text:
Talk:NOx

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bhendrickson8, Liweichao.vivian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Distinguish from nitrous oxide
Isn't it also used as a booster in car racing? I seem to remember it from The Fast and the Furious. RickK 20:30, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is this the same as nitrous oxide? Koyaanis Qatsi 20:32, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, nitrous oxide is N2O; nitrous oxide too is the compound occasionally used by the testosterone boys where it mainly serves to throw rods and break U-joints, though a good deal of horsepower is given off before everything flies apart. I can't remember why it helps; perhaps there's enough energy in the bond between the N2 and the O to make up for the relatively lower oxidizing capacity than oxygen.

I believe that NOx is properly written NOx and is either NO2, nitrogen dioxide, or NO, nitric oxide, or any mixture of the two. NO is unstable in the atmosphere at forms NO2 through reaction with oxygen; NO2 forms nitric acid HNO3 through the reaction 2NO2 + 2H2O ==> 2HNO3 + H2 (gas). In the atmosphere, either can form Nitric acid, which eventually precipitates out in rain or snow.

Your actual mileage may vary; I didn't crack a book and a chemist is on the long list of things at User:Kat/What Kat is not. :-).. Kat 20:58, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * But, in the movie, and in a recent episode of CSI, they refered to the booster as nox, however it's spelled. Even if NOX isn't nitrous oxide, it is what they're calling the booster stuff.  RickK, even less of a chemist and only knows his science from watching movies and tv shows

 * Hmm. I'll just venture to say that if you call up Praxair or Airgas or whoever it is that you usually call when you need to get a cylinder or two of industrial gasses in your part of the world, that they will give you the telephone equivalent of a blank stare if you ask for NOx.  Kat 01:16, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, the answer to why it helps boost engine performance is answered here: nitrous oxide. Ayule 01:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

N2O                dinitrogen oxide            OR                   nitrogen(I) oxide

NO                 nitrogen oxide               OR                   nitrogen(II) oxide

NO2                nitrogen dioxide            OR                   nitrogen(IV) oxide

NOx is the generic term for all oxides of nitrogen, both nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) — maybe others, but I don't think so. Yes, it should properly be written as NOx, which you would code in a Wikipedia page (or any HTML document) as:  NOx . The subscript of course indicates how many atoms of the preceding element/symbol are in the molecule, the x naturally is a variable.

Either way, both are quite reactive in the atmosphere, because the oxygen has a valence (number of available bonds) of 2, and nitrogen has 3. As far as I know, nitric (or nitrogen, or nitrogen II) oxide molecules have a double bond between the two atoms, nitrogen dioxide (or nitrogen IV oxide) has either a triangle of single bonds (with the third nitrogen bond left open, which is what makes it reactive), or maybe more likely an NO molecule with an oxygen attached to the formerly-free nitrogen bond on one side, and itself open on the other (keeping it reactive). I know that sunlight is a catalyst for these reactions, especially on hot, stagnant, smoggy summer days.

"Nitrous" (nitrous oxide, or nitrogen I oxide, or N2O) is definitely different than the first two, used as "laughing gas" at the dentist's office (and the one time I had it, I felt like I was going to die of suffocation! ack!). It is heavier than air, which makes your voice deeper, the opposite of helium. It is also used in cars, especially in remote control model cars, to give extra "kick" to the combustion in the engine, though I don't know exactly how this works.

I made a couple of crude diagrams below, the first is NO, the last is N2O, one of the other two is NO2 (which I'm not sure of the structure of). Note the "un-terminated" bond (free radical) on the first three, which is what makes them so reactive.

O=N-     O-O \ /      O            N       / \ O=N-O-    |       N=N

(Did I just write an article?)  --Radiojon 23:11, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Nitrogen oxide lists five oxides, only two of which fit the formula NOx. Should these articles be merged, or reference each other, or exchange pieces with each other? Also, I've come across a reference to N2O2 in Progress spacecraft, which isn't mentioned in either article. Where should that go? Bryan 20:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I have resolved this one - there was a typo on the page it should be N2O4 - the actual link went to the right page. Its now fixed.--NHSavage 10:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that the x should be italicized (NOx), as variables normally are. Gene Nygaard 05:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well in atmospheric chemistry NOx always refers to the sum of NO plus NO2. The reason for this is that during daylight in the troposphere they are involved in a rapid cycle which quickly reaches a steady state.

NO+O3 → NO2 + O2

NO2+ photon → NO + O

O + O2 → O3

Because these 2 compounds are so closely connected it is often useful to look at their sum.

I suspect that we need to differentiate between this use and the scientifically flawed but widspread (?) use of this term for Nitrous OXide. Perhaps NOX is nitrous oxide while NOx is NO+NO2 ? I think probably the whole heirarchy needs some work as their are several pages for different case combinations and the disambiuation should include all then redirect properly. Some of the chemistry from this thread should go in somewhere as well.

Tropospheric ozone is produced when NO reacts with peroxy radicals to give NO2.

User:NHSavage 17:27, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I have now merged the 2 disambiguation pages and refered to the use of the phrase NOx for nitrous oxide there.--NHSavage 10:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Presumably it is called NOx because it is NOxious? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

NOx is used by atmopsheric scientists to refer to odd nitrogens and includes several compounds including N2O5 There is a section on NOx in the textbook Aeronomy of the Middle Atmosphere (ref>Guy P. Brasseur and Susan Solomon, 1984 .  A thumbnail of the story is presented on slide 28 of this grad class lecture slide set: http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~russ/637LstratO3.ppt . All of these are implicated in the ozone cycle which is why it is problematic for ground based emission (increases ozone in the presence of UV which is hard on the lungs) and also, as already noted, can catalyze the destruction of ozone in the troposphere where it is wanted. OriEri 00:01, 22 September 2015

 * This is definitely a minor use of NOx. Even on the slides you linked to, it says "This total of “odd nitrogen” is better called “NOy”"

In the fuel combustion world, NOx refers to NO + NO2, not because of some rigid scientific rule, but simply because those are the nitrogen/oxygen species produced in combustion devices. Usually the subscript is not included, but strictly speaking it should be there to denote a chemical formula subscript (x = 1 or 2). That doesn't mean nitrous oxide, N2O, cannot be produced in combustion. Clearly it would be in a poorly controlled flame like a wildfire, or maybe even in a fireplace, where there is not thorough mixing of oxygen with the fuel. But that is not the case in most industrial combustion, where thorough oxidation of the fuel is crucial to efficiency and pollution control. So N2O is typically not considered to be a component of NOx and typically very small (probably about 100X lower in concentration) than NO and NO2.

Rick Knight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.12.218 (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Global cooling
Greenhouse gas and Nitrous oxide contradict the assertion in NOx that NOx is a global coolant. The US EPA says NOx is one of the main greenhouse gasses, and doesn't mention any cooling effect. A single source the OECD, supports the claim that NOx reduces methane, but this isn't mentioned elsewhere. These three articles should be brought into agreement. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 * There's no contradiction. As the article says, NOx refers to NO and NO2 -- notice this doesn't include N2O. This definition follows the scientific and engineering literature which distinguishes between NOx and N2O, e.g., this article amongst many. So it's consistent to say that NO and NO2 (i.e., NOx) have a cooling effect while N2O (i.e., not-NOx) has a warming effect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a contradiction and I think it involves a much larger number of articles. Here is a partial list of articles that link here in reference to pollution from combustion:
 * Catalytic converter
 * Snowmobile
 * Diesel locomotive
 * Honda Insight
 * Alternative fuel
 * Vehicle emissions control
 * Volkswagen
 * etc...
 * I get the fact that engines emit a variety of compounds, some of which are greenhouse gases and some of which aren't. But we have a situation where several related Wikipedia article fail to fully explain this, and instead operate in a siloed fashion, explaining only what is strictly within the article scope and ignoring the context. It gives the false impression that, for example, 3-way catalytic converters are making global warming worse by reducing beneficial NOx. Often this is due to imprecise language by mainstream media sources. That's not Wikipedia's fault but it's still a problem we are capable of addressing if we rewrite the related articles to underscore the important distinctions.I don't know if there needs to be a wider RfC on this, or if I just need to make the contradiction tag include every one of the above articles. For now I'd like to leave the contradiction tag in place to see what solutions can be proposed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * An RfC would be good, because I simply fail to understand why you think there is a contradiction. To me it's a simple case of A and B being two different things that act differently (where A=NOx and B=N2O). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a specific example, from Vehicle emissions control:
 * "Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - Generated when nitrogen in the air reacts with oxygen at the high temperature and pressure inside the engine. NOx is a precursor to smog and acid rain. NOx is a mixture of NO, N2O, and NO2. " It links to Nitrogen oxides but uses the formula NOx, which is NOx not Nitrogen oxide. NOx is only NO and NO2, Vehicle emissions control is also including N2O, and NO2 -- Nitrous oxide? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, somebody screwed up there. Including N2O as part of NOx would seem reasonable to someone who is writing things off the top of their head (since it's an "oxide of nitrogen") but it's not correct. As the EPA says, "The sum of nitric oxide (NO) and NO2 is commonly called nitrogen oxides or NOx." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This and this say that NOx is a family of 7 compounds, only two of which are regulated by the EPA. Are we making the mistake of saying NOx is only NO and NO2 because of the regulation of those two, when in fact NOx also refers to five others, N2O2, N2O3, N2O4, N2O4, and -- wait for it -- N2O?!. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems some sources (Diane Pub. Co. - reliable?) do seem to confuse the issue. But the usage most common follows from the subscript (x) in NOx is a variable for the oxygen of the formula. Using it for N2O seems quite illogical - should be NxOy to cover those. So perhaps a note noting that apparent misuse/confusion would be appropriate. Vsmith (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the nomenclature used in the preponderance of reliable sources that is relevant, and not any WP editor's perspective of what seems to them as interpretatively logical or illogical. If a number of reliable sources describe N2O as an NOx, that is what matters. As for the logic or illogic, Vsmiths argument presumes that x is an integer, and there are ample areas of chemical nomenclature where non-integer values of subscripts are used in formulae. Hence, again: What is the usage in the sources? Le Prof  73.210.154.39 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how you've decided which sources are correct. But even if you know which ones are right, these articles need to explain it. Just ignoring it leaves readers confused when we should be helping them understand. The US EPA gives conflicting statements on whether NOx includes N2O or not. The basic question of whether nitrogen-related pollution from diesel engines is a greenhouse gas or not is totally muddled. We need to either explain it, or else describe the controversy. The status quo is to ignore the whole issue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this EPA Technical Bulletin then? . Table 1 indicates that NOx (nitrogen oxides) refers to: N2O, NO, N2O2, N2O3, NO2, N2O4 and N2O5... --200.223.199.146 (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Magical disappearing oxygen?
The following equation appears in the section "NO from N2O":
 * N2O + O → NO + N   (thermal NO)

This plainly can't be right. Two nitrogens and two oxygens can't make two nitrogens and one oxygen, not without magic or nuclear annihilation. Moreover, the reference to "thermal NO" suggests that this should be an equation listed higher up in the article that yields the same products:
 * N2 + O → NO + N

But if this is the correct reaction, then it doesn't belong in a section titled "NO from N2O" at all! Can someone with the appropriate subject knowledge clear this up? --Perey (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I removed now the section with equations. "No sources. contested on the talk page for more than 6 months.".--200.223.199.146 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hardly any role in air pollution
currently the article reads "Nitrous oxide plays hardly any role in air pollution..." in its introduction blurb. Should there not be a reference for this and, more importntly, why is Nitrous oxide discussed in the blurb for NOx in general? Surely this sentence should be moved to a later section rlating only to nitrous oxide, otherwise it might cause some confusion, i beleive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.193.191 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NOx. 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/20150929073006/http://blueoceansoln.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Wet-Package-2008-1.pdf to http://blueoceansoln.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Wet-Package-2008-1.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Half height or subscript or both, for the X
What is the typical typography in the literature for the X in NOX? To capture both NO1 [sic] and NO2, I could imagine using a half-height x (NOx), a subscripted full-height X, (NOX), or an X is that both half-height and subscripted (NOx). What do the scientists use? 64.132.59.226 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just use  to get . Also see IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't find any mention of the proper typography of NOX in the Wikipedia articles IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry and IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005. For instance, knowing that the dioxide is NO2 does not indicate to me whether a subscripted X for NOX should be full height (X) or half height (x).  What is the evidence that the current implementation of the   template is correct?  64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The EPA uses NOx with a lower case x that is not in italics. Is that the proper standard rather than the  with italics?  64.132.59.226 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Proper" isn't really a thing. The IUPAC rules are at ; if you work for the EPA I suppose they publish their own manual of style somewhere. On Wikipedia the best choice is almost always to use templates like CO2 or NOx or Convert because the template is always going to spit out whatever the general consensus is among editors. If they decide to change the x to half height instead of subscript or italic or whatever, it will change on every single article that uses the template, rather than having to track down each instance and bring it up to date. If the template is wrong, then the place to raise the issue is at Template talk:NOx or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry so that it will be fixed everywhere and not just one article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I use subscript :: NOx is NOxious. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NO2 and its relatives are almost universally written with the number as a subscript. In the few places that don't it is because that place doesn't support subscripts (eg in plain text with no formatting available). Therefore it makes sense for to also use subscripts. The explanation by Dennis for using templates like  is exactly what I was thinking of when I created it 5 years ago - only one place needs to be updated if consensus changes. I originally created it using CSS to simulate the subscript so that I could make it hug the NO a bit closer and make less of an effect on the spacing between that line and the next (subscripts increase the spacing a little). It got changed to a plain subscript about 2 years but I was too busy to challenging it at the time.   Stepho  talk  09:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition of
In the introduction, the article states that in Atmospheric chemistry, means NO + NO₂. Then it says that in Chemistry, is any of a much larger set of molecules and radicals. The article then goes on to cover NO and NO₂ exclusively, and implicitly refers to N₂O as a non-.

I think the introduction could be clearer on this point, explaining the "conflict" between the general chemistry and atmospheric chemistry usage of the term, and then stating explicitly that this article only considers the narrower atmospheric understanding of. Kjetilho (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Warming effect
The text currently says, "In conclusion, considering several direct and indirect effects, emissions have a negative contribution to global warming.[32]". Is this good or bad? It is not at all clear. Reference 32 is to IPCC 2013, which was behind a paywall for me, but I found a copy on their web page.

""In addition, carbon monoxide emissions are virtually certain to cause a positive forcing, while emissions of reactive nitrogen oxides likely cause a net negative forcing but uncertainties are large. Emissions of ozone-depleting halocarbons very likely cause a net positive forcing as their direct radiative effect is larger than the impact of the stratospheric ozone depletion that they induce. Emissions of SO2, organic carbon and ammonia cause a negative forcing, while emissions of black carbon lead to positive forcing via aerosol–radiation interactions.""

Clear as mud for a lay-person like me, but from the context I can tell that negative forcing is good.

My suggested edit: "In conclusion, considering several direct and indirect effects,  emissions likely contribute to reduce global warming." Kjetilho (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Prompt
In the 'prompt' section, it doesn't say why it is called prompt NOx. Does anybody know what it stands for?  Stepho  talk 10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:NOx


text:
Talk:Peter principle

Proper nouns
User:Richard75 wants to capitalize Peter's Corollary, Peter's Plateau and Peter Principle, I assume because they're proper nouns. I had taken the caps out because Peter principle in the title and lead of the article is not capitalized as a proper noun so I assumed we were not dealing with a proper nouns here. If you disagree, first have a look at List of eponymous laws for other examples. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The list convinced me to change it back. Richard75 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Can't Identify Satire.
Like the Dunning-Kruger "Effect," which Wikipedia also gets completely wrong, the Peter "Principle" is not any "a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter." It is a satire on the fatuous rhetorics of management, self-improvement, and lunatic positivity which litter the pretend-academia of the popular press.

The authors of this article fall for it, open-eyed, faces in search of a pie.

The article should be withdrawn and replaced with one identifying the satire.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 * The article literally says it's satire in the second paragraph of the lede. Richard75 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Peter principle


text:
Leg before wicket

Leg before wicket (lbw) is one of the ways in which a batter can be dismissed in the sport of cricket. Following an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire may rule a batter out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was instead intercepted by any part of the batsman's body (except the hand(s) holding the bat). The umpire's decision will depend on a number of criteria, including where the ball pitched, whether the ball hit in line with the wickets, the ball's expected future trajectory after hitting the batsman, and whether the batsman was attempting to hit the ball.

Leg before wicket first appeared in the laws of cricket in 1774, as batsmen began to use their pads to prevent the ball from hitting their wicket. Over several years, refinements were made to clarify where the ball should pitch and to remove the element of interpreting the batsman's intentions. The 1839 version of the law used a wording that remained in place for nearly 100 years. However, starting in the latter part of the 19th century, batsmen became increasingly expert at "pad-play" to reduce the risk of their dismissal. Following a number of failed proposals for reform, in 1935 the law was expanded, such that batters could be dismissed lbw even if the ball pitched outside the line of off stump. Critics felt this change made the game unattractive as it encouraged negative tactics at the expense of leg spin bowling.

After considerable debate and various experiments, the law was changed again in 1972. In an attempt to reduce pad-play, the new version, which is still in use, allowed batters to be out lbw in some circumstances if they did not attempt to hit the ball with their bat. Since the 1990s, the availability of television replays and, later, ball-tracking technology to assist umpires has increased the percentage of lbws in major matches. However, the accuracy of the technology and the consequences of its use remain controversial.

In his 1995 survey of cricket laws, Gerald Brodribb states: "No dismissal has produced so much argument as lbw; it has caused trouble from its earliest days". Owing to its complexity, the law is widely misunderstood among the general public and has proven controversial among spectators, administrators and commentators; lbw decisions have sometimes caused crowd trouble. Since the law's introduction, the proportion of lbw dismissals has risen steadily through the years.

Definition
The definition of leg before wicket (lbw) is currently Law 36 in the Laws of Cricket, written by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC). Before a batter can be dismissed lbw, the fielding team must appeal to the umpire. If the bowler delivers a no-ball — an illegal delivery — the batter cannot be out lbw under any circumstances. Otherwise, for the batter to be adjudged lbw, the ball, if it bounces, must pitch in line with or on the off side of the wickets. Then the ball must strike part of the batter's body without first touching his/her bat, in line with the wickets and have been going on to hit the stumps. The batter may also be out lbw if, having made no attempt to hit the ball with their bat, they are struck outside the line of off stump by a ball that would have hit the wickets. The umpire must assume that the ball would have continued on the same trajectory after striking the batter, even if it would have bounced before hitting the stumps.

A batter can be out lbw even if the ball did not hit their leg: for example, a batter struck on the head could be lbw, although this situation is extremely rare. However, the batter cannot be lbw if the ball pitches on the leg side of the stumps ("outside leg stump"), even if the ball would have otherwise hit the wickets. Similarly, a batter who has attempted to hit the ball with their bat cannot be lbw if the ball strikes them outside the line of off stump. However, some shots in cricket, such as the switch hit or reverse sweep, involve the batter switching between a right- and left-handed stance; this affects the location of the off and leg side, which are determined by the stance. The law explicitly states that the off side is determined by the batter's stance when the bowler commences their run-up.

According to MCC guidelines for umpires, factors to consider when giving an lbw decision include the angle at which the ball was travelling and whether the ball was swinging through the air. The umpire must also account for the height of the ball at impact and how far from the wicket the batter was standing; from this information they must determine if the ball would have passed over the stumps or struck them. The MCC guidance states that it is easier to make a decision when the ball strikes the batter without pitching, but that the difficulty increases when the ball has bounced and more so when there is a shorter time between the ball pitching and striking the batter.

Origins
The earliest known written version of the Laws of Cricket, dating from 1744, does not include an lbw rule. At the time, batters in English cricket used curved bats, which made it unlikely that they would be able to stand directly in front of the wickets. However, a clause in the 1744 laws gave umpires the power to take action if the batter was "standing unfair to strike". Cricket bats were modified to become straighter over the following years, allowing batters to stand closer to the wickets. Subsequently, some players deliberately began to obstruct the ball from hitting the wickets. Such tactics were criticised by writers and a revision of the laws in 1774 ruled that the batter was out if he deliberately stopped the ball from hitting the wicket with his leg. However, critics noted that the umpires were left the difficult task of interpreting the intentions of batters. The 1788 version of the laws no longer required the umpires to take account of the batter's intent; now a batter was lbw if he stopped a ball that "pitch[ed] straight". Further clarification of the law came in 1823, when a condition was added that "the ball must be delivered in a straight line to the wicket". The ambiguity of the wording was highlighted when two prominent umpires disagreed over whether the ball had to travel in a straight line from the bowler to the wicket, or between the wickets at either end of the pitch. In 1839 the MCC, by then responsible for drafting the Laws of Cricket, endorsed the latter interpretation and ruled the batter out lbw if the ball pitched in between the wickets and would have hit the stumps.

Controversy and attempted reform
In essence, the lbw law remained the same between 1839 and 1937, despite several campaigns to have it changed. An 1863 proposal to allow a batter to be lbw if the ball hit his body at any point between the wickets, regardless of where the ball pitched or whether it would hit the wicket at all, came to nothing. There were few complaints until the proportion of lbw dismissals in county cricket began to increase during the 1880s. Until then, batters used their pads only to protect their legs; their use for any other purposes was considered unsporting, and some amateur cricketers did not wear them at all. As cricket became more organised and competitive, some batters began to use their pads as a second line of defence: they lined them up with the ball so that if they missed with the bat, the ball struck the pad instead of the wicket. Some players took this further; if the delivery was not an easy one from which to score runs, they attempted no shot and allowed the ball to bounce safely off their pads. Arthur Shrewsbury was the first prominent player to use such methods, and others followed. Criticism of this practice was heightened by the increased quality and reliability of cricket pitches, which made batting easier, led to higher scores and created a perceived imbalance in the game.

Several proposals were made to prevent pad-play. At a meeting of representatives of the main county cricket clubs in 1888, one representative expressed the opinion that a "batsman who defended his wicket with his body instead of with his bat should be punished". The representatives supported a motion to alter the law to state that the batters would be out if he stopped a ball that would have hit the wicket; in contrast to the existing wording, this took no account of where the ball pitched relative to the wickets. Further proposals included one in which the intent of the batter was taken into account, but no laws were changed and the MCC merely issued a condemnation of the practice of using pads for defence. This reduced pad-play for a short time, but when it increased again, a second pronouncement by the MCC had little effect.

Further discussion on altering the law took place in 1899, when several prominent cricketers supported an amendment similar to the 1888 proposal: the batter would be out if the ball would have hit the wicket, where it pitched was irrelevant. At a Special General Meeting of the MCC in 1902, Alfred Lyttelton formally proposed this amendment; the motion was supported by 259 votes to 188, but failed to secure the two-thirds majority required to change the laws. A. G. Steel was the principal opponent of the change, as he believed it would make the task of the umpires too difficult, but he later regretted his stance. Lyttelton's brother, Robert, supported the alteration and campaigned for the rest of his life to have the lbw law altered. As evidence that pad-play was increasing and needed to be curtailed, he cited the growing number of wickets which were falling lbw: the proportion rose from 2% of dismissals in 1870 to 6% in 1890, and 12% in 1923. In 1902, the proposed new law was tried in the Minor Counties Championship, but deemed a failure. An increase in the size of the stumps was one of several other rejected proposals at this time to reduce the dominance of batters over bowlers.

Alteration to the law
Between 1900 and the 1930s, the number of runs scored by batters, and the proportion of lbw dismissals, continued to rise. Bowlers grew increasingly frustrated with pad-play and the extent to which batters refused to play shots at bowling directed outside the off stump, simply allowing it to pass by. The English fast bowler Harold Larwood responded by targeting leg stump, frequently hitting the batter with the ball in the process. This developed into the controversial Bodyline tactics he used in Australia in 1932–33. Some batters began to go further and preferred to kick away balls pitched outside off stump—reaching out to kick the ball instead of allowing it to hit their pads—if they presented any threat, knowing that they could not be dismissed lbw. The authorities believed these developments represented poor entertainment value. At the height of the Bodyline controversy in 1933, Donald Bradman, the leading Australian batter and primary target of the English bowlers, wrote to the MCC recommending an alteration of the lbw law to create more exciting games.

To address the problem, and redress the balance for bowlers, the MCC made some alterations to the laws. The size of the ball was reduced in 1927, and that of the stumps increased in 1931, but the changes had little effect. Between 1929 and 1933, county authorities conducted a trial in which a batter could be lbw if he had hit the ball onto his pads. Then, in 1935, an experimental law was introduced in which the batter could be dismissed lbw even if the ball pitched outside the line of off stump—in other words, a ball that turned or swung into the batter but did not pitch in line with the wickets. However, the ball was still required to strike the batter in line with the wickets. The umpire signalled to the scorers when he declared a batter out under the new rule, and any such dismissal was designated "lbw (n)" on the scorecard.

Several leading batters opposed the new law, including the professional Herbert Sutcliffe, known as an exponent of pad-play, and amateurs Errol Holmes and Bob Wyatt. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack noted that these three improved their batting records during the 1935 season, but batters generally were less successful. There were also fewer drawn matches. There was an increase in the number of lbws — out of 1,560 lbw dismissals in first-class matches in 1935, 483 were given under the amended law. Wisden judged the experiment a success and several of its opponents changed their mind by the end of the season; batters soon became accustomed to the alteration. Although Australian authorities were less convinced, and did not immediately introduce the revision into domestic first-class cricket, in 1937 the new rule became part of the Laws of Cricket.

According to Gerald Brodribb, in his survey and history of the Laws, the change produced more "enterprising", exciting cricket but any alteration in outlook was halted by the Second World War. When the sport resumed in 1946, batters were out of practice and the amended lbw law played into the hands of off spin and inswing bowlers, who began to dominate county cricket. The cricket historian Derek Birley notes that many of these bowlers imitated the methods of Alec Bedser, an inswing bowler who was successful immediately after the war, but that the resulting cricket was unexciting to watch. The revised lbw law, and other alterations in the game in favour of the bowler, further encouraged such bowling. The new law continued to provoke debate among writers and cricketers; many former players claimed that the alteration had caused a deterioration in batting and reduced the number of shots played on the off side. A 1963 report in The Times blamed the law for reducing the variety of bowling styles: "the change has led to a steady increase in the amount of seam and off-spin bowling. Whereas in the early thirties every county had a leg spinner and an orthodox left arm spinner, leg spinners, at any rate, are now few and far between. Walk on to any of the first-class grounds at any time tomorrow and the chances are that you will see the wicketkeeper standing back and a medium pace bowler in action ... there is little doubt that the game, as a spectacle, is less attractive than it was." Several critics, including Bob Wyatt, maintained that the lbw law should be returned to its pre-1935 wording; he campaigned to do so until his death in 1995. On the other hand, Bradman, in the 1950s, proposed extending the law so that batters could be lbw even if they were struck outside the line of off stump. An MCC study of the state of cricket, carried out in 1956 and 1957, examined the prevalent and unpopular tactic involving off-spin and inswing bowlers aiming at leg stump with fielders concentrated on the leg side. Rather than alter the lbw law to combat the problem, the MCC reduced the number of fielders allowed on the leg side.

Playing no stroke
In the 1950s and 1960s, the amount of pad-play increased, owing to more difficult and unpredictable pitches that made batting much harder. Critics continued to regard this tactic as "negative and unfair". In an effort to discourage pad-play and encourage leg spin bowling, a new variant of the lbw law was introduced, initially in Australia and the West Indies in the 1969–70 season, then in England for 1970. Under the re-worded law, a batter would be lbw if a ball destined to hit the stumps pitched in line with the wickets or "outside a batter's off stump and in the opinion of the umpire he made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat". This revision omitted the requirement that the impact should be in line with the wickets, but meant that any batter playing a shot could not be out if the ball pitched outside off stump, in contrast to the 1935 law. The editor of Wisden believed the change encouraged batters to take more risks, and had produced more attractive cricket. However, the proportion of wickets falling lbw sharply declined, and concerns were expressed in Australia. The Australian authorities proposed a reversion to the previous law. A batter could once more be out to a ball that pitched outside off stump, but a provision was added that "if no stroke is offered to a ball pitching outside the off-stump which in the opinion of the umpire would hit the stumps, but hits the batter on any part of his person other than the hand, then the batter is out, even if that part of the person hit is not in line between wicket and wicket". The difference to the 1935 rule was that the batter could now be out even if the ball struck outside the line of off-stump. This wording was adopted throughout the world from 1972, although it was not yet part of the official Laws, and the percentage of lbws sharply increased to beyond the levels preceding the 1970 change. The MCC added the revised wording to the Laws of Cricket in 1980; this version of the lbw law is still used as of 2013.

Effects of technology
Since 1993, the proportion of lbws in each English season has risen steadily. According to cricket historian Douglas Miller, the percentage of lbw dismissals increased after broadcasters incorporated ball-tracking technology such as Hawk-Eye into their television coverage of matches. Miller writes: "With the passage of time and the adoption of Hawkeye into other sports, together with presentations demonstrating its accuracy, cricket followers seem gradually to have accepted its predictions. Replay analyses have shown that a greater proportion of balls striking an outstretched leg go on to hit the wicket than had once been expected." He also suggests that umpires have been influenced by such evidence; their greater understanding of which deliveries are likely to hit the stumps has made them more likely to rule out batters who are standing further away from the stumps. This trend is replicated in international cricket, where the increasing use of technology in reviewing decisions has altered the attitude of umpires. Spin bowlers in particular win far more appeals for lbw. However, the use of on-field technology has proved controversial; some critics regard it as more reliable than human judgement, while others believe that the umpire is better placed to make the decision.

The International Cricket Council (ICC), responsible for running the game worldwide, conducted a trial in 2002 where lbw appeals could be referred to a match official, the third umpire, to review on television replays. The third umpire could only use technology to determine where the ball had pitched and if the batter hit the ball with his/her bat. The ICC judged the experiment unsuccessful and did not pursue it. More trials followed in 2006, although ball-tracking technology remained unavailable to match officials. After a further series of trials, in 2009 the Umpire Decision Review System (DRS) was brought into international cricket where teams could refer the on-field decisions of umpires to a third umpire who had access to television replays and technology such as ball tracking. According to the ICC's general manager, Dave Richardson, DRS increased the frequency with which umpires awarded lbw decisions. In a 2012 interview, he said: "Umpires may have realised that if they give someone out and DRS shows it was not out, then their decision can be rectified. So they might, I suppose, have the courage of their convictions a bit more and take a less conservative approach to giving the batter out. I think if we're totally honest, DRS has affected the game slightly more than we thought it would."

Critics of the system suggest that rules for the use of DRS have created an inconsistency of approach to lbw decisions depending on the circumstances of the referral. Opponents also doubt that the ball-tracking technology used in deciding lbws is reliable enough, but the ICC state that tests have shown the system to be 100% accurate. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) initially declined to use DRS in matches involving India owing to their concerns regarding the ball-tracking technology. Early DRS trials were conducted during India matches, and several problems arose over lbws, particularly as the equipment was not as advanced as it later became. The BCCI believed the technology is unreliable and open to manipulation. However, as of 2016 they have accepted it.

Trends and perception
A study in 2011 by Douglas Miller shows that in English county cricket, the proportion of wickets to fall lbw has increased steadily since the First World War. In the 1920s, around 11% of wickets were lbw but this rose to 14% in the 1930s. Between 1946 and 1970, the proportion was approximately 11% but subsequently increased until reaching almost 19% in the decade before 2010. Miller also states that captains of county teams were statistically more likely to receive the benefit of lbw decisions—less likely to be out lbw when batting and more likely to dismiss batters lbw when bowling. For many years, county captains submitted end-of-match reports on the umpires; as umpires were professionals whose careers could be affected, captains consequently received leeway whether batting or bowling. Before 1963, when the status was abolished in county cricket, umpires were also more lenient towards amateur cricketers. Amateurs administered English cricket, and offending one could end an umpire's career. Elsewhere in the world, lbws are more statistically likely in matches taking place on the Indian subcontinent. However, batters from the subcontinent were less likely to be lbw wherever they played in the world.

Teams that toured other countries often became frustrated by lbws given against them; there was often an assumption of national bias by home umpires against visiting teams. Several studies investigating this perception have suggested that home batters are sometimes less likely than visiting batters to be lbw. However, the data is based on lbw decisions awarded, not on the success-rate of appeals to the umpire. Fraser points out that it is impossible to determine from these studies if any of the decisions were wrong, particularly as the lbw law can have different interpretations, or if other factors such as pitch conditions and technique were involved. A 2006 study examined the effect that neutral umpires had on the rate of lbws. Although the reasons were again ambiguous, it found that lbws increased slightly under neutral umpires regardless of team or location.

In his survey of cricket laws, Gerald Brodribb suggests that "no dismissal has produced so much argument as lbw; it has caused trouble from its earliest days". Among those who do not follow cricket, the law has the reputation of being extremely difficult to understand, of equivalent complexity to association football's offside rule. Owing to the difficulty of its interpretation, lbw is regarded by critics as the most controversial of the laws but also a yardstick by which an umpire's abilities are judged. In his book Cricket and the Law: The Man in White Is Always Right, David Fraser writes that umpires' lbw decisions are frequently criticised and "arguments about bias and incompetence in adjudication inform almost every discussion about lbw decisions". Problems arise because the umpire has not only to establish what has happened but also to speculate over what might have occurred. Controversial aspects of lbw decisions include the umpire having to determine whether the ball pitched outside leg stump, and in certain circumstances whether the batter intended to hit the ball or leave it alone. Umpires are frequently criticised for their lbw decisions by players, commentators and spectators. Historically, trouble ranging from protests and arguments to crowd demonstrations occasionally arose from disputed decisions. For example, a prolonged crowd disturbance, in which items were thrown onto the playing field and the match was delayed, took place when Mohammad Azharuddin was adjudged lbw during a 1996 One Day International in India.

title: Leg before wicket


text:
MLS All-Star Game

The Major League Soccer All-Star Game is an annual soccer game held by Major League Soccer featuring selected players from the league against an international club or selected players from another league. MLS initially adopted a traditional all-star game format used by other North American sports leagues where the Eastern Conference squared off against the Western Conference. This eventually evolved into the current system where the league annually invites a club from abroad to play against a league all-star team in a friendly match. The MLS All-Stars hold a 9–8 record in the competition, which generally marks the season's midpoint. Players are awarded roster spots through a combination of fan voting and selections by the appointed manager and league commissioner.

In case of a tie after full-time, the game does not use a 30-minute extra time period; instead it goes straight to a penalty shoot-out. The match is preceded by a skills challenge tournament, which was introduced in 2018 and features three-player teams competing in various events. The All-Star Game also runs parallel to the MLS Next All-Star Game, which debuted in 2014 as the Homegrown Game.

History
Major League Soccer's first all-star game was played at Giants Stadium in the summer of 1996. The game, using an East–West format with players handpicked by the coaching staffs to emulate other American leagues, was the first game of a doubleheader with the Brazil national team defeating a team of FIFA World All-Stars. The matchup between divisions would only be used for six seasons as MLS tried experimenting with different formats. The 1998 All-Star Game placed a team of American MLS players against MLS players from abroad. The 2002 game, the first to use a league-wide all-star team, was the only game to feature a national team opponent.

Since then (except in 2004), every opponent has been a foreign club invited by the league. The MLS All-Stars won their first six games before falling to Everton in penalties in 2009. All games from 2005 to 2019 have been against teams from Europe, the majority of which have been from England's Premier League. The European league schedule runs from fall to spring, allowing for a fixture against the MLS All-Stars during the preseasons of teams. The 2020 All-Star Game was to be the first to feature the all-star team from another league, Liga MX; however, that game was cancelled.

In August 2005, an 18-player all-star team squad named the "MLS Select Team" competed in the Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu, a friendly hosted by Real Madrid at the Santiago Bernabéu Stadium in Madrid. The All-Star team, coached by Steve Nicol, lost 5–0 after being given only two days to prepare between normal league matches.

The roster is chosen using a mix of fan votes, nominations from the coach, and commissioner's pick. Some players, including English midfielders Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard in 2015, have been picked to participate in the All-Star Game despite not playing in club matches. Players who are picked to play in the All-Star Game but refuse to join the team are suspended from one league match.

Roster
For 2014, ten players were chosen by All-Star Game coach Caleb Porter, eleven players were chosen by fan voting (subject to Porter's approval), and two were selected by MLS commissioner Don Garber.

Skills Challenge
The modern incarnation of the MLS All-Star Skills Challenge, introduced in 2018, is a freestyle soccer event that features three-player teams competing against each other in minigames, including a touch-and-volley goal showcase, a shooting accuracy competition, and a passing-and-shooting challenge. The older version of the skills challenge was retired in 2001 and featured other events, including "goalie wars" and soccer tennis.

Results by team

 * Notes

Broadcasting
Since 2023, rights for the MLS All-Star Game have been held by Apple TV+. The match and associated events are broadcast in English, French, and Spanish on MLS Season Pass; the 2023 edition was made free to stream.

The U.S. broadcast in English alternated between ESPN and Fox from 2015 to 2022, with the networks also alternating the MLS Cup. In even numbered years, ESPN has broadcast the All-Star Game while Fox would broadcast the MLS Cup. Likewise, in odd numbered years, Fox would be slated to broadcast the All-Star Game while ESPN or its sister network, ABC beginning in 2019, would broadcast the MLS Cup.

title: MLS All-Star Game


text:
England, Half-English

England, Half-English is a 2002 album by English political singer-songwriter Billy Bragg and the Blokes, and a song from that album. The song is about racism in England and the anti-immigration feelings and racist abuse of asylum seekers fuelled by the tabloid press, particularly the Daily Mail. The song uses examples such as the lions on the English football team's shirts, Britannia and the English patron saint, St. George (from Lebanon), the hyphen in Anglo-Saxon and the nation's favourite dish (curry) to convey his message that everything about English culture is shaped and influenced by the waves of immigration that have taken place in the past.

The title is taken from England, Half English, a 1961 collection of essays and articles by Colin MacInnes, which includes a 1957 article called "Young England, Half English" about the influence of American pop music on English teenagers.

The album peaked at number 51 on the UK Albums Chart in March 2002. Its first single, the double A-side "England, Half English" / "St. Monday", reached number 98 on the UK singles chart the same month. "Take Down the Union Jack", a song from the album that protests against the monarchy, Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee and argues for English and Scottish independence, reached number 22 in the UK Singles Chart in May 2002.

Track listing
Adapted from album liner notes.

All tracks composed by Billy Bragg; except where indicated
 * 1) "St. Monday" – 3:04
 * 2) "Jane Allen" (Martyn Barker, Bragg, Lu Edmonds, Ben Mandelson, Ian McLagan) – 3:58
 * 3) "Distant Shore" (Barker, Bragg, Edmonds, Mandelson, McLagan) – 2:30
 * 4) "England, Half English" (Barker, Bragg, Edmonds, Mandelson, McLagan) – 2:29
 * 5) "NPWA (No Power Without Accountability)" (Barker, Bragg, Edmonds, Mandelson, McLagan) – 5:31
 * 6) "Some Days I See the Point" (Barker, Bragg, Edmonds, Mandelson, McLagan) – 4:59
 * 7) "Baby Faroukh" (Barker, Bragg, Edmonds, Mandelson, McLagan) – 3:06
 * 8) "Take Down the Union Jack" – 3:20
 * 9) "Another Kind of Judy" – 3:44
 * 10) "He'll Go Down" – 3:21
 * 11) "Dreadbelly" (Barker, Bragg, Edmonds, Mandelson, McLagan) – 3:33
 * 12) "Tears of My Tracks" – 3:53
 * Australian CD bonus track
 * 1) "Yarra Song" – 3:33
 * Japanese CD bonus tracks
 * 1) "You Pulled the Carpet Out" – 2:38
 * 2) "Mystery Shoes" – 3:09

 * 2006 CD reissue bonus disc
 * 1) "Billericay Dickie" (Ian Dury, Steve Nugent) (from Brand New Boots and Panties, 2001) – 4:46
 * 2) "Mansion on the Hill" (Bruce Springsteen) (from Light of Day – A Tribute to Bruce Springsteen, 2003) – 4:20
 * 3) "Glad and Sorry" (Ronnie Lane) (previously unreleased) – 4:08
 * 4) "He'll Go Down" (demo) (previously unreleased) – 3:31
 * 5) "Yarra Song" (B-side of "Take Down the Union Jack") – 3:33
 * 6) "You Pulled the Carpet Out" (B-side of "Take Down the Union Jack") – 2:38
 * 7) "Mystery Shoes" (B-side of "Take Down the Union Jack") – 3:09
 * 8) "Tears of my Tracks" (demo) (previously unreleased) – 3:20
 * 9) "Take Down the Union Jack" (band version) (B-side of "Take Down the Union Jack") – 3:22
 * 10) "England, Half English" (7" remix) (Barker, Bragg, Edmonds, Mandelson, McLagan) (B-side of "Take Down the Union Jack") – 3:56
 * 11) "1 2 3 4" (Woody Guthrie) (from Daddy-O Daddy! Rare Family Songs of Woody Guthrie, 2001) – 2:05
 * 12) "Dry Bed" (band version) (Guthrie) (from Daddy-O Daddy! Rare Family Songs of Woody Guthrie) – 3:19
 * 13) "Danny Rose" (Lal Waterson, Mike Waterson) (from Shining Bright – The Songs of Lal and Mike Waterson, 2002) – 2:27
 * 14) "She Smiled Sweetly" (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards) (from various artists compilation accompanying Uncut magazine, March 2002) – 2:50
 * Bonus disc notes
 * Tracks 1–4 recorded November 1999 at Real World Studios.
 * Tracks 5–9, 11–13 recorded June 2001 at Monnow Valley Studio.
 * Track 10 recorded 22 February 2002 at Cathouse Studios.
 * Track 14 recorded 2002 at Roundhouse Studio.

Personnel
Credits adapted from album liner notes.

 * Billy Bragg – guitar, vocals
 * The Blokes
 * Ben Mandelson – various string instruments
 * Ian McLagan – Hammond organ, piano, backing vocals
 * Lu Edmonds – various string instruments, backing vocals
 * Martyn Barker – drums, percussion, backing vocals
 * Simon Edwards – bass guitar
 * Additional musicians
 * Terry Edwards – tenor saxophone (4, 11)
 * Caroline Hall – trombone (4, 11)
 * Dave Woodhead – trumpet (4, 11), flugelhorn (12), brass arrangements
 * Lorraine Bowen – backing vocals (1, 12)
 * Anthea Clarke – backing vocals (5)
 * Love Ayikai Tagoe – backing vocals (7)
 * Rebecca Naadu Laryea – backing vocals (7)
 * Technical
 * Grant Showbiz – producer
 * Mike Boddy – engineer
 * Jeremy Gill – assistant engineer, digital editing
 * Bob Ludwig – mastering

title: England, Half-English


text:
Three Californias Trilogy

The Three Californias Trilogy (also known as the Wild Shore Triptych and the Orange County Trilogy) is a book by Kim Stanley Robinson, which depict three different possible futures of Orange County, California. The books that make up the trilogy are The Wild Shore, The Gold Coast and Pacific Edge. Each of these books describes the life of young people in the three different near-futures. All three novels begin with an excavation which tells the reader about the world they are entering.

The Wild Shore
The Wild Shore was Robinson's first published novel. The Wild Shore (1984) is the story of survivors of a nuclear war. The nuclear strike consisted of 2,000–3,000 neutron bombs that were detonated in 2,000 of North America's biggest cities in 1987. Survivors have started over, forming villages and living off agriculture and sea. The theme of the first chapters is that of a quite normal science fiction pastoral, which is deconstructed in later chapters. Post-nuclear rural life is hindered from developing further by international treaties imposed by the victorious Soviets, with an unwilling Japan charged with patrolling the West Coast.

The Wild Shore won the Locus Award for Best First Novel in 1985 and was nominated for both the Nebula and Philip K. Dick Awards in 1984. Algis Budrys described it as "a frontier novel, with rich threads of Steinbeckian populism woven into its cast of characters." Although faulting the novel's "failure to sustain the weight of its undertakings," he concluded that Wild Shore was "a remarkably powerful piece of work, still a good book, almost without doubt a harbinger of great books to come from Robinson. It is also a really interesting and good book."

The Gold Coast
In The Gold Coast (1988) the reader learns about Southern California in 2027, a dystopian extension of the 1980s' Los Angeles and car oriented culture and life-style: "an endless sprawl of condos, freeways and malls." The book follows two groups of characters, connected by 27 year-old Jim McPherson and his father Dennis.

The Gold Coast was nominated for the Campbell, Locus, and British Science Fiction award in 1989.

Pacific Edge
Pacific Edge (1990), set in the El Modena neighborhood of Orange in 2065, narrates a summer in the life of Kevin Clayborne, a young house renovator recently elected for the town council of El Modena. Kevin finds himself at odds with the town mayor, Alfredo Blair, both personally and professionally. On the personal side, both Kevin and Alfredo are vying for the affection of Ramona Alvarez, Alfredo's former long-term girlfriend. On the professional side, Alfredo has been influenced by corporate money and attempts to rezone the last virgin hill inside the town for a commercial development. Kevin loses in all accounts: After attempting a relationship with Kevin, Ramona comes back to Alfredo, and the rezoning of the hill is passed by the council and by a town vote. In a last attempt to save the hill, Kevin turns it into a memorial for his recently deceased grandfather, who was a pillar of the community. This makes the commercial development on the hill an unpalatable project for the town. At the end of the novel, Kevin attends Ramona and Alfredo's wedding, and mourns what he's lost and reflects on what he's achieved.

Pacific Edge was the winner of the John W. Campbell Memorial Award in 1991.

Development history
In an interview with UCSD, Robinson said that "this was one of my few original ideas" and that he came up with the idea for the novels while still at UCSD on a drive to Orange County, California to visit his parents.

title: Three Californias Trilogy


text:
User talk:2988

Hello 2988, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 20:57, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:2988


text:
Talk:Hydrothermal circulation

Untitled
The chimney link points to brick chimneys. It needs to be changed to a better place but I don't know what the correct term for these underwater chimneys are. Theresa knott 20:58, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Added link to black smoker, the current term for these features.--Vsmith 02:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seems this needs to be made more general considering what links here and the hydrothermal redirect. Probably should be merged with hydrothermal vent ... Maybe I'll do it sometime ... --Vsmith 02:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cut the following which was added by an anon in May:
 * Global budgets of dissolved ions can be greatly affected, by the cycling of water through these vent systems. Depending on the ion in question cycling through a vent can either remove or add ions to the water that's eventually expelled back into the ocean bottom.  Most Noteably sulfate is removed via combination with Calcium ions to produce anhydrite as well as being reduced into hydrogen sulfide.  Magnesium, too, is lost by formaing magnesium hydroxide silicates.  Some sodium may be lost by cation exchange when it replaces Calcium in plagioclase feldspars (also method by which Calcium is released to form anhydrite precipitate).  Iron, Silica and Manganese are often added to the water that is eventually expelled.  pH significantly declines to the point that almost all alkalinity within the beginning water is lost.  (German and Von Damm. 2003. Hydrothermal Processes. Treatise on Geochemistry. 6.07.)

Seems it needs some rewording. The ref I presume to be The Oceans and Marine Geochemistry : Treatise on Geochemistry, Volume 6, May 2006, ISBN 0080451012 Vsmith 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BlossomN. Peer reviewers: Sedith7, TigerERTH4303.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

hydrothermal is also a method of chemical synthesis
This page should have a dis-ambiguous - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_synthesis -- I dont know how to do that?? Res78 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dablink added to top. Vsmith (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hydrothermal circulation


text:
1924 Olympics

1924 Olympics may refer to:

 * The 1924 Winter Olympics, which were held in Chamonix, France
 * The 1924 Summer Olympics, which were held in Paris, France

title: 1924 Olympics


text:
1928 Olympics

1928 Olympics may refer to:

 * The 1928 Winter Olympics, which were held in St. Moritz, Switzerland
 * The 1928 Summer Olympics, which were held in Amsterdam, Netherlands

title: 1928 Olympics


text:
1932 Olympics

The 1932 Olympics may refer to:

 * The 1932 Winter Olympics, which were held in Lake Placid, United States
 * The 1932 Summer Olympics, which were held in Los Angeles, United States

title: 1932 Olympics


text:
1936 Olympics

1936 Olympics may refer to:

 * The 1936 Winter Olympics, which were held in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany
 * The 1936 Summer Olympics, which were held in Berlin, Germany

title: 1936 Olympics


text:
1948 Olympics

1948 Olympics may refer to:

 * The 1948 Winter Olympics, which were held in St. Moritz, Switzerland
 * The 1948 Summer Olympics, which were held in London, England

title: 1948 Olympics


text:
1952 Olympics

1952 Olympics refers to both:

 * The 1952 Winter Olympics, which were held in Oslo, Norway
 * The 1952 Summer Olympics, which were held in Helsinki, Finland

title: 1952 Olympics


text:
1956 Olympics

1956 Olympics refers to both:

 * The 1956 Winter Olympics, which were held in Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy
 * The 1956 Summer Olympics, which were held in Melbourne, Australia with equestrian events in Stockholm, Sweden

title: 1956 Olympics


text:
1960 Olympics

The 1960 Olympics may refer to:

 * The 1960 Winter Olympics, which were held in Squaw Valley, United States
 * The 1960 Summer Olympics, which were held in Rome, Italy

title: 1960 Olympics


text:
1964 Olympics

1964 Olympics refers to both:

 * The 1964 Winter Olympics, which were held in Innsbruck, Austria
 * The 1964 Summer Olympics, which were held in Tokyo, Japan

title: 1964 Olympics


text:
Talk:James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife

Untitled
Thank you for making the correction. Jeff 17:27, 2 Aug 2003 (EDT)

Charles Duff Carnegie no longer uses the courtesy title Earl of MacDuff, and is now known as Earl of Southesk. (I've already corrected it. I just wanted to explain why I changed your page.)Erwin 21:12, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Princess Maud's birthyear has been switched from 1905 to 1893. Can anyone vet these dates from a printed source Debrett's or something? The editorb is an anon. with a checkered track record. --Wetman 06:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 3 April 1893, from Cracroft's Peerage. Proteus (Talk) 10:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife


text:
1968 Olympics

1968 Olympics may refer to:

 * 1968 Summer Olympics, which were held in Mexico City, Mexico
 * 1968 Winter Olympics, which were held in Grenoble, France

title: 1968 Olympics


text:
1972 Olympics

1972 Olympics refers to both:

 * 1972 Winter Olympics, which were held in Sapporo, Japan
 * 1972 Summer Olympics, which were held in Munich, West Germany

title: 1972 Olympics


text:
1976 Olympics

1976 Olympics refers to both:

 * The 1976 Winter Olympics, which were originally to be held in Denver, United States, but relocated to Innsbruck, Austria
 * The 1976 Summer Olympics, which were held in Montreal, Canada

title: 1976 Olympics


text:
1980 Olympics

The 1980 Olympics may refer to:
 * 1980 Winter Olympics, Lake Placid, New York, United States
 * 1980 Summer Olympics, Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union

title: 1980 Olympics


text:
1984 Olympics

The 1984 Olympics may refer to:

 * The 1984 Winter Olympics, which were held in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia
 * The 1984 Summer Olympics, which were held in Los Angeles, California, United States

title: 1984 Olympics


text:
1988 Olympics

1988 Olympics refers to both:

 * The 1988 Winter Olympics, which were held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
 * The 1988 Summer Olympics, which were held in Seoul, South Korea

title: 1988 Olympics


text:
1992 Olympics

1992 Olympics may refer to:

 * 1992 Summer Olympics, which were held in Barcelona, Spain
 * 1992 Winter Olympics, which were held in Albertville, France

title: 1992 Olympics


text:
1976 Paralympics

1976 Paralympics refers to both:
 * 1976 Summer Paralympics
 * 1976 Winter Paralympics

title: 1976 Paralympics


text:
1980 Paralympics

1980 Paralympics may refer to:
 * 1980 Summer Paralympics
 * 1980 Winter Paralympics

title: 1980 Paralympics


text:
1984 Paralympics

1984 Paralympics may refer to:
 * 1984 Summer Paralympics
 * 1984 Winter Paralympics

title: 1984 Paralympics


text:
Coral World Ocean Park

Coral World is a marine park and tourist attraction located next to Coki Beach on the East End of St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.

Facilities and attractions
Since its opening in 1978, the park has featured a signature Underwater Observatory Tower. The tower descends 20 feet in the ocean to allow underwater viewing. Later additions to the park include an 80,0000 gallon circular Caribbean Reef Encounter tank, which houses local fish and other sea life, and an enclosure for South American sea lions. The park uses an open-water system to circulate ocean water through the exhibits.

Other park animals include sea turtles, stingrays, juvenile sharks, seahorses, sea stars, conch, sea cucumbers, iguanas, and lorikeets. Many of the animals, such as the turtles, are rescued from the wild and released when possible.

The park focuses on visitor education and interaction with the animals, through touch encounters, feedings, swims, snuba, and Sea Trek.

History
Coral World opened in 1978, as Coral World International's second marine park, following Coral World Underwater Observatory in Eilat, Israel.

In 1989 it was destroyed by Hurricane Hugo.

In 1995 another storm, Hurricane Marilyn, destroyed the observatory and other tanks. Coral World was sold to new owners more than a year later.

During the 1990s, Coral World hired former world boxing champion Julian Jackson as a celebrity tour guide, to attract more tourists to the park.

In 2007 the park added sea lions.

In 2012 Coral World proposed adding a controversial dolphin swim attraction.

In 2017 Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria caused an estimed $2 million in damage to the park.

In 2018 Coral World began construction of an in-ocean dolphinarium.

title: Coral World Ocean Park


text:
1988 Paralympics

1988 Paralympics may refer to:
 * 1988 Summer Paralympics
 * 1988 Winter Paralympics

title: 1988 Paralympics


text:
1992 Paralympics

1992 Paralympics may refer to:
 * 1992 Summer Paralympics
 * 1992 Winter Paralympics

title: 1992 Paralympics


text:
User talk:Rozwell~enwiki

Hi Rozwell and welcome. I noticed that you've uploaded a couple of images. Please link images to articles and please please please do not upload .bmp images. They are huge! If you link the bitmap image to an article {so that I can see the point[[ I'll be happy to convert it to a better file format for you. Otherwise I'm afraid that it is likely to be deleted :-(

Do check out wikipedia:image use policy and Graphics tutorials

If you need any further help just ask.Theresa knott 21:21, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Welcome, too. We upload images to better illustrate article here in Wikipedia. Unless you plan on writing articles that will be illustrated by these images, they will be deleted. Most of your images seem to be personal pictures--I'm afraid they might be deleted. Maybe if you have pictures of your town or city, or even your university, then you can upload these as they will be useful for this encyclopedia. If you have any other questions, feel free to post at the "village pump." --seav 06:46, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

What exactly do you plan to do with these images? Evercat 18:11, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Last warning: Unless you declare your intentions with these obscure images, they will be deleted.—Eloquence 13:19, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Unless you give some indication of why they should be here (i.e. which articles you plan to use them to illustrate), Image:Finger3.jpg, Image:Dc6.jpg, and Image:Karasig.jpg will be deleted in a week. Please see Votes for Deletion for additional discussion. --Delirium 19:05, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Rozbanner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rozbanner.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Rozwell. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Rozwell~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rozwell~enwiki


text:
Talk:Flash point

Untitled
Note that volitle materials like naphthalene which have no liquid phase at 1 bar also have a flash point. The temperature of the flame from burning liquid is a measure of the exothermisity of the reaction, and so is related, in a complicated way, to the flash point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellier (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This page shoud start with a definition of what a flashpoint is not a discussion of petrol and diesel. Theresa knott 21:30, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks Heron! Theresa knott 23:13, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Other Uses of Flash point
Flashpoint is also an event that starts a war. (IE: Hitler invading Poland was the flashpoint of WW2). We should fit this in some where. CaptainAmerica 15:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. (211.31.177.90 14:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC))

Flash point (in the safety/hazards consideration area) also corresponds to approximately the lower flammable limit (LFL) otherwise known as the Lower explosive limit (LEL).

Should mention open cup (such as Cleveland) and closed cup testers (automated such as pensky Martens or non-automated Seta). there are ASTM and DIN standards.

some quirky materials - such as halogenated hydrocarbons have flammable limits, but no flash point - they often ignite outside the cup.

flash point and materials (transport classification)

Influence of environment - eg pressure

stoichiometric concentration - estimate LFL as approx 50% stoich.

context of upper flammable limit too? mixture flash points.

Greater Than / Less Than symbols
At the end, instead of > or < for the flashpoints of supstances, it should say "greater than" and "less than" So it is less confusing.

Can someone please do this?

 * You can if you think it desireable. Personally I don't this it necessary.  Pzavon 00:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * To be honest I'm slightly confused. In Flash point: >-45 °C  Is 45 °C less than the flash point, or is the flash point greater than 45 °C? --70.29.196.200 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Both! Saying that A is less than B is the same as saying B is greater than A.

 * And that is minus 45°C (below zero) not 45°C.

 * But the above may be nitpicking. Let me try to address the meaning of the ">" (greater than) and "<" (less than) symbols.

 * Read a line from left to right. If the symbol is open on the left and closed on the right (>), read "greater than". If the symbol is closed on the left and open on the right (<), read "less than."   So Flash point: >-45 °C  reads as Flash point: greater than -45°C  (You could think of the two symbols as graphically showing the realtive size of the items on each side. Bigger is next to the side of the symbol that is open or covers more space, smaller is next to the side of the symbol that is closed or covers less space.)
 * Pzavon 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I understand. So would this mean that petrol won't ignite if it is -45 C or lower? And would it also mean diesel won't ignite if the temperature is below 50 C, since the flashpoint is above 50 C? Not even a spark or flame could ignite diesel if the temperature wasn't 50 C or over?

 * Sort of. Sometimes flames are also sources of heat as well as being sources of ignition.  A spark that is merely a source of ignition will not ignite a flammable liquid when it and its environment is below its flashpoint.  A flame that is also a source of heat (a blow torch, for example) may locally raise the temperature above the flashpoint and cause ignition.  If the blowtorch is then removed, whether the liquid will continue burning depends on whether the fire is able to maintain the local environment above the flashpoint.

 * What is being ignited is the vapor immediately above the liquid surface, not the liquid itself, so you are also looking at enough energy to vaporize the liquid sufficiently to make a combustible mixture with air. Pzavon 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mechanism - involves heat of combustion?
Pzavon, I guess you could give some sort of answer to this and possibly include it somewhere (in short): is the fact that different vapour concentrations are needed to sustain the burning of the vapour related to the heat being released from the burning vapour? So that a substance with a high enthalpy of combustion would require less vapour concentration, because the heat evolved will sustain the fire even at low concentrations? Or have I not really understood the concept of flash point, proposing this? Question posted 25 July 2007 by 130.238.197.120

 * This is far from my specialty, but I would think that is not the case. The minimum concentration needed to sustain combustion relates to the ease with which the vapor oxidizes, and that is not, I think, directly dependent on temperature (although all chemical reactions are faster at higer temperatures).  The flash point is simply the liquid temperature at which the vapor concentration just above the liquid surface reaches a sufficient concentration to be able to flash, or be ignighted.  Sustained combustion is not a requirement of Flash Point, only that what is there will flash over.  Generally a higher temperature (or vapor concentration) is required to sustain combustion.  Once sustained combustion is established, it is likely that the heat from the combustion reaction will contribute to the continued evaporation of the combustible liquid.  (The is how a candle works.)  Pzavon 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Question Regarding Diesel vs. Gasoline Section
The question I have refers to this caption of the article:
 * "Diesel is designed for use in a high-compression engine. Air is compressed until it has been heated above the autoignition temperature of diesel; then the fuel is injected as a high-pressure spray, keeping the fuel-air mix within the flammable limits of diesel. There is no ignition source. Therefore, diesel is required to have a high flash point and a low autoignition temperature."

I understand why a diesel engine needs a low autoignition temperature (no sparkplug & unscavenged, unburnt fuel is imcompressible), but why does it have a higher flashpoint? Once diesel fuel is introduced into the cylinder the intention is for it to burn, rapidly. Doesn't the atomisation of the fuel spray encourage evaporation anyways? I could understand if it is just a byproduct of the manufacturing process (i.e., no consideration due its irrelevance on the operation of the engine), but if it was intentional the reasoning has lost me. Apart from compression and the ignition source, I don't know of any differences between a diesel or a gasoline engine...

I hope someone could clear up the issue here, and if need be on the article itself. LostCause 09:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your understanding is correct, especially since the owner's manuals for some older diesel vehicles recommend mixing unleaded gas with diesel in cold weather, if winterized diesel is not available. This is intended to retard gelling of the fuel, but as a side effect it effectively lowers the flash point of the mixture to that of gasoline. 69.91.159.38 (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Table of flash points
The Table given does not say whether the flash points given were determined by closed or open cup 137.158.152.206 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Philip137.158.152.206 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New section with diagrams?
Anyone want to add a section about how the flash point is found?

Information and diagram ideas can be found here.

FreeT (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

'''I need a list of fuels which contains flash and fire point of the fuel. if found please mail to 0anilkumar0@gmail.com'[[Media:Italic text]]'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.242.210 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

FP-4
changed this to JP-4 as per Wiki on military jet fuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.121.168 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Temperature Comparison vs Temperature Conversion
In the Measurement section I found it incorrectly stated, in part (erroneous phrase in italics): Closed cup testers normally give lower values for the flash point than open cup (typically 5–10 °C (41–50 °F)) In this context, the temperature is being compared (a temperature difference) rather than converted (to a thermometric temperature), and as such "5–10 °C" equals "9–18 °F", rather than the stated value of "41–50 °F". This is a function of the conversion rate alone, rather than the full conversion rate + offset. In a similar sense one would correctly say "5–10 °C equals 5–10 K", rather than incorrectly say "5–10 °C equals 278–283 K" when discussing a Celsius/Kelvin comparison. YodaWhat (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like advertising
I will come back here later and edit to remove marketing information. --Taquito1 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

2stroke oil
How high is the flashpoint of 2 stroke oil? And how does 2 stroke gasoline ignition temperatures differ from regular gasoline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.55.165.221 (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

comments
I am knowledgeable in the area of flammability of chemical substances. I think this article lacks several pieces of information that it should contain. 1. Flash Point is a measure of hazard. It can be used by firefighting personnel, and those concerned with the safe storage, transportation, or use of the material. 2. Flash Point specifically tests vapor over a specific amount of material, in either an open or closed space. Open space (open cup) testing is problematic in that ventilation is required for lab/test safety, but is undefined procedurally. Closed space (closed cup) testing is problematic since the time to reach vapor equilibrium is undefined (and variable) and yet assumed to hold. In some testing apparatus, the ignition source is inserted by opening the "closed" cover, hence allowing some air to enter and fumes to leave (as well as disturbing the 'head space'). In general, timing of the test is poorly constrained but is clearly important. 2.5 Powders and mists can be explosive but are outside the scope of these methods.3. Few liquids and solids burn in air. Generally, it is the vapor around (above) the liquid/solid that burns, and this depends on the vapor concentration, air composition and pressure, and temperature. (for instance, some chlorinated organics inhibit combustion). 4. With (arguably) few exceptions all organics will burn at a sufficiently high temperature. (Almost all of those that do not burn, instead will decompose (this decomposition may be explosive)).5. Some organic vapors may accumulate to concentrations ABOVE the Upper Explosive Limit (UEL) and will not, in that condition, burn. (Since this requires confinement, this can be a very dangerous situation because disturbances often involve mixing the vapor with air (i.e. opening the container, cooling the space, etc.) 6. The various cups, open, closed, stirred are convenient and (relatively) inexpensive industrial methods and can be used with other information to assess fire risk of the material in many industrial and commercial settings. 7. Most tests are dynamic, temperature rises throughout the test until ignition occurs. An optimal test (IMHO) would be to use such dynamic testing as a "ranging" test and would be followed by holding the material (with stirring) at a temperature of, say, 2 C under the dynamic test for 1 minute and then attempting ignition. If the material fails to ignite, that temperature is less than the ignition point (*not* the autoignition pt.). The highest temperature tested which is "< (tested) ignition temperature" should be reported as the F.P. For some materials, this may not be feasible, since other reactions occur (i.e. changes in the head space air composition, changes in the chemical composition of the test material, formation of a concentration gradient in the bulk (or surface) of the test material, etc.).174.130.49.98 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Looking forward to you editing it as you suggest GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flash point


text:
Ernest Callenbach

Ernest William Callenbach (April 3, 1929 – April 16, 2012) was an American author, film critic, editor, and simple living adherent. He became famous due to his 1975 utopian novel Ecotopia.

Life and work
Born into a farming family in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Callenbach attended the University of Chicago, where he was drawn into the then 'new wave' of serious attention to film as an art form. After six months in Paris at the Sorbonne, watching four films a day, he returned to Chicago and earned a master's degree in English and Communications.

Callenbach then moved to California. From 1955 to 1991, he was on the staff of the University of California Press (Berkeley). A general copywriter for a number of years, he edited the Press's Film Quarterly from 1958 until 1991. He also occasionally taught film courses at U.C. and at San Francisco State University.

For many years Callenbach edited the Natural History Guides at the U.C. Press. He began to take environmental issues and their connections to human value systems, social patterns, and lifestyles just as seriously as he had taken film. He was heavily influenced by Edward Abbey. Callenbach talked publicly about being influenced, during work on his novel Ecotopia, by numerous streams of thought: scientific discoveries in the fields of ecology and conservation biology;  the urban-ecology planning movement, concerned with an approach to urban planning; and the soft-energy movement, championed by Amory Lovins and others.

Callenbach is known as an author of green books, namely as author of the ecological "utopias" Ecotopia (1975) and Ecotopia Emerging (1981), and also The Ecotopian Encyclopedia (1981), Bring Back the Buffalo! (1995), and Ecology: A Pocket Guide (1998). (While his first novel popularized the term "ecotopia," the term was actually coined by the ethnographer E. N. Anderson.)

In terms of concepts of human involvement with the ecology, as well as some of the economic and social concepts, the Ecotopia books are related to what is known as the sustainability movement. Callenbach's Ecotopian concept is not "Luddite" — he does not reject high technology, but rather his fictional society shows a conscious selectivity about technology. In Ecotopia ecologically compatible high-technology exists alongside postmaterialistic attitudes and lifestyles. As an example, with its emphasis on personal rather than impersonal interaction, Callenbach's Ecotopian society anticipates the development and liberal usage of videoconferencing.

Indeed, for all his involvement with print publishing, Callenbach remained quite interested in visual media. Aspects of his book Ecotopia in some ways anticipated C-SPAN — which came into being a few years later — because in the story the daily life of the legislature and some of that of the judicial courts is televised in this fictional society, and televised debates (including technical debates concerning ecological problems) meet a need and desire among citizens.

Callenbach was a part of the circle of West Coast technologists, architects, social thinkers, and scientists which included Ursula K. Le Guin, Sim Van der Ryn, Peter Calthorpe, Stewart Brand, Kevin Kelly, J. Baldwin, and John Todd. As with some of these others, he was often a speaker, discussion panellist, and essayist.

In 2006 Callenbach introduced the story of a real-world community movement in Japan that is reminiscent, in its aims and practices, of his Ecotopian society. He visited Japan and investigated the Yamagishi movement. He found that it encompassed some three dozen intentional communities founded on the same underlying principles: living an ecologically based integration of people with agriculture (pig, cattle, and chicken livestock raising, and organic-vegetable and fruit farming), and living a social life based on principles of democracy, mutual understanding, support, and health. Each individual settlement is referred to as jikkenji ('demonstration community for the world').

In 2009, Callenbach was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Freiburg. Freiburg is noted for its renewable energy industry and has been called a "green utopia". He died of cancer on April 16, 2012, in Berkeley, California.

Quotes
...if you reflect on our change from thoughtless trash-tossing to virtually universal recycling, or from the past in which smokers didn't hesitate to blow smoke in anybody's face to our present restrictions on smoking in public places, it's clear that shared ideas about acceptable or desirable behavior can change markedly. Such changes occurred without anybody getting arrested in the dark of night. Further changes will come...

title: Ernest Callenbach


text:
Talk:Mary of Teck

Her father was a member of the royal House of Teck and not just a "nobleman" by the time of Mary's birth.
Her father was not just a "nobleman". Her father was a member of the royal House of Teck and not just a "nobleman" by the time of Mary's birth. 82.30.177.12 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022
The introduction says "was the Queen of the United Kingdom", it should say "was the Queen consort of the United Kingdom". Link is correct. 49.181.167.119 (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. DrKay (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The usual terminology of histoy has been that the Queen of a country was the consort of the king, whilst queens who were actual rulers are referred to as queen regnant. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary,_Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom&redirect=no Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 * As a standalone formal title, it would have to be “Mary, Queen consort of the United Kingdom”, although for recognisability, the option of Mary, Queen consort of George V is better.
 * People should not create dubious redirects for the sole purpose of blue links for effect for their arguments. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of transparency, the argument referred to in that comment was made during a debate in March 2023. The redirect was created in October 2022. In other words, nobody was trying to make their arguments effective by creating that redirect five months in advance. Keivan.f  Talk 05:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it may confused people between Mary of Teck and Mary III who was Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, and I would feel it improper to have this redirect to Mary of Teck Jord656 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Who the heck is Mary III? We have articles on Mary I of England and Mary II of England, but there has been no British monarch with that name since the 1690s. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Queen Mother
Should this section be changed to from Queen mother widowhood? I tried to change it myself but was reverted Jord656 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Queen mother' seems to cover the period in that sub-section. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No because there would be no point in such a change. She was a queen mother as the mother of Edward VIII and George VI. Just as Alexandra of Denmark was a queen mother to her son George V and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to her daughter Elizabeth II. "Queen mother" refers to her position not her title. Keivan.f  Talk 21:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Mary not May?
Am I missing something here? 143.159.228.181 (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Her name was Mary, but she was familiarly known as May. The early life section covers this.Ponsonby100 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2024
In the section of Legacy, add to the second paragraph one more place in Mary's honour -- Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong Citation https://www8.ha.org.hk/qmh/ Hongkongtravelguide (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The source provided doesn't mention Mary of Teck. DrKay (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mary of Teck