text:
Levi-Civita connection

In Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian geometry (in particular the Lorentzian geometry of general relativity), the Levi-Civita connection is the unique affine connection on the tangent bundle of a manifold (i.e. affine connection) that preserves the (pseudo-)Riemannian metric and is torsion-free.

The fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry states that there is a unique connection which satisfies these properties.

In the theory of Riemannian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds the term covariant derivative is often used for the Levi-Civita connection. The components (structure coefficients) of this connection with respect to a system of local coordinates are called Christoffel symbols.

History
The Levi-Civita connection is named after Tullio Levi-Civita, although originally "discovered" by Elwin Bruno Christoffel. Levi-Civita, along with Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro, used Christoffel's symbols to define the notion of parallel transport and explore the relationship of parallel transport with the curvature, thus developing the modern notion of holonomy.

In 1869, Christoffel discovered that the components of the intrinsic derivative of a vector field, upon changing the coordinate system, transform as the components of a contravariant vector. This discovery was the real beginning of tensor analysis.

In 1906, L. E. J. Brouwer was the first mathematician to consider the parallel transport of a vector for the case of a space of constant curvature.

In 1917, Levi-Civita pointed out its importance for the case of a hypersurface immersed in a Euclidean space, i.e., for the case of a Riemannian manifold embedded in a "larger" ambient space. He interpreted the intrinsic derivative in the case of an embedded surface as the tangential component of the usual derivative in the ambient affine space. The Levi-Civita notions of intrinsic derivative and parallel displacement of a vector along a curve make sense on an abstract Riemannian manifold, even though the original motivation relied on a specific embedding $$M^n \subset \mathbf{R}^{n(n+1)/2}.$$

In 1918, independently of Levi-Civita, Jan Arnoldus Schouten obtained analogous results. In the same year, Hermann Weyl generalized Levi-Civita's results.

Notation

 * $(M, g)$ denotes a Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian manifold.
 * $TM$ is the tangent bundle of $M$.
 * $g$ is the Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian metric of $M$.
 * $X, Y, Z$ are smooth vector fields on $M$, i. e. smooth sections of $TM$.
 * $[X, Y]$ is the Lie bracket of $X$ and $Y$. It is again a smooth vector field.

The metric $g$ can take up to two vectors or vector fields $X, Y$ as arguments. In the former case the output is a number, the (pseudo-)inner product of $X$ and $Y$. In the latter case, the inner product of $X_{p}, Y_{p}$ is taken at all points $p$ on the manifold so that $g(X, Y)$ defines a smooth function on $M$. Vector fields act (by definition) as differential operators on smooth functions. In local coordinates $$(x_1,\ldots, x_n) $$, the action reads

 * $$X(f) = X^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}f = X^i\partial_i f$$

where Einstein's summation convention is used.

Formal definition
An affine connection $$\nabla$$ is called a Levi-Civita connection if

 * 1) it preserves the metric, i.e., $$\nabla g = 0 $$.
 * 2) it is torsion-free, i.e., for any vector fields $$X$$  and $$Y$$ we have $$\nabla_X Y - \nabla_Y X = [X,Y]$$, where $$[X, Y]$$ is the Lie bracket of the vector fields $$X$$ and $$Y$$.

Condition 1 above is sometimes referred to as compatibility with the metric, and condition 2 is sometimes called symmetry, cf. Do Carmo's text.

Fundamental theorem of (pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry
Theorem Every (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold $$(M,g)$$ has a unique Levi Civita connection $$\nabla$$.

Proof: To prove uniqueness, unravel the definition of the action of a connection on tensors to find
 * $$ X\bigl(g(Y,Z)\bigr) = (\nabla_X g)(Y, Z) + g(\nabla_X Y, Z) + g( Y, \nabla_X Z)$$.

Hence one can write the condition that $$\nabla$$ preserves the metric as
 * $$ X\bigl(g(Y,Z)\bigr) = g(\nabla_X Y, Z) + g( Y, \nabla_X Z)$$.

By the symmetry of $$g$$,
 * $$ X \bigl(g(Y,Z)\bigr) + Y \bigl(g(Z,X)\bigr) - Z \bigl(g(Y,X)\bigr) = g(\nabla_X Y + \nabla_Y X, Z) + g(\nabla_X Z - \nabla_Z X, Y) + g(\nabla_Y Z - \nabla_Z Y, X)$$.

By torsion-freeness, the right hand side is therefore equal to
 * $$ 2g(\nabla_X Y, Z) - g([X,Y], Z) + g([X,Z], Y) + g([Y,Z], X)$$.

Thus, the Koszul formula
 * $$ g(\nabla_X Y, Z) = \tfrac{1}{2} \Big\{ X \bigl(g(Y,Z)\bigr) + Y \bigl(g(Z,X)\bigr) - Z \bigl(g(X,Y)\bigr) + g([X,Y],Z) - g([Y,Z], X) - g([X,Z], Y) \Big\}$$

holds. Hence, if a Levi-Civita connection exists, it must be unique, because $$Z$$ is arbitrary, $$g$$ is non degenerate, and the right hand side does not depend on $$\nabla$$.

To prove existence, note that for given vector field $$X$$ and $$Y$$, the right hand side of the Koszul expression is linear over smooth functions in the vector field $$Z$$, not just real-linear. Hence by the non degeneracy of $$g$$, the right hand side uniquely defines some new vector field which is suggestively denoted $$\nabla_X Y$$ as in the left hand side. By substituting the Koszul formula, one now checks that for all vector fields $$X, Y,Z$$ and all functions $$f$$,
 * $$ g(\nabla_X (Y_1 + Y_2), Z) = g(\nabla_X Y_1, Z) + g(\nabla_X Y_2, Z) $$
 * $$ g(\nabla_X (f Y), Z) = X(f) g(Y, Z) + f g(\nabla_X Y,Z) $$
 * $$ g(\nabla_X Y, Z) + g(\nabla_X Z, Y) = X\bigl(g(Y,Z)\bigr)$$
 * $$ g(\nabla_X Y, Z) - g(\nabla_Y X, Z) = g([X,Y], Z). $$

Hence the Koszul expression does, in fact, define a connection, and this connection is compatible with the metric and is torsion free, i.e. is a Levi-Civita connection.

With minor variation, the same proof shows that there is a unique connection that is compatible with the metric and has prescribed torsion.

Christoffel symbols
Let $$\nabla$$ be an affine connection on the tangent bundle. Choose local coordinates $$x^1, \ldots, x^n$$ with coordinate basis vector fields $$\partial_1, \ldots, \partial_n$$ and write $$\nabla_j$$ for $$\nabla_{\partial_j}$$. The Christoffel symbols $$\Gamma^l_{jk}$$ of $$\nabla$$ with respect to these coordinates are defined as
 * $$ \nabla_j\partial_k = \Gamma^l_{jk} \partial_l $$

The Christoffel symbols conversely define the connection $$\nabla$$ on the coordinate neighbourhood because

\begin{align} \nabla_X Y &= \nabla_{X^j\partial_j} (Y^k \partial_k) \\&= X^j\nabla_j(Y^k\partial_k) \\ &= X^j\bigl(\partial_j(Y^k)\partial_k + Y^k\nabla_j\partial_k\bigr) \\ &= X^j\bigl(\partial_j(Y^k)\partial_k + Y^k\Gamma^l_{jk}\partial_l\bigr) \\ &= X^j\bigl(\partial_j(Y^l) + Y^k\Gamma^l_{jk}\bigr)\partial_l \end{align} $$ that is,
 * $$ (\nabla_j Y)^l = \partial_jY^l + \Gamma^l_{jk} Y^k $$

An affine connection $$\nabla$$ is compatible with a metric iff
 * $$ \partial_i \bigl(g(\partial_j, \partial_k) \bigr)

= g(\nabla_i\partial_j, \partial_k) + g(\partial_j, \nabla_i\partial_k) = g(\Gamma^l_{ij}\partial_l, \partial_k) + g(\partial_j, \Gamma_{ik}^l\partial_l) $$ i.e., if and only if
 * $$ \partial_i g_{jk} = \Gamma^l_{ij}g_{lk} + \Gamma^l_{ik}g_{jl}.$$

An affine connection $∇$ is torsion free iff
 * $$\nabla_j\partial_k - \nabla_k \partial_j = (\Gamma^l_{jk} - \Gamma^l_{kj})\partial_l = [\partial_j, \partial_k]= 0. $$

i.e., if and only if
 * $$\Gamma^l_{jk} = \Gamma^l_{kj}$$

is symmetric in its lower two indices.

As one checks by taking for $$X, Y, Z$$, coordinate vector fields $$\partial_j, \partial_k, \partial_l$$ (or computes directly), the Koszul expression of the Levi-Civita connection derived above is equivalent to a definition of the Christoffel symbols in terms of the metric as

 * $$\Gamma^l_{jk} = \tfrac{1}{2} g^{lr} \left( \partial _k g_{rj} + \partial _j g_{rk} - \partial _r g_{jk} \right)$$

where as usual $$g^{ij}$$ are the coefficients of the dual metric tensor, i.e. the entries of the inverse of the matrix $$g_{kl}$$.

Derivative along curve
The Levi-Civita connection (like any affine connection) also defines a derivative along curves, sometimes denoted by $D$.

Given a smooth curve $γ$ on $(M, g)$ and a vector field $V$ along $γ$ its derivative is defined by

 * $$D_tV=\nabla_{\dot\gamma(t)}V.$$

Formally, $D$ is the pullback connection $γ*∇$ on the pullback bundle $γ*TM$.

In particular, $$\dot\gamma(t)$$ is a vector field along the curve $γ$ itself. If $$\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}(t)}\dot{\gamma}(t)$$ vanishes, the curve is called a geodesic of the covariant derivative. Formally, the condition can be restated as the vanishing of the pullback connection applied to $$\dot\gamma$$:

 * $$\left(\gamma^*\nabla\right) \dot{\gamma}\equiv 0.$$

If the covariant derivative is the Levi-Civita connection of a certain metric, then the geodesics for the connection are precisely those geodesics of the metric that are parametrised proportionally to their arc length.

Parallel transport
In general, parallel transport along a curve with respect to a connection defines isomorphisms between the tangent spaces at the points of the curve. If the connection is a Levi-Civita connection, then these isomorphisms are orthogonal – that is, they preserve the inner products on the various tangent spaces.

The images below show parallel transport induced by the Levi-Civita connection associated to two different Riemannian metrics on the punctured plane $$\mathbf R^2 \backslash \{0,0\}$$. The curve the parallel transport is done along is the unit circle. In polar coordinates, the metric on the left is the standard Euclidean metric $$ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 = dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2$$, while the metric on the right is $$ds^2 = dr^2 + d\theta^2$$. The first metric extends to the entire plane, but the second metric has a singularity at the origin:
 * $$dr = \frac{xdx + ydy}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}$$
 * $$d\theta = \frac{xdy - ydx}{x^2 + y^2}$$
 * $$dr^2 + d\theta^2 = \frac{(xdx + ydy)^2}{x^2+y^2} + \frac{(xdy - ydx)^2}{(x^2+y^2)^2}$$.

Warning: This is parallel transport on the punctured plane along the unit circle, not parallel transport on the unit circle. Indeed, in the first image, the vectors fall outside of the tangent space to the unit circle.

Example: the unit sphere in $R^{3}$
Let $⟨, ⟩$ be the usual scalar product on $R^{3}$. Let $S^{2}$ be the unit sphere in $R^{3}$. The tangent space to $S^{2}$ at a point $m$ is naturally identified with the vector subspace of $R^{3}$ consisting of all vectors orthogonal to $m$. It follows that a vector field $Y$ on $S^{2}$ can be seen as a map $Y : S^{2} → R^{3}$, which satisfies $$\bigl\langle Y(m), m\bigr\rangle = 0, \qquad \forall m\in \mathbf{S}^2.$$

Denote as $d_{m}Y$ the differential of the map $Y$ at the point $m$. Then we have:

$$

$$

In fact, this connection is the Levi-Civita connection for the metric on $S^{2}$ inherited from $∇$. Indeed, one can check that this connection preserves the metric.

Behavior under conformal rescaling
If the metric $$g$$ in a conformal class is replaced by the conformally rescaled metric of the same class $$\hat g=e^{2\gamma}g$$, then the Levi-Civita connection transforms according to the rule $$\widehat\nabla_X Y = \nabla_XY + X(\gamma)Y + Y(\gamma)X - g(X,Y)\mathrm{grad}_g(\gamma).$$ where $$\mathrm{grad}_g(\gamma)$$ is the gradient vector field of $$\gamma$$ i.e. the vector field $$g$$-dual to $$d\gamma$$, in local coordinates given by $$g^{ik}(\partial_i \gamma)\partial_k$$. Indeed, it is trivial to verify that $$\widehat\nabla$$ is torsion-free. To verify metricity, assume that $$g(Y,Y)$$ is constant. In that case, $$\hat g(\widehat\nabla_XY,Y) = X(\gamma)\hat g(Y,Y) = \frac12 X(\hat g(Y,Y)).$$

As an application, consider again the unit sphere, but this time under stereographic projection, so that the metric (in complex Fubini–Study coordinates $$z,\bar z$$) is: $$g = \frac{4\,dz\,d\bar z}{(1+z\bar z)^2}.$$ This exhibits the metric of the sphere as conformally flat, with the Euclidean metric $$dz\,d\bar z$$, with $$\gamma = \ln(2)-\ln (1+z\bar z)$$. We have $$d\gamma = -(1+z\bar z)^{-1}(\bar z\, dz + z\,d{\bar z})$$, and so $$\widehat\nabla_{\partial_z}\partial_z = -\frac{2\bar z\partial_z}{1+z\bar z}.$$ With the Euclidean gradient $$\mathrm{grad}_{Euc}(\gamma) = -(1+z\bar z)^{-1}(\bar z\partial_z + z\partial_{\bar z})$$, we have $$\widehat\nabla_{\partial_z}\partial_{\bar z} = 0.$$ These relations, together with their complex conjugates, define the Christoffel symbols for the two-sphere.

title: Levi-Civita connection


text:
Talk:Microsoft Bob

Win 3.1
Which idiot edited this article to suggest Bob was for Win95 and NT? It was made for Win 3.1, if it worked for Win95 it was because of Win31 compatibility built into that OS. Suggesting that such a thing would be made for NT is even more absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.224.136 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Yep, Bob did not work on NT. I know because I was at MS at the time, and I always ran NT on my desktop.  I installed Bob.  It would come up and you could kind of play with it, but its operations mostly did not work. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, MS Bob came at the same year as NT 3.51 with the GINA support. I suspect that this is not a coincidence, right? - Yuhong (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comic Sans MS
Look closely at the logo - was this the first appearance of that godawful bane of typography known as Comic Sans MS? Slicing 21:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Comic Sans MS was originally made by Vincent Connare for Microsoft 3D Movie Maker in 1994. It eventually made its way to Win95 OEM and the Plus Pack, but didn't make it into Bob.  Comic Sans has more info on it.  Jkonrath 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that Comic Sans was designed for Bob, but wasn't completed in time for it's release. This seems to be what it says on Comic sans page. --81.136.206.155 (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Least Successful Product
That's a stretch! How about Microsoft Trains (the railroad simulator)- (unsigned)

 * Microsoft Bob was supposed to lead to a revolution in computing. They spent years and millions of dollars developing it. It has 2 notable spinoffs, Office Assistant and the Comic Sans font, both of which are arguably disasters of their own. Microsoft Trains was just a little game. --81.136.206.155 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Bob article cited at Brazilian Terra Tecnologia website
This article was cited by the Brazilian language Terra Tecnologia article. See this link. Regards, Carioca 05:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It was also cited as a source for this CNet article.--SeizureDog 03:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which as it turns out, is the same article in English. --SeizureDog 03:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Office Assistant Rex
The article says that Rover animations inspired the Office Assistant "Rex". But there isn't any office assistant called Rex. If you know who is it, please put a link here so I can see it, but I suggest to delete that information.

 * No. There was Rover in Windows XP to help you search your files though.

Chaos?
Was that really the cats name? --Trusader 20:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, Chaos was her name. She is a girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.78.143 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Near Misquoting
This quote, [Microsoft Bob was one application] "we [had] undertaken ... where we decided that we have not succeeded and let's stop."[1] was taken from, "We've been fortunate. There is nothing that we have undertaken -- with a couple of exceptions like Microsoft Bob that I'll cop to in advance -- where we have decided that we have not succeeded and let's stop,"I think that's forcing the quote to take on a different meaning than what was originally meant to; the speaker was using the quote to praise Microsoft of it's achievements, save a few failures, not to call Microsoft Bob a failure. I'm not disputing that it was a failure, I just think this is an unethical use of a quotation. JRNorbergé 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image
It looks like the image is running Bob on Windows XP (notice the XP taskbar at the bottom). Can't anyone get a screenshot of it running in it's natural environment? C'mon all you computer geeks... :) 69.95.238.85 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Fitzgerald
What about Paul and Java the Dinosaur(/Dragon?)? It maybe could be at the end. Also what about a article about him? 168.103.172.60 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New millenium
"In 2007, Microsoft Bob was voted by the readers of PC Magazine as one of the ten biggest software failures in the new millennium."

How is this possible if the interface was released in 1995, which was in the previous millenium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PearlTheater (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words?
Bob included various office suite programs such as a finance application and a word processor. The user interface was designed to be helpful to novice computer users, but many saw its methods of assistance as too cute and involved. Each action, such as creating a new text document, featured the step-by-step tutorials no matter how many times the user had been through the process. Users were assisted by cartoon characters whose appearance was usually vaguely related to the task. These characteristics earned Bob the 7th place in PC World Magazine's list of the 25 worst products of all time[4] and worst product of the decade by CNET.com.[5] The box above this paragraph says that it uses weasel words and that it isn't true(as of 2/22/2009). But the paragraph looks like a succinct statment of facts to me. I honestly wonder who would think that paragraph is biased.... (unsigned)

“What password would you like?” apocryphal?
Gary McGraw in Software Security (Kindle location 952) says the “oft-repeated story that may be apocryphal… Bob would pop up and proclaim: ‘I see you have forgotten your password, please enter a new password.’”

http://www.d2ca.org/ms-bob-sign-in.html has a supposed screenshot of something similar, but with very different phrasing: “Pardon me…Have you forgotten your password.” (Next screen) “What password would you like?”  Is the screenshot real, and does anyone know a non-self-published source for the alleged vulnerability?

—FlashSheridan (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/17/science/personal-computers-bob-your-new-best-friend-s-personality-quirks.html This review of a preview version indicates the password reset feature did exist in the version the author tried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noldrin (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Never Released Bob 2.0
This article mentions that Bob 2.0 was never released, should it be mentioned in the article? 114.76.74.210 (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is mostly about how Bob was so bad, especially the lead.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a reason for why the article is about it being bad (although that's actually a small portion of the article). It's covered in the lead. Some guy (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That initial sentence about visibility is the one I'm most concerned about.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You disagree with Microsoft's own assessment of the software, backed by industry reception? Some guy (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that, it's WP:UNDUE. Such a statement is better placed in the body of the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not undue. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". The prominent view on Bob, the only reason anyone still remembers it, is that it was a spectacular failure. This is the most notable thing about the program, and deserves the most weight in the article, and belongs in the lead. Some guy (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jasper Deng: Can you cite a reliable source which provides significant coverage of MS Bob and which does not present the product in a negative light? I'm not aware of any.  If no such viewpoint can be found, than not presenting Bob in a negative light would be undue weight.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were columnists who thought Bob was going to be great and open up the PC to new audiences. After one of the big tech conferences.  I remember it because I was surprised that anyone actually liked it (I was in MS at the time, and most people thought it was just goofy). DonPMitchell (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind one non-negative source doesn't unbalance ten negative sources and equal neutral. Some guy (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing I might find would be the product release page, and that's not enough. No more concerns about neutrality.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * There were people who bought into the ideas of Nass and Reeves, who were respectable academics. Charles Finnie predicted that Bob would threaten Apple with its new easy to use interface.  There was interest from the movie industry (Spielberg I recall...maybe someone could check that) who thought social interfaces represented a potential connection between their industries.  Reid Goldsborough wrote that Bob would open up a "huge untapped market of home users".
 * It's tricky to search for this kind of thing from 20 years ago. With 20/20 hindsight we all see how silly Bob was, but it wasn't obviously wrong to everyone when it was first demoed.  DonPMitchell (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob on the Windows XP CD is a Joke
The story about Microsoft Bob being shipped as an encrypted file on Windows XP CDs to take up space is a joke/hoax, please do not reinsert it into the article. The contents of the Windows XP CD are thoroughly known, as there are applications such as nLite which allow you to produce slimmed-down Windows XP CDs with any component you like removed. Creating such images requires (of the person writing, not necessarily using, the program) detailed knowledge of what each file does and what truly needs to be there. There are no 30MB garbage files holding encrypted data. Also, MS Bob is 15MB, not 30MB. If you truly believe this is real and want to reinsert it into the article, you're going to need at least one source verifying this or that has found the actual file in question. Alereon (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your logic doesn't make any sense. There are applications like nLite, therefore there is no Microsoft Bob on the disc? Someone knows what all the useful files are, therefore there can be no unneeded encrypted data to waste space? You can't make two copies of something to fill twice the space one copy makes up? An article written by a Microsoft employee in July is an April Fools' day joke? Did you even look at the source? Some guy (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is pretty simple: we know there is not 15-30MB of garbage data on the Windows XP CD because Windows XP has been out for 10 years and we have a thorough understanding of what everything on the disc is and does. If you don't believe me, feel free to go mount a Windows XP ISO image and look yourself (since the article claimed the data would be downloaded, it would have to be present in the ISO image). You'll quickly find that there simply aren't very many large files, and the ones that exist are clearly identifiable. The only explanation left is that Microsoft broke this data up into tiny pieces and hid it inside various real system files, and the idea that Microsoft would do that just to make pirates download some extra data is laughable. Which is the point of the article, because it's meant to be funny. Finally, just to beat this dead horse just a bit more, there was not "about 30MB of storage capacity remaining", the product AS SHIPPED is <500MB, leaving over 150MB of space left on a standard 650MB CD. Alereon (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are definitely good points, but then we're putting original research and conjecture against a quote from a Microsoft employee. Argh. I tried looking it up and didn't find much but found one forum thread where two people said the Bob data was burned on the disc but not directly accessible and thus wouldn't be in an ISO. That wouldn't fit in well with the "used to make the file larger so torrenting is slower" explanation. But it's a couple random people on a forum, not any type of valid source. Some guy (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what it comes down to is that I don't think we can consider that article as a credible source, even though Raymond Chen may be credible in general, because pretty much every verifiable element is simply not true. Since in over 10 years no one has ever found any evidence that there is data hidden on the Windows XP disc (and people certainly started looking in earnest after this article was published), this should be considered an urban legend unless someone finds some candidate data at some point. Alereon (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you expect others to know or care about the unencryption process?Jasper Deng (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jasper, what is your point?
 * Alereon, there is still the problem that this is original research against a source. I reworded the text in the article to make it more clear that this is something that someone said, rather than presenting it as a straightforward fact; I'd like to add commmentary from notable sources that this might be a joke or has been proven false, but otherwise adding more qualifiers to the information will essentially be weasel wording. I'm going to invoke WP:BRD at this point and ask that you do not continue to remove the content from the article until a compromise is reached through discussion. If you can find any good sources that state it was a joke, by all means add them to the article. In the meantime, I'll throw in commentary from notable tech writer Harry McCracken. Some guy (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't expect third-party conclusive evidence if no third party knows how to find out.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For one thing, with a lot of computer geeks, you can't stop them once they get it in their head to do something. People decrypt things just for the hell of it, not to mention rampant piracy, data theft, etc. A better point is that they can't decrypt the data if it isn't there to decrypt, but it will be difficult or impossible to find an authoratative source stating Bob is not on the disk, unless Raymond Chen issues a statement that it was a joke. Some guy (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Melinda French
Article states that Melinda French was "at one point ... a marketing manager". This is incorrect and understates her role. For as long as I was associated with the product (several months in late 94, early 95 including v1 release) she was the Business Unit Manager, basically the top person for the project. We all reported up through her. Prior to Utopia, she was a Product Manager for other Consumer Division products. Charles Oppermann (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Comeback?
Bill Gates says Microsoft Bob will make a comeback

"Speaking Monday at the Microsoft Research event, the chairman said Microsoft Bob didn't get it right, but he thinks the personal assistant feature will reemerge with a bit more sophistication." http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57593736-75/bill-gates-says-microsoft-bob-will-make-a-comeback/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.107.240.36 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 * You must be thinking of the Siri clone Cortana, a personal assistant added to Windows Phone. 67.165.116.17 (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate article. Lacks temporal grounding.
Shjacks45 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither Win95 or NT4 were targets for Bob 1.0 which was a Windows 3.x program exclusively. Text should be corrected to indicate that Bob was discontinued before Windows 95 (not 98) launch. It is not on the Win95 software compatibility list.
 * Microsoft Bob 1.0 was a response to Packard Bell "Navigator" program which predated Bob and used the "different rooms in the house" analogy to organize user programs, clicking on the "desk" "blotter" in the "study" opened a word processor. Packard Bell was the best selling retail computer in the 1990's thru ~1997, and Navigator was designed for the computer illiterate (think "Beverly Hillbillies"). Was the simpleton interface what sold the computers to the consumer market? Of course the fact that it undercut other manufacturers' prices in part due to Intel funding (Intel manufactured for them then Intel forgave PB debts; also manufactured same designs for Gateway; note Bob for Gateway on www.danielsays.com). At that time every major retail computer company had some type of cutesy user interface (Windows 8?), shielding the user from Windows 3.11: IBM, Compaq, AST, HP, et al.
 * Bob was a response to "Navigator envy" of Microsoft's other OEM customers.
 * Bob was originally envisioned with AI (like Microsoft Agent in Office trying to second guess the user) and having Voice control (for the mouse averse?)a la Microsoft Agent Development Kit. Many retail consumer computers were underpowered to be able to do those tasks (average computer was 486DX2/66 and 4MB Ram).
 * Navigator, Bob, et al replaced the Windows shell which prevented many programs from launching. Assisting customers to disable these shells to allow Win95 setup to complete was a common Win95 support call.
 * Bob 2.0 was a Windows 95 compatible internal Beta. MS Win95 Support had hand-me-down computers from Testing (e.g. 386DX33 8MB Ram) that could barely run the application.
 * For a list of Bob's influence on other programs see http://www.danielsays.com/ms-bob-16-bob-lives.html
 * Should be a reference to "Church of Slack" as tied to Bob.
 * There was a rumor that Microsoft copyrighted the name Bob.
 * Cite your sources. Otherwise everything you say is original research. Some guy (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Reddit view spike - fyi.
This article was linked to by a popular Reddit thread (4195 upvotes, 1325 comments as of right now) in mid-July 2014 that drove significant traffic to the page. Look for it on the next WP:TOP25 report as a result.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Microsoft Bob. 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/20050814234847/http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeobsoleteproducts to http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeobsoleteproducts
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/191600739/ballmer-analyzes-microsofts-one-big-vista-mistake.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303030954/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/103006-bob.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/103006-bob.html

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) 18:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Windows 10
Let's not be silly. Not even the cited Engadget article makes the claim that Windows 10 is the successor of Microsoft Bob, especially as that article was released two years before Windows 10 was a thing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Yep i think so too. 174.27.4.51 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Template
Why is the template there? It shouldn't be part of the article 166.70.171.120 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Microsoft Bob


text: Talk:Microsoft Office

title: Talk:Microsoft Office


text:
Heliport

A heliport, sometimes termed a vertiport, is a small airport suitable for use by helicopters and various types of vertical lift aircraft. Designated heliports typically contain one or more touchdown and liftoff areas and may also have limited facilities such as fuel or hangars. In some larger towns and cities, customs facilities may also be available.

Early advocates of helicopters hoped that heliports would become widespread, but they have become contentious in urban areas due to the excessive noise caused by helicopter traffic.

In American use a heliport is defined as "an area of land, water, or structure used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters and includes its buildings and facilities if any". A heliport will consist of one or more helipads, which are defined as "a small, designated area, usually with a prepared surface, on a heliport, airport, landing/take-off area, apron/ramp, or movement area used for takeoff, landing, or parking of helicopters".

In Canada the term heliport is legally only used for a certified aerodrome for helicopter use.

Heliport airspace
The airspace immediately surrounding the heliport is called the Primary Surface. This area coincides in shape and size with the designated take-off and landing area. This surface is a horizontal plane equal to the elevation of the established heliport elevation. The Primary Surface is further broken down into three distinct regions. These are, the 'Touch-down and Lift-off' (TLOF) area, the 'Final Approach and Takeoff' (FATO) area and the 'Safety Area'.

The TLOF is a load-bearing, generally paved area, normally centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter lands and / or takes off. The FATO is a defined area over which the pilot completes the final phase of the approach to a hover or a landing, and from which the pilot initiates take-off. The FATO elevation is the lowest elevation of the edge of the TLOF. The Safety Area is a defined area on a heliport surrounding the FATO intended to reduce the risk of damage to helicopters accidentally diverging from the FATO.

Purpose
In a large metropolitan and urban areas, a heliport can serve passengers needing to quickly move within the city, or to outlying regions. Generally, heliports can be situated closer to a town or city center than an airport for fixed-wing aircraft. The advantage in flying by helicopter to a destination, or even to the city's main airport, is that travel can be much faster than by surface transport. As an example, the Downtown Manhattan Heliport in New York City provides scheduled service to John F. Kennedy International Airport, and is used to move wealthy persons and important goods quickly to destinations as far away as Maryland.

Police departments use heliports as a base for police helicopters, and larger departments may have a dedicated large heliport facility dedicated such as the LAPD Hooper Heliport.

Some skyscrapers feature rooftop heliports to serve the transport needs of executives or clients. Many of these rooftop sites also serve as Emergency Helicopter Landing Facilities (EHLF), in case emergency evacuation is needed. The U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles is an example.

Helipads are common features at hospitals, where they serve to facilitate helicopter air ambulance and MEDEVACs for transferring patients into and out of hospital facilities. Some large trauma centers may have multiple helipads, while most small hospitals have just one. Helipads allow hospitals to accept patients flown in from remote accident sites, where there are no local hospitals or facilities capable of providing the level of emergency care required.

The National EMS Pilots Association (NEMSPA) has published multiple white papers, surveys and safety recommendations for the enhancement of hospital helipad operations to improve patient safety.

Heliport markings
While heliports can be oriented in any direction, they will generally have very definitive approach and departure paths. However, heliports are not numbered in the same way that runways at airports are. Recommended standard practice by both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is to orient a H in the center of the TLOF, in line with the preferred approach / departure direction.

An information box should also be included in the TLOF area, which provides the aircraft gross weight the helipad is rated for, as well as the maximum size helicopter the helipad has been designed to accommodated, which is based on the helicopter rotor diameter and overall length of the largest design helicopter that will service the helipad. Under normal conditions, it is standard practice to paint the maximum gross weight a helipad is designed to support in either metric tonnes, kilograms, or thousands of pounds, along with the maximum helicopter dimensions in metres or feet. Arrows are oftentimes painted on the heliport to indicate to pilots the preferred approach / departure paths. Other common markings can include ownership, radio frequencies, company logo(s), and magnetic north.

Lighting
To conduct night-time operations, a heliport must have lighting installed that meets specific aeronautical standards. Heliport perimeter lights are generally installed around the TLOF area, and may be flush mounted on the TLOF itself, or mounted just off the TLOF perimeter on short metal or concrete extensions.

One alternative to lighting the TLOF if certain criteria are met, is to light the area of the FATO instead. Some locations, due to environmental conditions, illuminate the TLOF and FATO. Lighting should never constitute an obstruction that a helicopter may impact, and for this reason, in the U.S., heliport lighting is not allowed to extend above the TLOF or FATO more than 2 in. Current standards recommend that all perimeter lighting be green. Prior standards recommended amber lighting for perimeter lights; however this wavelength has been shown to interfere with night vision goggle (NVG) operations, when used with older incandescent lighting.

In the past, lighting has been traditionally incandescent, but increasingly, light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are being incorporated, due to lower power requirements and increased life. While flood lights may be used to enhance surface operations, they should not interfere with flight crew night vision, and should be kept off during flight operations, and only used when conducting ground movement operations. To conduct night operations, a lighted wind cone is also required. At ground-based heliports, lead-in lights may be incorporated to identify the preferred approach / departure direction. Visual slope guidance systems (such as HAPI, PAPI, etc.) are recommended options in both ICAO and FAA document. While airports commonly use 6.6A direct current power, heliport lighting is normally AC powered. Radio control of the lighting by the pilot via an automated ground-based controller is also common.

Approach / departure airspace
To provide for a safe environment to perform normal helicopter landing and take-off operations, each heliport must have unobstructed approach / departure paths.

The minimum recommended separation between flight paths is 135 degrees. A heliport approach path is broken down into two distinct airspace surfaces; the Approach Surface, and the Transitional Surface. The approach surface begins at each end of the heliport primary surface with the same width as the primary surface, and extends outward and upward for a horizontal distance of 4000 ft, where its width is 500 ft. The slope of the approach surface is 8-to-1 for civil heliports. The Transitional Surfaces extend outward and upward from the lateral boundaries of the primary surface, and from the approach surfaces, at a slope of 2-to-1 for a distance of 250 ft, measured horizontally from the centerline of the primary and approach surfaces. Approach paths can either be straight or curved to accommodate obstructions and avoidance areas.

General sources

 * de Voogt, A.J. 2007. Helidrome Architecture. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.
 * ICAO Annex 14 Aerodrome Standards, Aerodrome Design and Operations
 * ICAO 1995. Heliport Manual. Montreal, Canada: ICAO Publications.
 * Frost, John B. 1996. British helipads. Chester, UK: Appledore Publications.

title: Heliport


text:
Ludlow Massacre

The Ludlow Massacre was a mass killing perpetrated by anti-striker militia during the Colorado Coalfield War. Soldiers from the Colorado National Guard and private guards employed by Colorado Fuel and Iron Company (CF&I) attacked a tent colony of roughly 1,200 striking coal miners and their families in Ludlow, Colorado, on April 20, 1914. Approximately 21 people, including miners' wives and children, were killed. John D. Rockefeller Jr., a part-owner of CF&I who had recently appeared before a United States congressional hearing on the strikes, was widely blamed for having orchestrated the massacre.

The massacre was the seminal event of the 1913–1914 Colorado Coalfield War, which began with a general United Mine Workers of America strike against poor labor conditions in CF&I's southern Colorado coal mines. The strike was organized by miners working for the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company and Victor-American Fuel Company. Ludlow was the deadliest single incident during the Colorado Coalfield War and spurred a ten-day period of heightened violence throughout Colorado. In retaliation for the massacre at Ludlow, bands of armed miners attacked dozens of anti-union establishments, destroying property and engaging in several skirmishes with the Colorado National Guard along a 225 mi front from Trinidad to Louisville. From the strike's beginning in September 1913 to intervention by federal soldiers under President Woodrow Wilson's orders on April 29, 1914, an estimated 69 to 199 people were killed during the strike. Historian Thomas G. Andrews declared it the "deadliest strike in the history of the United States."

The Ludlow Massacre was a watershed moment in American labor relations. Socialist historian Howard Zinn described it as "the culminating act of perhaps the most violent struggle between corporate power and laboring men in American history". Congress responded to public outrage by directing the House Committee on Mines and Mining to investigate the events. Its report, published in 1915, was influential in promoting child labor laws and an eight-hour work day. The Ludlow townsite and the adjacent location of the tent colony, 18 mi northwest of Trinidad, Colorado, is now a ghost town. The massacre site is owned by the United Mine Workers of America, which erected a granite monument in memory of those who died that day. The Ludlow tent colony site was designated a National Historic Landmark on January 16, 2009, and dedicated on June 28, 2009. Subsequent investigations immediately following the massacre and modern archeological efforts largely support some of the strikers' accounts of the event.

Background

Areas of the Rocky Mountains have veins of coal close to the surface, providing significant and relatively accessible reserves. In 1867, these coal deposits caught the attention of William Jackson Palmer, then leading a survey team planning the route of the Kansas Pacific Railway. The rapid expansion of rail transport in the United States made coal a highly valued commodity, and it was rapidly commercialized.

At its peak in 1910, the coal mining industry of Colorado employed 15,864 people, 10% of jobs in the state. Colorado's coal industry was dominated by a handful of operators. Colorado Fuel and Iron was the largest coal operator in the west and one of the nation's most powerful corporations, at one point employing 7,050 people and controlling 71837 acre of coal land. John D. Rockefeller purchased a controlling stake in the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company in 1902, and nine years later he turned over his controlling interest in the company to his son, John D. Rockefeller Jr., who managed the company from his offices at 26 Broadway in New York.

Mining was dangerous and difficult work. Colliers in Colorado were constantly threatened by explosions, suffocation, and collapsing mine walls. In 1912, the death rate in Colorado's mines was 7.06 per 1,000 employees, compared to a national rate of 3.15. In 1914, the United States House Committee on Mines and Mining reported:

"Colorado has good mining laws and such that ought to afford protection to the miners as to safety in the mine if they were enforced, yet in this State the percentage of fatalities is larger than any other, showing there is undoubtedly something wrong in reference to the management of its coal mines."

Miners were generally paid according to tonnage of coal produced, while so-called "dead work", such as shoring up unstable roofs, was often unpaid. The tonnage system drove many poor and ambitious colliers to gamble with their lives by neglecting precautions and taking on risk, with consequences that were often fatal. Between 1884 and 1912, mining accidents claimed the lives of more than 1,700 in Colorado. In 1913 alone 110 men died in mine-related accidents.

Colliers had little opportunity to air their grievances. Many resided in company towns, in which all land, real estate, and amenities were owned by the mine operator, and which were expressly designed to inculcate loyalty and squelch dissent. Welfare capitalists believed that anger and unrest among the workers could be placated by raising colliers' standard of living, while subsuming it under company management. Company towns indeed brought tangible improvements to many colliers' lives, including larger houses, better medical care, and broader access to education. But owning the towns gave companies considerable control over all aspects of workers' lives, and they did not always use this power to augment public welfare. Historian Philip S. Foner has described company towns as "feudal domain[s], with the company acting as lord and master. ... The 'law' consisted of the company rules. Curfews were imposed. Company guards—brutal thugs armed with machine guns and rifles loaded with soft-point bullets—would not admit any 'suspicious' stranger into the camp and would not permit any miner to leave." Miners who came into conflict with the company were often summarily evicted from their homes. I’m Frustrated by working conditions they found unsafe and unjust, colliers increasingly turned to unions. Nationwide, organized mines boasted 40% fewer fatalities than nonunion mines. Colorado miners repeatedly attempted to unionize after the state's first strike in 1883. The Western Federation of Miners organized primarily hard-rock miners in the gold and silver camps during the 1890s.

Beginning in 1900, the United Mine Workers of America began organizing coal miners in the western states, including southern Colorado. The union decided to focus on the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company because of its harsh management tactics under the conservative and distant Rockefellers and other investors. To break or prevent strikes, the coal companies hired strike breakers, mainly from Mexico and southern and eastern Europe. The Colorado Fuel & Iron Company mixed immigrants of different nationalities in the mines to discourage communication that might lead to organization.

Strike

Despite attempts to suppress union activity, the United Mine Workers of America secretly continued its unionization efforts in the years leading up to 1913. Eventually, the union presented a list of seven demands:

 * 1) Recognition of the union as bargaining agent
 * 2) Compensation for digging coal at a ton rate based on 2,000 pounds (previous ton rates were of long tons of 2,200 pounds)
 * 3) Enforcement of the eight-hour work-day law
 * 4) Payment for "dead work" (laying track, timbering, handling impurities, etc.)
 * 5) Weight checkmen elected by the workers (to keep company weightmen honest)
 * 6) Right to use any store, and to choose their boarding houses and doctors
 * 7) Strict enforcement of Colorado's laws (such as mine safety rules, abolition of scrip), and an end to the company guard system

The major coal companies rejected the demands. In September 1913, the United Mine Workers of America called a strike. Those who went on strike were evicted from their company homes and moved to tent villages prepared by the union. The tents were built on wood platforms and furnished with cast-iron stoves on land the union had leased in preparation for a strike.

When leasing the sites, the union had selected locations near the mouths of canyons that led to the coal camps in order to block any strikebreakers' traffic. The company hired the Baldwin–Felts Detective Agency to protect the new workers and harass the strikers.

Baldwin–Felts had a reputation for aggressive strike breaking. Agents shone searchlights on the tent villages at night and fired bullets into the tents at random, occasionally killing and maiming people. They used an improvised armored car, mounted with a machine gun the union called the "Death Special", to patrol the camp's perimeters. The steel-covered car was built at the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company plant in Pueblo, Colorado, from the chassis of a large touring sedan. Confrontations between striking miners and working miners, whom the union called scabs, sometimes resulted in deaths. Frequent sniper attacks on the tent colonies drove the miners to dig pits beneath the tents to hide in. Armed battles also occurred between (mostly Greek) strikers and sheriffs recently deputized to suppress the strike: this was the Colorado Coalfield War.

As strike-related violence mounted, Colorado governor Elias M. Ammons called in the Colorado National Guard on October 28. At first, the Guard's appearance calmed the situation, but the Guard leaders' sympathies lay with company management. Guard Adjutant-General John Chase, who had served during the violent Cripple Creek strike 10 years earlier, imposed a harsh regime. On March 10, 1914, a replacement worker's body was found on the railroad tracks near Forbes, Colorado. The National Guard said the strikers had murdered the man. In retaliation, Chase ordered the Forbes tent colony destroyed. The attack was launched while the residents were attending a funeral of two infants who had died a few days earlier. Photographer Lou Dold witnessed the attack, and his images of the destruction often appear in accounts of the strike.

The strikers persevered until the spring of 1914. By then, according to historian Anthony DeStefanis, the National Guard had largely broken the strike by helping the mine operators bring in non-union workers. The state had also run out of money to maintain the Guard, and Ammons decided to recall them. He and the mining companies, fearing a breakdown in order, left one company of Guardsmen in southern Colorado. They formed a new company called "Troop A", which consisted largely of Colorado Fuel & Iron Company mine camp guards and mine guards hired by Baldwin–Felts, who were given National Guard uniforms.

Massacre

On the morning of April 20, the day after some in the tent colony celebrated Orthodox Easter, three Guardsmen appeared at the camp ordering the release of a man they claimed was being held against his will. The camp leader, Louis Tikas, left to meet with Major Patrick J. Hamrock at the train station in Ludlow village, 1/2 mi from the colony. While this meeting was progressing, two militias installed a machine gun on a ridge near the camp and took positions along a rail route about half a mile south of Ludlow. Simultaneously, armed Greek miners began flanking to an arroyo. When two of the militias' dynamite explosions – detonated to draw support from the National Guard units at Berwind and Cedar Hill – alerted the Ludlow tent colony, the miners took up positions at the bottom of the hill. When the militia opened fire, hundreds of miners and their families ran for cover.

The fighting raged for the entire day. The militia was reinforced by non-uniformed mine guards later in the afternoon. At dusk a passing freight train stopped on the tracks in front of the Guards' machine-gun placements, allowing many of the miners and their families to escape to an outcrop of hills to the east called the Black Hills. By 7 p.m., the camp was in flames, and the militia descended on it and began to search and loot it. Tikas had remained in the camp the entire day and was still there when the fire started. He and two other men were captured by the militia. Tikas and Lt. Karl Linderfelt, commander of one of two Guard companies, had confronted each other several times in the previous months. While two militiamen held Tikas, Linderfelt broke a rifle butt over his head. Tikas and the other two captured miners were later found shot dead. Tikas had been shot in the back. Their bodies lay along the Colorado and Southern Railway tracks for three days in full view of passing trains. The militia officers refused to allow them to be moved until a local of a railway union demanded they be taken away for burial.

During the battle, four women and 11 children hid in a pit beneath one tent, where they were trapped when the tent above them was set on fire. Two of the women and all the children suffocated. These deaths became a rallying cry for the United Mine Workers of America, who called the incident the Ludlow Massacre.

Julia May Courtney reported different numbers in her contemporaneous article "Remember Ludlow!" for the magazine Mother Earth. She said that, in addition to men who were killed, a total of 55 women and children had died in the massacre. According to her account, the militia:

Some reports say a second machine gun was brought in to support the estimated 200 Guardsmen who participated in the engagement, and that a Colorado and Southern train's operators purposely put their engine between a machine gun and the strikers as a shield against National Guard fire.

A board of Colorado military officers described the events as beginning with the killing of Tikas and other strikers in custody, with gunfire largely emanating from the southwestern corner of the Ludlow Colony. Guardsmen stationed on "Water Tank Hill"—the name for the machine gun position—fired into the camp. The Guardsmen reported having seen women and children withdrawing the morning before the battle and said they thought the strikers would not have begun firing if they had women still with them. The board's official report commended the "truly heroic behavior" of Linderfelt, the guardsmen, and the militia during the battle and blamed the strikers for any civilian casualties during the engagement, despite those killed being family members of the strikers. The report also blamed the looting that occurred afterward on "Troop 'A'", a unit composed largely of non-uniformed mine guards who had been integrated into the Guard.

In addition to the miners and their family members, three regular members of the National Guard and one other militiaman were reported killed in the day's fighting by contemporary accounts. However, modern historians assert that only one of the militia's number, a private named Martin of the National Guard, was killed. Martin was fatally shot in the neck, presumably by strikers.

Aftermath
In the aftermath of the massacre came the Ten Day War, part of the wider Colorado Coalfield War. As news of the deaths of women and children spread, the leaders of organized labor issued a call to arms. They urged union members to get "all the arms and ammunition legally available". Subsequently, the coal miners began a large-scale guerrilla war against the mine guards and facilities throughout Colorado's southern coalfields. In the town of Trinidad, the United Mine Workers of America openly and officially distributed arms and ammunition to strikers at union headquarters.

Over the next ten days, 700 to 1,000 strikers "attacked mine after mine, driving off or killing the guards and setting fire to the buildings." At least 50 people, including those at Ludlow, were killed during the ten days of fighting between the guards and miners. Hundreds of state militia reinforcements were rushed to the coalfields to regain control of the situation. The fighting ended only after President Woodrow Wilson sent in federal troops. The troops disarmed both sides, displacing and often arresting the militia in the process. The Colorado Coalfield War produced a total death toll of approximately 75.

The United Mine Workers of America finally ran out of money, and called off the strike on December 10, 1914. In the end, the strikers' demands were not met, the union did not obtain recognition, and many striking workers were replaced. 408 strikers were arrested, 332 of whom were indicted for murder.

Of those present at Ludlow during the massacre, only John R. Lawson, leader of the strike, was convicted of murder, and the Colorado Supreme Court eventually overturned the conviction. Twenty-two National Guardsmen, including 10 officers, were court-martialed. While Linderfelt was found responsible for the deaths of Tikas and other strikers that exhibited execution-style injuries, he and all others were acquitted.

An Episcopalian minister, Reverend John O. Ferris, pastored Trinity Church in Trinidad and another church in Aguilar. He was one of the few pastors in Trinidad permitted to search and provide Christian burials to the deceased victims of the Ludlow Massacre.

Legacy

The massacre sparked nationwide reproach for the Rockefellers, especially in New York, where protesters demonstrated outside of the Rockefeller building in New York City. Protesters led by Ferrer Center anarchists Alexander Berkman and Carlo Tresca followed when Rockefeller Jr. fled 30 mi upstate to the family estate near Tarrytown. In early July, a failed bomb plot on the Tarrytown estate ended with a dynamite explosion in East Harlem and three dead anarchists. The New York City Police Department inaugurated its bomb squad within a month. Bomb plots continued throughout the rest of the year.

Although the UMWA failed to win recognition from the company, the strike had a lasting effect both on conditions at the Colorado mines and on labor relations nationally. John D. Rockefeller Jr. engaged W. L. Mackenzie King, a labor relations expert and future Canadian Prime Minister, to help him develop reforms for the mines and towns. Improvements included paved roads and recreational facilities, as well as worker representation on committees dealing with working conditions, safety, health, and recreation. He prohibited discrimination against workers who had belonged to unions and ordered the establishment of a company union. The miners voted to accept the Rockefeller plan.

Rockefeller Jr. also brought in pioneer public relations expert Ivy Lee, who warned that the Rockefellers were losing public support and developed a strategy that Rockefeller followed to repair it. Rockefeller had to overcome his shyness, go to Colorado to meet the miners and their families, inspect the homes and the factories, attend social events, and listen closely to the grievances. This was novel advice, and attracted widespread media attention. The Rockefellers were able both to resolve the conflict, and present a more humanized version of their leaders.

Over time, Ludlow has assumed "a striking centrality in the interpretation of the nation's history developed by several of the most important left-leaning thinkers of the 20th century." Historian Howard Zinn wrote his master's thesis and several book chapters on Ludlow. George McGovern wrote his doctoral dissertation on the subject. In 1972, the same year as his U.S. presidential campaign, he published this dissertation with the help of historian Leonard Guttridge under the title The Great Coalfield War.

A United States Commission on Industrial Relations (CIR), headed by labor lawyer Frank Walsh, conducted hearings in Washington, DC, collecting information and taking testimony from all the principals, including Rockefeller Sr., who testified that, even after knowing that guards in his pay had committed atrocities against the strikers, he "would have taken no action" to prevent his hirelings from attacking them. The commission's report endorsed many of the reforms the unions sought, and provided support for bills establishing a national eight-hour workday and a ban on child labor.

The last survivor of the Ludlow Massacre, Ermenia "Marie" Padilla Daley, was 3 months old during the event. Her father was a miner and she was born in the camp. Her mother took her and her siblings away as violence escalated; they traveled by train to Trinidad, Colorado. The evacuation resulted in the family having to split up afterward. Daley was cared for by various families and also placed for a time in orphanages in Pueblo and Denver. She worked as a housekeeper, then married a consultant whose work allowed them to travel the world. Daley died on March 14, 2019, at age 105.

Representation in other media
Several popular songs have been written and recorded about the events at Ludlow. Among them are American folk singer Woody Guthrie's "Ludlow Massacre", Red Dirt country singer Jason Boland's "Ludlow", and Irish musician Andy Irvine's "The Monument (Lest We Forget)".

Upton Sinclair's novel King Coal is loosely based on the origin and aftermath of the Ludlow Massacre. Thomas Pynchon's 2006 novel Against the Day contains a chapter on the massacre.

American writer and Colorado Poet Laureate David Mason wrote what he calls a verse-novel, Ludlow (2007), inspired by the labor dispute. Composer Lori Laitman's opera Ludlow is based on Mason's book. The University of Colorado's New Opera Works presented Act I of the opera in June 2012, directed by Beth Greenberg.

Memorial
In 1916, the United Mine Workers of America bought the site of the Ludlow tent colony. Two years later, they erected the Ludlow Monument to commemorate those who died during the strike. It was fabricated by the Jones Brothers Company of Barre, Vermont using local granite and was commissioned by Sam Falsetto, president of the United Mine Workers of Trinidad, Colorado. The Springfield Granite Company served as the contractor. The monument was damaged in May 2003 by unknown vandals. The repaired monument was unveiled on June 5, 2005, with slightly altered faces on the statues.

National Historic Landmark
The tent colony site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1985, was designated a U.S. National Historic Landmark in 2009. Although the area continued to be occupied by mine workers and their families after the events of May 1914, they relocated, leaving the original encampment site relatively undisturbed. The site is consequently one of the best-preserved archaeological remains of such an encampment, and the monument is one of the earliest to commemorate a labor action of this type. The site is the first of its kind to be investigated by archeologists.

On May 7, 2003, vandals attacked the monument cutting off the solid granite/marble head of the male figure and the arm of the female figure. The missing parts were never recovered but replaced in 2005 with funding from private donations.

Centennial
On April 19, 2013, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed an executive order to create the Ludlow Centennial Commemoration Commission. The group worked to develop programming in the state, such as lectures and exhibits, to commemorate the Ludlow workers' struggle and raise awareness of the massacre. It worked with Colorado museums, historical societies, churches and art galleries, and supplied programming in 2014.

Archaeology
In 1996, the 1913–1914 Colorado Coalfield War Project began under the leadership of Randall H. McGuire of Binghamton University, Dean Saitta of University of Denver, and Philip Duke of Fort Lewis College, who later formed the Ludlow Collective. Their team conducted excavations of the territory of the former tent colony and surrounding areas.

title: Ludlow Massacre


text:
Talk:List of fictional birds

Untitled
Is Thorondor himself an eagle? -- Timwi 00:47 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, he is . -- Timwi 00:49 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Sonny and Toucan Sam... they're on television and they're not real... sounds like they belong in the List of fictional birds to me...

If you disagree, please explain why first, rather than just removing them again. --Dante Alighieri 18:59 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * They should stay - I performed extra research to determine Sonny's species! :)) -- Timwi 20:43 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Owl (friend of Winnie-the-Pooh) is mentioned twice: once under Literature and again under Disney. At the very least one of the entries needs to be slightly different. Phil 13:04, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Anyone have the works of Liam O'Flaherty? They should be a good source.

I think T. H. White's Archimedes is a tawny owl. Can anyone confirm?

Are medieval beast fables literature or folklore?

--JerryFriedman 01:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is this list meant to be?
Is it a list of "fictional birds" (birds that aren't real) or "birds in fiction" (real birds used in books, songs, etc.)? There needs to be two lists.

Five17 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I second this emotion. Ravens and owls are not "fictional birds". Specific individuals of species would qualify, as would species that are made up. I tbink it's probably POV to classify birds from religion as "fictional" because a great many people believe them to be literally real. Applejuicefool 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What's with the "extinct" tabs on all those sports teams ?

The Pittsburgh Penguins still exist

Comments on recent removal of certain links

 * Bagucks in Chippewa mythology
 * Is it really a bird. It is no where made clear on the Bagucks article, where it is referred to as a spirit.
 * I ran a google search, got 200+ links, but all of them either refer to a list similar to one in the article or start off as "Bagucks is a mischievous spirit, a skeletal bird ...". Could not find a good source of information. If you have one please mention it in the references.
 * I don't think it is a bird at all, though it flies. The word bakaak in the Anishinaabe language means "skeleton" or "extremely thin".  Now, there are several similar sounding phomes also at play here: /bagak=/ indicates "clear" or "concise" or "plainly"; /baagaakw=/ indicates "pounding" or "milling"; /baakaak=/ indicates "opening"; and /bakaak=/ indicates "thinness".  In the typical aadizookaan regarding Bakaak, all four phomes are used in making the point of the story.  CJLippert 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Firebird in Native American mythologies
 * The link takes you to the disambiguation page. Please fix the link if possible.

myth 04:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a list of FICTIONAL birds, many of them are believed in by members of certain religions or cultures. I propose changing it to mythological birds or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.73.251 (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"fictional" is all kinds of wrong here
Not sure what the alternative is but "fictional" is not applying to much of this list. Birds in literature? Birds in entertainment? Famous Birds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.194.35 (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that we merge together the list of fictional birds of prey, the list of fictional ducks, and the list of fictional penguins into this main article because: Certainly there is an argument that the articles on birds of prey, ducks, and penguins should remain split from this parent article to avoid this article becoming entirely too long. However if this split is to be retained then we will have to rename this article "List of fictional birds (other)" and we will have to remove all of the birds of prey, ducks, and penguins to avoid redundancy. At this point I am leaning toward the first option (i.e. a merger). Are there any thoughts on the matter? -Thibbs (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Birds of prey, ducks, and penguins are all birds
 * 2) There are already over 50 hawks, falcons, owls, vultures, etc. (birds of prey) in this article as well as an entire subsection called "birds of prey"
 * 3) There are already 18 ducks in this article as well as an entire subsection called "ducks, swans, and geese"
 * 4) There are already 16 penguins in this article as well as an entire subsection called "penguins"
 * Regarding the duck and penguin pages, it seems like it would be way too long if those pages were merged in. I'd recommend just putting a "Main article:" line in the ducks and penguins sections, pointing them to the respective pages, and moving any (non-duplicate) entries from here to those pages. Same with the owls. The birds of prey, maybe that could get merged in. Any more than that, though, and it seems like it would embiggen the fictional birds page to the point that people would be discussing a split. Just my 2¢. 28bytes (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I add my 2 cents to his, agreeing with 28bytes. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick responses. I have started to go through all of the "List of fictional Animal-X" articles and repair them. I have completed work on List of fictional animals (other) and I believe I have greatly improved it (see my recent work there). For the most part all of these articles are filled with non-notable entries (either redlinked or unlinked) and large amounts of duplication. So I strongly suspect that the lists of ducks and penguins will be greatly reduced in size by some much-needed cleanup. Perhaps the merger suggestion is premature. Anyway I think we should still keep an open mind toward the idea pending these cleanups. I'll notify all respondents from this thread as soon as I have finished cutting the unhelpful portions of those articles. Keep the comments coming, though. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I've now removed all easily-identifiable cruft from the list of fictional penguins, list of fictional birds of prey, and list of fictional ducks. I suppose to be fair I should also mention that I've removed all cruft from list of fictional owls as well since I have also proposed that the owl article be merged into the bird of prey article. I am not quite finished, however. I think that my initial proposal to merge all bird articles together should await my cleanup of "list of fictional birds" which may take me a good bit of time. Anyway I will write to the talk pages of all respondents to this discussion when I have finished the list of fictional birds cleanup. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm now satisfied that the articles under discussion are in as good a shape as can "easily" be achieved. So I think it's time to re-open discussions about merging. As things stand currently, this article is 14,743 bytes in size. The sizes for the other lists are: If all lists were merged together we'd have a list of around 36,726 (not counting the removal of duplicate entries of which there are many). This represents an increase to this article of about 2.5x. In the interest of providing context, prior to my intervention with this article it stood at 36,688 bytes. Thus if we were to merge all articles into one (again ignoring entry duplications) it would represent a rough 38 byte increase to the article from when I first began. If all duplicate entries are removed the merged mega-article would certainly be smaller than 36,688. Understanding all that, however, I do recognize that one of the things that prompted me to act in the first place was the massive size of some of these articles. I can see that there is an argument that some of these sections (like list of fictional ducks for example) has become so massive that it would be best to keep them as a separate article even despite the above analysis. If we are to follow this course then I believe we should de-populate the sections of this article that cover animals split from the main list (e.g. ducks) by shifting them to the split article (e.g. list of fictional ducks). I am open to ideas about what should be done to best manage these articles. At this point the merge I feel is most warranted is the "list of fictional owls" into the "list of fictional birds of prey." It would also be helpful to discuss whether we should rename this article "list of fictional birds (other)" or use notation (as for example under a "Ducks" subsection) to direct readers to the main articles on that topic. What do people think? -Thibbs (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * List of fictional penguins - 4,936 bytes (corrected to 4,139 if lede, all headers, and other markup is removed)
 * List of fictional owls - 4,054 bytes (presumably correctable to around 3,257 as above)
 * List of fictional birds of prey - 3,912 bytes (presumably correctable to around 3,115 as above)
 * List of fictional ducks - 12,269 bytes (presumably correctable to around 11,472 as above)
 * I think the byte counts might be deceptive since there are so many carriage returns included (as would be expected in any list.) For example, I've got a decent-sized monitor, but at my screen resolution the List of fictional birds page is still over 6 pages long in my browser. I think we've gone from "extremely long" to "long", but at "long" I'd be hesitant to support merging anything to List of fictional birds.
 * Most definitely I'm opposed to merging List of fictional ducks with/into anything, since it's 5 pages by itself. Merging List of fictional owls and List of fictional birds of prey would be fine from a page size perspective, since they're only about 2 pages each, although I'm not sure I see a compelling need for a merger there either. What problem is the merger intended to solve? 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding "should de-populate the sections of this article that cover animals split from the main list (e.g. ducks) by shifting them to the split article (e.g. list of fictional ducks)", I support that 100%. The entries should be in one place or the other, not both. 28bytes (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The main reason I think mergers in this area are important are to firm-up the definitions of the pages. This will reduce the potential for unhelpful duplication and the inevitable cruft generally. As it stands, characters from popular works of fiction like Harry Potter's owl Hedwig can be properly filed (according to strict biological definitions) under List of fictional owls, List of fictional birds of prey, and List of fictional birds. In fact that example is currently listed under both owls and birds. I can see three solutions:
 * merge smaller species/genera articles into larger order/family articles
 * rename the parent article as "list of X (other)" in distinction from the split articles "list of X (specific1)," "list of X (specific2)," etc.
 * keep the parent article's name intact and include subsections with notation to redirect readers to a specific article.
 * To be sure the third option would be the least disruptive but I worry that some editors might not take the extra step of clicking the main link and placing their entry there. So I think Option #3 will require constant monitoring. I would favor options 1 or 2 but I am flexible and not dead-set on this. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer option #3. I think no matter what is done, there will still be duplication; I'm sure you noticed that on the duck page, there were quite a few entries that were in there twice. I think having shorter standalone pages will help, as editors will be able to more easily check whether an entry they want to add is already there. Having the lines in there will also help, as it will be (one hopes) obvious to an editor not to add an entry there but to go to the linked page instead. 28bytes (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I have no real problems with this. I've written to User:Bearian as well. Let's see what he has to say on the issue. If he agrees then let's go with option #3. -Thibbs (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for all your hard work on this. 28bytes (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I go with Option # 3 as well. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I've gone ahead and done it then. The last thing I want to do with birds is to merge the owls into the other birds of prey as discussed earlier. This should reduce confusion as neither of those articles is organized biologically and thus tags wouldn't work very well. Thanks for all the input. -Thibbs (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Steps toward a complete cleanup of this article
I have begun repairing this article by focusing on notability and layout. To this end I have re-drafted the lede to explicitly describe the inclusion criteria for the list (i.e. notable bird characters from fiction) and I have begun to merge the "list of birds by media form" subsections (e.g. "Birds in Comics") into the "list of birds by species" subsections. I think this is an important step to avoid the duplication that will otherwise inevitably result. For example the character of Toucan Sam can be listed as a "bird in commerce," a "Piciforme," and possibly even a "bird in film." I have decided to cut the "list of birds by media form" subsections because they are in general smaller and so the shift should be easier. I'll continue to explain some of my larger edits here to show my rationales for them. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now completed my review of the bird characters presented in the list. According to WP:LIST and WP:LSC, a stand-alone list such as this should be properly defined to avoid it becoming an indiscriminate collection of information or becoming Listcruft. WP:LIST states that the definition of the list (i.e. the explicit inclusion criteria) should come in the lede paragraphe and of the three common selection criteria listed at WP:LSC, it is clear that "Every entry meets the notability criteria" makes the most sense for this article. I recently added a short lede to reflect this in keeping with the ledes of other "List of fictional animal" articles.
 * With that said, we now are faced with the large number of non-notable entries present in this list. While in most cases the work of fiction from which the character bird is taken is notable (or at least is presumptively notable by merit of the fact that a WP article on the work exists), the character itself is quite frequently non-notable per WP:INHERENT and thus should be removed from the list. This is not, after all, a "List of fiction about birds," but rather a "List of fictional birds." I am interested in cleaning up articles like this that have in many cases become near-complete listcruft and have consequently been nominated for deletion. In order to verify that each list entry is notable via sources would take me the rest of my life (or at least several years) and so I am operating under a set of assumptions which should vastly improve these articles. The major assumption is that if no article or subsection on the character exists then the character is non-notable. Of course this assumption is premised on the notion that all notable topics have WP articles written on them and this is clearly not the case. For that reason I have also been happy to accommodate redlinked entries that are supported by sources. The hope would be that an article would soon be written on this purportedly notable character bird in the future.
 * At any rate, I am now going to remove all un-sourced red-linked entries from this list which will greatly reduce its size. This large-scale removal of information can potentially alarm some editors, but please try to react calmly. I am not interested in removing notable entries so if entries I will have removed are in fact notable then I would be glad to see them re-inserted into the article provided that they have either a WP article devoted to them or a subsection devoted to them (or one that covers them substantially), or that they are supported by reliable sources. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Daffy Duck
where is Daffy duck? --190.53.177.181 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He went that-a-way! 28bytes (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A Problem
I've been noticing something strange in the Charadriiformes section. In one part, it tries to tell us about a character called "Abby", who is an avocet, but it just cuts off at "a female avocet in the". Another thing I found strange was that someone was adding in birds from a book called "Avifauna of Sardinia". Not sure about you guys, but to me that sounds more like a book about information on birds from the Italian island of Sardinia rather than a fictional story about birds from Sardinia. I've tried doing research on both of these and so far have found nothing. Hopefully someone can finish Abby's description and prove me wrong on the whole "Avifauna of Sardinia" thing. --Budgielover2988 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find out. Worse comes to worst, we can just delete those entries altogether.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After doing some searching, "Abby" was from a comic strip called "Krafty and Waldo," but, I could not find any trace of that alleged comic strip via google. We really need to purge this list of non-notable mentions.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I do agree with you on that, a lot of characters on the list could be considered as "non-notable" (for instance, someone mentioned a flock of seagulls from a deleted scene in Lilo and Stitch), but then again notable could be subjective, so maybe the reason why those people added them in was because they thought they were notable? It's pretty much become a giant list of bird characters at this point, whether they're notable or not, if it's a bird, then it goes on the list. The sad thing is I don't think it was originally intended to be that way. You think we should make another list of all of the minor/background bird characters to make those people happy without them "littering" the main list? --Budgielover2988 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By "notability," I mean the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY, like, for example, protagonists and deuteragonists. Plus, of course, reliable sources that would explain the notability.  Unfortunately, while your suggestion is a good one, but, is ultimately futile, as other editors would not tolerate a list of non-notable fictional entities for long, and that the various editors who insist on listing non-notable characters are never (sea)gullible enough to accept such an arrangement, either.  Ultimately, we're going to have to go through and purge, binge and rewrite the list.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok then. Sounds like a plan. I wish good luck to you guys. Also, I liked that pun "(sea)gullible". --Budgielover2988 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of fictional birds. 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/20130924034825/http://www.tommythecourageousbird.com/ to http://www.tommythecourageousbird.com/

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) 17:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Jayhawks?
Where do Jayhawks go in this list?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sweet Dee is confirmed to be an ostrich
Please add a new item under "Struthioniformes". The name should be "Sweet Dee" from the show "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia". This was previously listed under a different section, then removed for an unknown reason. However, it's clear from Season 13 Episode 7 "The Gang Does a Clip Show" that Sweet Dee is an ostrich and is pictured in the source below:

https://i.imgur.com/jR1FgeU.jpg

Thank you Apokusin (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done AdA&D  00:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Tables Instead of Bullets
There is something that I would like to address. Using bulleted lists is efficient, but I find it that they do not provide enough information. Tables provide more information, and they are efficient, too. We have tables on the pages for the list of fictional marsupials and the list of fictional primates. I would propose replacing the bulleted lists on this article with tables.

Under each section, the tables would provide the name of the bird, its species, the title of the work it originated from and additional notes. Other data needed for specific media types will be included in the tables, too (for instance, in "Birds in literature," the tables would mention the book's author). The additional notes should only be brief summaries or notes regarding the work mentioned in the row.

Does anybody else think that the bulleted lists should be replaced with tables? --Uptherial (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Angry Birds are of different species, not a collective one.
This page lists the Angry Birds together as if they are a single species. Many officially licensed books have revealed the true species of some of the characters, such as Red being a desert cardinal, and Stella being a galah. I mean, in the page for fictional birds of prey, Mighty Eagle and Silver have separate entries. That must also be applied here. Squidward Tentacools 06:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Terence from Angry Birds be on the List of Fictional Birds page or the List of Fictional Birds of Prey?
On the Angry Birds page, Terence is said to be a Red-tailed Hawk, but on that page it is said that He is a Northern Cardinal, should I correct this or not? 2804:1684:170:7800:2826:5F3E:9E73:70C8 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of fictional birds


text:
Robert April

Robert April is a fictional character in the Star Trek media franchise. April was the USS Enterprise's first commanding officer, preceding Captain Christopher Pike.

The character first appeared in the Star Trek: The Animated Series episode "The Counter-Clock Incident" (1974), in which he is voiced by James Doohan. April's first live-action appearance was in the pilot episode of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (2022), in which he is portrayed by Adrian Holmes.

Development and casting
A prison chaplain named "Robert April" appears in two episodes of Have Gun – Will Travel (1957–63), for which Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry wrote. The name stuck with Roddenberry, and "Robert M. April" commanded the starship Yorktown in his 1964 Star Trek proposal to CBS. The captain's name was changed to "Christopher Pike" when NBC accepted the Star Trek project later that year.

Fred Bronson (writing as John Culver) came up with the idea of the Enterprise having a captain who preceded Pike for "The Counter-Clock Incident". He selected the name "Robert April" from Roddenberry's original list of possible Enterprise captain names.

During the development of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Adrian Holmes submitted two taped auditions for the role. Producer Henry Alonso Myers said Holmes had the gravitas to play April, who is "mythic" by virtue of being the first captain of the Enterprise.

Star Trek: The Animated Series (1974)
In "The Counter-Clock Incident", the Enterprise crew begins to rapidly age in reverse. The old age of Commodore April and his wife Sarah (voiced by Nichelle Nichols) affords them more time at maturity, allowing them to save the crew and undo the reverse aging process.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (2022)
In the pilot episode of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, April (now an Admiral) orders Captain Pike, in command of the Enterprise, on a rescue mission. Although Pike violates General Order 1 on the mission, April uses his influence with Starfleet Command to keep Pike from being charged.

Literature
April appears in the novels Final Frontier (1988) and Best Destiny (1992) by Diane Carey as the captain of the Enterprise. Carey's version of April comes from Coventry, and he wears cardigan sweaters over his uniform due to a blood disorder that causes him to feel slightly chilly most of the time. Lacking a "live action" image of April, designer and author Michael Okuda created a collage of Roddenberry's head on William Shatner's body to illustrate April in The Star Trek Encyclopedia (1994). April is militaristic in the Star Trek: Early Voyages comics (1997–1998), and another timeline's version of April appears in a comic prologue to Star Trek Into Darkness, "Countdown to Darkness" (2013).

Reception
Timothy Donohoo, writing for CBR.com, said Robert April "had elements of both Kirk and Pike", noting that he was heroic but also faced with self-doubt about his leadership. He said the character concept was "revolutionary in many ways" because "the idea of the hero doubting himself and questioning his own actions" was rare in that era's movie and television scripts.

"The Counter-Clock Incident" writer Fred Bronson thanked Adrian Holmes for "bring[ing April] to life" in Strange New Worlds. Michael Okuda, who created the photo-collage depiction of April for The Star Trek Encyclopedia, also commended Holmes's casting. Keith DeCandido said outcry over casting a dark-skinned actor as April, having been previously depicted with light skin in animation and print, "has served as a nice way of revealing the racists among Trek fans". Screen Rant said April's re-envisioning "does not disappoint" and is "part of the fun" of Strange New Worlds reiterating on 1960s-era Star Trek characters.

title: Robert April