.

Models dedicated to the convertible body style include the Mazda MX-5, Porsche Boxster, and Opel Cascada.

Textile

A "soft top" is made from a flexible textile material:
 * Early convertibles used cotton canvas woven so tightly that it was waterproof. Automakers had problems in securing raw materials to fulfill orders after World War II, including canvas in various shades for convertible tops, therefore limiting their manufacture.
 * A cloth-based material has become more common in recent years.

Other materials are also used in the convertible top. By 1955, the most popular materials were latex and butyl rubber fabrics that each accounted for around 35% of the convertible top's weight, with others included vinyl (12%), jute (8%), along with rayon and acrylic fibers (Orlon), amounting to about 1% each in the compositions. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) material was used for many convertible tops. The material consists of two layers: a top layer made of PVC, which has a specific structure depending on the vehicle model, and a lower layer made of fabric (usually cotton).

The collapsible textile roof section over an articulated folding frame may include linings such as a sound-deadening layer and/or an interior cosmetic lining, to hide the frame.

The folded convertible mechanism with the top is called the stack. Designs that fold down to a lower stack height offer a smoother silhouette for the car with the top down while concealed side rails allow room for three passengers in the back seat such as on the 1967 Rambler Rebel convertible.

Detachable hardtop
Rigid removable hardtops, many of which can be stored in a car's trunk/boot, have been available at least since the 1950s. These usually provide greater weatherproofing, soundproofing, and durability compared to fabric-based tops; some are available with integrated rear-window defrosters and windscreens. Examples include the Ford Thunderbird (1st-generation and 11th-generation), Mercedes SL (2nd-generation and 3rd-generation), Porsche Boxster, Jeep Wrangler, Ford Mustang Cobra (1995 Only), and Mazda MX-5.

During the 1950s and 1960s, detachable hard-material roofs were offered for various convertible sports cars and roadsters, including the 1955–1957 Ford Thunderbird and Chevrolet Corvette, as well as the 1963–1971 Mercedes-Benz W113 series of two-seaters. Because the convertible top mechanism is itself expensive, the hard roof was customarily offered as an additional, extra-cost option. On early Thunderbirds (and Corvettes through 1967), buyers could choose between a detachable hardtop and a folding canvas top at no additional cost, but paid extra for both.

The metal-framed "Carson top" was a popular addition for the 1930s Ford convertibles or roadsters because it turned these models into an almost instant hardtop. The design mimicked a convertible top, but lacking the bulky folding mechanisms enabled the removable hardtop to have a much lower and more rakish profile.

Improvements in canvas tops have rendered the detachable hard roof less common in part because the top cannot be stored inside the vehicle when not in use, requiring a garage or other storage facility. Some open cars continue to offer it as an option. For example, the Mazda MX-5 has an accessory hardtop, which is compulsory for some auto racing series.

Retractable hardtop

A retractable hardtop — also known as "coupé convertible" or "coupé cabriolet" — is a car with an automatically operated, self-storing hardtop (as opposed to the textile-based roof used by traditional convertibles).

The benefits of improved climate control and security are traded off against increased mechanical complexity, cost, weight, and often reduced luggage capacity.

Tonneau cover
Folding textile convertible tops often fail to completely hide their internal mechanism or can expose their vulnerable underside to sun exposure and fading. A tonneau cover provides a solution.

Rear window
Rear windows are often part of the roof assembly. Traditionally, the rear window in a soft-top was made from plastic; however, more recently some convertibles have used glass for the rear window.

Windblocker
A windblocker or wind deflector minimizes noise and rushing air reaching the occupants. According to the engineer responsible for the 2008 Chrysler Sebring, its windblocker reduces wind noise by approximately 11 to 12 dB.

Several convertibles are available with a heating duct to the neck area of the seat, which is often called an "Air Scarf". Examples of cars with this feature include Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class, Mercedes-Benz SL-Class, and Audi A5/S5.

Safety
Modern safety features specifically for convertibles include:
 * rollover protection structures (ROPS) with pyrotechnically charged roll hoops hidden behind the rear seats that deploy under rollover conditions
 * heated rear window (for improved visibility)
 * boron steel-reinforced A-pillars
 * safety cage construction – a horseshoe-like structure around the passenger compartment
 * door-mounted side-impact airbag which inflates upward (instead of downward like the typical curtain airbag) to provide head protection even with an open window

Variations
Convertibles have offered numerous iterations that fall between the first mechanically simple fabric tops to complex retractable roofs made from hard materials:

Roadster: A roadster (also called spider or spyder) is an open two-seat car with emphasis on sporting appearance or character. Initially, an American term for a two-seat car with no weather protection, usage has spread internationally and has evolved to include two-seat convertibles.

Cabrio coach: A cabrio coach (also called semi-convertible) has a retractable textile roof, similar to a traditional convertible. The difference is that a convertible often has the B-pillar, C-pillar and other bodywork removed. However, the cabrio-coach retains all bodywork to the top of the door frames and just replaces the roof skin with a retractable fabric panel.

An advantage of a cabrio coach is that retaining more of the car's original structure means that structural rigidity is higher (or the vehicle weight is lower) than traditional cabriolets. An example of the cabrio coach is the 2003-10 C3 Pluriel, which has a roof with five possible configurations.

Fixed-profile: In contrast to convertibles where the entire bodywork above the beltline (doors, roof, side pillars, side bodywork) is replaced with a folding or retractable roof, the fixed profile convertible retains portions of fixed bodywork including the doors, side pillars, and side elements of the roof — while a center fabric portion slides back and accordions at the rear. As an example, Citroën's 1948 Citroën 2CV featured rigid bodysides and two doors on each side, along with a sunroof that rolled back on itself and extended to the rear bumper in place of a separate trunk lid. Other fixed-profile convertibles include the 1957 Autobianchi Bianchina Trasformabile, 1957 Vespa 400, 1950 Nash Rambler Landau Convertible Coupe, the Nissan Figaro (1991), the Jaguar XJ-SC (1983) as well as the 1957 Fiat 500 and its 2007 Fiat 500 successor. The 1984 Heuliez-designed Citroën Visa Décapotable used elements of a fixed-profile convertible.

Four-door: Most convertibles have two doors. However, four-door convertibles have been mass-produced. Examples include the 1940-41 Cadillac Series 62, 1931 Chrysler Imperial Dual Cowl Phaeton and 1961-67 Lincoln Continental. Current production four-door convertibles include the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited.

Peugeot presented a concept four-door retractable hardtop convertible, the Peugeot 407 Macarena in 2006. Produced by French coachbuilding specialist Heuliez, the Macarena's top can be folded in 60 seconds, with a steel reinforcing beam behind the front seats incorporating LCD screens for the rear passengers into the crossmember.

Off-road: Several off-road vehicles have been produced with removable soft tops. Examples include the Jeep Wrangler, Suzuki Vitara, Suzuki Jimny, Ford Bronco, Land Rover Defender, Mercedes-Benz G-Class as well as early models of the Toyota Land Cruiser and Land Rover Defender. Typically, the soft tops attach to the roll cage or to the installation points on the vehicle's body.

Landaulet: A landaulet (also known as landaulette) is where the rear passengers are covered by a convertible top. Often the driver is separated from the rear passengers with a partition, as per a limousine.

In the second half of the 20th century, landaulets were used by public figures (such as heads of state) in formal processions. They are now rarely used, for fear of terrorist attacks.

Victoria-Cabriolet: reminiscent of the victoria carriage style, a three-position convertible. No rear side windows and equipped with a soft top that can be raised partway, leaving the area above the front seats folded back. This body style had a short period of popularity, mainly in the 1930s. Other names include Cabriolet/Coupé Milord (or just Milord), Calash (from Calèche), Folding Head DHC, three-position Drop-head Coupé, or Cabriolet toit de 3 positions.

title: Convertible


text:
Junkers Ju 188

The Junkers Ju 188 "Rächer" ("Avenger") was a German Luftwaffe high-performance medium bomber built during World War II, the planned follow-up to the Ju 88 with better performance and payload. It was produced only in limited numbers, due both to the presence of improved versions of the Ju 88, as well as the increasingly effective Allied strategic bombing campaign against German industry and the resulting focus on fighter production.

Background
In 1936, Junkers submitted proposals for the Ju 85 and Ju 88 into competition for the new standardized Luftwaffe high-speed tactical bomber, known as the Schnellbomber (fast bomber). The two designs were almost identical, differing only in that the Ju 85 used a twin-rudder and the Ju 88 a single fin.

At the same time, they offered modified versions of each as the Ju 85B and Ju 88B, again similar to the original designs but using an "egg shaped" stepless cockpit forward fuselage design that comprised a greenhouse-like, well-framed network of some three dozen compound-curved window panels in total. This was another example of the "bullet-nose" design philosophy that almost all new German bomber designs exhibited, from the time of the Heinkel He 111P onwards. The new nose design for the Ju 88B also tightly integrated the forward end of the undernose Bola ventral gondola defensive gun position into the newer nose design, when compared to the "added-on" Bola unit pioneered on the Ju 88 V7 prototype. This meant the Ju 88B offered somewhat lower drag and better visibility. At the time, this was considered too radical and the Ju 88A with its simpler, separately-glazed dorsal cockpit "greenhouse" framed canopy, and "beetle's eye" framed, multi-flat panel nose glazing comprising a "stepped" cockpit design from the separation of the pair of glazed units by the sheetmetal of the upper fuselage nose winning the initial Schnellbomber production contract.

The Reich Air Ministry (RLM) was already in the process of looking for the replacement for the Schnellbomber, a new design that would be faster, fly higher, and have a larger warload. This emerged as the "Bomber B" program, but this was extensively delayed due to the failure of the large 2500 PS-class engines, like Junkers' Jumo 222, to become reliable enough for production use. Although Junkers' Ju 288 was leading the contest, there was no delivery date on the engines.

To address the immediate need, the Ju 88B project was re-submitted as a stop-gap. For this version, they used the latest short-wing Ju 88 A-1 airframe as a baseline with the Ju 88B's new stepless cockpit design, with the new Junkers Jumo 213 engine, which had recently started bench testing and was expected to deliver 1500 PS and required a redesigned annular radiator system for engine and oil cooling.

The RLM also stipulated that the aircraft should also be able to accept the BMW 801 radial engine in a Kraftei (power-egg) unitized installation, with no modification to the engine nacelles. The RLM was not impressed with the new design, as it offered only small improvements over the Ju 88A model in service but suggested that Junkers continue with the prototype work anyway and that they consider fitting the design with the BMW 139 radial. This engine was cancelled only a few weeks later and all designs based on it moved to the newer and more powerful BMW 801.

Prototypes, Ju 88 B-0
The prototype Ju 88B V1, D-AUVS, flew for the first time with the 801A/B engines in early 1940. The fuselage and tail surfaces were identical to the Ju 88 A-1, which presented a problem: with the extra power, 1560 PS, the design could now carry considerably more load than the small bomb bay could fit. An additional external shackle was then added to each wing well outside the engines, although using the rack would seriously hamper performance.

During the summer, a pre-production run of 10 Ju 88 B-0 based on the pre-production Ju 88 A-4 airframes were delivered. The A-4 used a longer wing of 20.08 m span from new rounded wingtips for better altitude performance, when compared to the initial Ju 88A-1's shorter 18.26 m span, but attention to streamlining and new pointed wing tips, somewhat resembling those fitted to the British Spitfire Mks.VII and VIII for their own intended high-altitude flight requirements, kept drag to about what it was earlier. The airframe changes moved the center of gravity slightly, so the glazed cockpit area was made slightly longer to re-balance the aircraft, while also offering better visibility for other members of the crew.

Service tests were all successful, and the pilots generally lauded the new cockpit design. However, the RLM still remained unconvinced that the small improvement in performance over the existing A-5's and future A-4's was worth investing time in. Instead, the pre-production models were modified as long-range reconnaissance aircraft by removing the guns, bombsights, and external bomb shackles, and fitting fuel tanks into the bomb bay.

Several of the airframes were retained by Junkers for further development. One of these was fitted with the slightly updated 801L engines and a small power-operated turret on the extreme top of the cockpit mounting a 13 mm MG 131 machine gun.

Variants
By 1942, it was becoming clear that Junkers' candidate for the important Bomber B program, the Ju 288, was not going to be ready soon and that the Ju 88 was increasingly at the mercy of rapidly improving RAF and Soviet VVS fighters. The RLM finally decided that even the small gains in performance in the Ju 88B were worth considering and asked Junkers for an improved aircraft as the Ju 188.

The sole Ju 88 E-0 was modified with another 13 mm MG 131 firing rearward just below the turret, one firing forward through the nose and twin 7.92 mm MG 81Z machine guns in the integrated ventral Bola gondola firing rearward. Two other airframes had their engines and outer wings removed to act as testbeds for water ditching, as it was planned to use the Ju 188 in long overwater flights against British shipping. A second Ju 188 test airframe was built from another Ju 88 A-4, this one including a larger, more trapezoidal vertical tail surface set to provide more directional control at higher altitudes, a feature also used on future Ju 88 models, most importantly on the Ju 88G night fighters. Originally known as Ju 88 V44, this airframe was later named Ju 188 V1, "so the enemy gets the impression it's something new", said Erhard Milch.

In October 1942, the Ju 188 was chosen for production. A second prototype was delivered in January, which moved the outer bomb shackles to a position inboard of the engines. Both started testing the dive bombing system installed in the 88 A-4 in February. The RLM then asked for another change, allowing the aircraft to mount either the BMW 801 or Jumo 213 engines as a complete Kraftei or "power egg" common engine installation, that would simply be bolted on and hooked up. Concerns about the Jumo 213, now years overdue, were offset by this engine's better altitude performance, so it made sense to delay the aircraft slightly if that meant it could switch to the 213 as soon as they became available. The second Ju 188 prototype was flown in at Rechlin between September and November 1943.

Ju 188 A & E
The Ju 188 was designed to be fitted with either the 1750 PS Jumo 213A or 1700 PS BMW 801 G-2 engines without any changes to the airframe, with the exclusion of the re-design for Jumo-powered examples, of the annular radiators from their Jumo 211 layout for the A-series to better match the more powerful 213's cooling needs, while using similar broad-chord three-blade propellers as the A-series did. It was intended that both would be known as A models but the naming was later changed: the Ju 188A model powered by the 213 and the Ju 188E by the 801.

The first three production Ju 188 E-1 machines were delivered with BMW engines in February 1943, followed by another seven in March and eight in April. A conversion testing unit was formed up in May and after testing were attached to an operational unit, with the first mission, an attack by three Ju 188E-1s on a factory in Lincoln, Lincolnshire taking place on 18 August 1943. By the end of the year, 283 Ju 188s had been delivered (including Ju 188Fs) and two new factories were added to the production effort. Most operational machines differed from the prototypes only in having a 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the nose and dorsal turrets in place of the 13 mm MG 131. The MG 131 was intended to be used in the Ju 188 E-1 or the G-2 but the heavy armament in the A and E series was the MG 151/20. The Ju 188 E-2 was built as a torpedo-bomber but was identical to the Ju 188 A-3.

Although the A and E models were to have been delivered at the same time, the Jumo engine was still not ready; the first Jumo powered Ju 188 A-1 versions were shipped only shortly after the BMW versions, albeit at a much slower rate. By the time deliveries were finally picking up in late 1943, the Jumo was available in a new MW 50 methanol-water injection "boosted" version that delivered 1648 kW for takeoff. With this engine, the planes were known as the Ju 188 A-2 and started deliveries in early 1944.

A modified version mounting a small, low-UHF-band FuG 200 Hohentwiel sea-search radar set under the nose and shackles for a torpedo for naval strike missions was delivered as the Ju 188 E-2, and with the Jumo as the Ju 188 A-3. The only other difference was the removal of the outer pair of wing bomb shackles. For all its good points, the Ju 188 was only a small improvement over the Ju 88. The bombload and bomb bay was no larger than the earlier aircraft; although a larger load could be carried externally, it reduced performance. Even then the performance was rather poor considering all the effort - only 523 km/h or less. The dorsal turret had only one gun, yet the type retained the single-gun flexible position only a few centimeters away from it; various projects finally to provide the 188 with tail armament were abandoned.

Delivery problems of the Jumo 213 were never entirely solved and the only model to be built in large numbers were the E series with the BMW 801. Even then so few were available that they were generally given out to Ju 88 units, who flew them on "special" missions where the longer range or better performance would be helpful. Some 500 Ju 188A and E variants were produced before production ceased in the summer of 1944.

Ju 188 C
It was planned all along to skip over a "B model" to avoid confusion with the original Ju 88 B but in the original plan the A and E models would be called As and the Ju 188 C would be the next model. The C series was built to the extent of a single example, by modifying one of the few A-1 machines. A new power-operated, remotely operated FA 15 turret was mounted in the tail and had two 13 mm MG 131s, aimed with a double-periscope (top and bottom) system mounted in the cockpit. This modification would have greatly improved defensive firepower, always lacking on German designs but reliability was so poor it was decided to abandon the system.

Ju 188 D & F
In early 1944, it was decided to focus on reconnaissance versions of the A and E models. The airframe was modified with the removal of the bomb aimer and forward gun and additional fuel cells were added to extend the range to 3400 km. The Ju 188 D-1 was otherwise similar to the A-1 and the Ju 188 D-2 had nose radar for naval reconnaissance. Similar conversions of the E models were the Ju 188 F-1 and Ju 188 F-2.

Ju 188 G & H
One problem with the Ju 88 that carried into the 188 was the lack of internal room for bomb storage. Both carried the majority of their bombload on racks under the wing, where it greatly affected performance. This was to have been addressed in the G and H models, which extended the fuselage downward for more room with the addition of a wooden pannier. The modification also left enough room at the tail to fit a manned turret in place of the C model's remote-control one but this system proved to be just as limited as the remote-control FA 15. It was so small that only the smallest men could fit into it and left them with no room to escape in an emergency. The RLM rejected the manned turret and planned on mounting the FA 15 even if it were unreliable. Oddly, the designs still possessed the Bola undernose feature for a rear-facing gunner, when this would no longer be needed and its removal would have greatly streamlined the aircraft. With the Jumo 213s now being sent to fighter production, the Ju 188G-2 was to use the BMW 801 only, with the reconnaissance conversion known as the Ju 188 H-2. Neither entered production before the war ended; the Ju 188G remained at the prototype stage. Tail empennages of the few Ju 188G prototypes built were used in construction of the first two Ju 287 prototypes.

Ju 188 R
In the summer of 1944, three E models were modified as night fighters with the addition of radar and either four 20 mm MG 151/20s or two 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 103 cannons in the nose. The better visibility of the 188 was not useful in night fighting and because the added drag of the radar washed out any speed difference, the Ju 188 R-0 was not ordered.

High-altitude versions
In 1943, it was planned to upgrade all versions with even more wing area and a pressurized cockpit for high-altitude work. A single basic airframe would be offered in three versions, the Ju 188J heavy fighter, Ju 188K bomber, and the Ju 188L reconnaissance version. As with the streamlined Ju 88S, all three late model Ju 188 designs did away with the Bola gondola, leading to a cleaner nose profile, and the bomber and reconnaissance versions mounted their loads in a long pannier under the central fuselage instead of the deeper fuselage of the G and H models.

Simpler versions of these with no defensive armament and even longer wings became the Ju 188S fighter and Ju 188T intruder. With Jumo 213E-1 engines 2050 PS at take-off and 1690 PS at 9500 m, the Ju 188T could reach 700 km/h. Operating at this altitude, the Ju 188S could carry only 800 kg of bombs.

Before any of these could start production, the entire lineup was renamed the Ju 388, the vastly improved performance warranting a different 8-388 airframe number from the RLM for the design.

Operators

 * French Air Force (Postwar)
 * Aviation Navale operated several captured Ju 188s post war.
 * Nazi Germany
 * Luftwaffe
 * Royal Air Force operated at least two captured machines post war, an A-2 and A-3 (Wrk Nr 190335 of 9./KG 26). The A-3 surrendered to British forces after landing at Fraserburgh on 2 May 1945.
 * Royal Air Force operated at least two captured machines post war, an A-2 and A-3 (Wrk Nr 190335 of 9./KG 26). The A-3 surrendered to British forces after landing at Fraserburgh on 2 May 1945.
 * Royal Air Force operated at least two captured machines post war, an A-2 and A-3 (Wrk Nr 190335 of 9./KG 26). The A-3 surrendered to British forces after landing at Fraserburgh on 2 May 1945.

title: Junkers Ju 188


text:
Tiger tank

Tiger tank  may refer to:

 * Tiger I, or Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E, a German heavy tank produced from 1942 to 1944
 * Tiger II, or Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B, a German heavy tank produced from 1943 to 1945, also known as Königstiger (King Tiger)
 * VK 4501 (P), or Tiger (P), a prototype of the Tiger I heavy tank designed by Porsche

title: Tiger tank


text:
8.8 cm KwK 36

The 8.8 cm KwK 36 (8,8 cm Kampfwagenkanone 36) was an 88 mm tank gun used by the German Army during World War II. This was the primary armament of the PzKpfw VI Tiger I tank. It was developed and built by Krupp.

Design
The KwK 36 was derived from the 8.8 cm FlaK 36 anti-aircraft gun by adapting/modifying it to the limited space available in tank turrets. Parts of the KwK 36 were built to practically the same design as the 75 mm and 50 mm guns already used in German tanks. The breech ring was square in section and 320 mm on a side. The breech block was of vertical falling wedge type and operated semi-automatically, meaning that after firing the empty cartridge case was automatically ejected, while the breech cocked itself and remained open, ready to receive the next round.

The "L/56" in the designation is descriptor of barrel length; the ratio of the length of the barrel in proportion to the width of the bore. The designation "L/56" means the barrel is 56 times 88 mm - about 4.9 m. The longer the tube is in relation to its bore, the higher the muzzle velocity it can generate on fixed charge. A longer gun barrel allows the expanding gas from the shell's charge to act on the projectile longer than a short barrel, imparting it more velocity and force. For the Tiger II's 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71, barrel length is 6.25 m generating a higher velocity.

Performance
The KwK 36 was very accurate and high-powered, and its high muzzle velocity produced a very flat trajectory. This allowed its gunners a higher margin of error in estimating range.

In British firing trials during the war, a British gunner scored five successive hits from 1200 yd at a 16 by target. Another five rounds were fired at targets moving at 15 mph, and, although smoke obscured the gunners' observation, three hits were scored after directions given by the commander. The sighting system resulted in excellent firing accuracy for the 8.8 cm KwK 36 gun on the Tiger I.

Capability
The gun's performance was highly dependent on distance to target and type of ammunition loaded. For kinetic penetration, the speed of the projectile upon impact is crucial, and the cumulative effect of air resistance decreases the velocity of the shell as the distance to the target increases. The accuracy achieved during controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion gives a greater accuracy than the variation expected during practice firing on a range due to differences between guns, ammunition and gunners; both at precisely known distances. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first shot hit under battlefield conditions was much lower than at the firing range. Observing the tracer from the first round in battle, the average, calm gunner might achieve the firing range accuracy shown in the second column with the second round fired at the same target.

This gun used the same size 88 x 571R mm cartridge, with the exception of being electrically primed compared to the percussion primed cases employed by the Flak 18/36/37.

Panzergranate 39 (PzGr. 39)

 * Type: Armour-piercing, capped, ballistic cap (APCBC) projectile with explosive filler and tracer.
 * Projectile weight: 10.2 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 773 m/s
 * Explosive filler: 0.059 kg
 * Propellant weight: 2.5 kg

PzGr. 40 (APCR)

 * Type: Armour-piercing, composite rigid (APCR) projectile had a sub-calibre tungsten carbide core.
 * Projectile weight: 7.5 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 930 m/s
 * Propellant weight: 2.85 kg

Hl.39 (HEAT)

 * Type: high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round with a shaped charge.
 * Projectile weight: 7.65 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 600 m/s

Sprgr. L/45 (HE)

 * Type: high explosive (HE) round
 * Projectile weight: 9 kg
 * Explosive filler: 0.9 kg of amatol (3765 Kilojoules)
 * Propellant weight: 2.55 kg–2.95 kg

Weapons of comparable role, performance, and era

 * British Ordnance QF 17-pounder
 * Soviet 85 mm D-5T/ZiS-S-53
 * United States 90 mm Gun M3

title: 8.8 cm KwK 36