text:
Talk:Heliocentrism

Alleged Vedic heliocentrism
This nonsense was to the article with citations to one secondary and one tertiary source. Both citations are bogus, however, since there is nothing whatever on the cited pages of the sources given (nor anywhere else in them, as far as I can see) to support anything in the preceding paragraphs. In any case, the second citation is to Dick Teresi's Lost Discoveries, a far from reliable source. I will therefore be reverting this addition. David Wilson (talk · cont) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In view of apparent disagreement about whether anything in this passage is supported by the cited sources, I should perhaps clarify these terse comments.
 * The source cited for the first paragraph was an article, Astronomy of the Śatapatha Brāmahṇa, by Subhash Kak in the Indian Journal of History of Science. I could find nothing in that article which in any way supports any part of the disputed material. Nothing relating to heliocentrism, nor any of the quotations given in that material, appear anywhere in Kak's article. The only mentions of Yājñavalkya in the article are on pages 27, 29 and 30 as the individual to whom "tradition assigns the authorship of the Śatapatha Brạmahṇa", and in connection with a 95-year luni-solar cycle (comprising 5 Metonic cycles) which Kak names after him.
 * The source cited for the second paragraph is p.130 of Dick Teresi's Lost Discoveries. But again, there's nothing whatever on that page of Teresi's book which supports anything in that second paragraph. It is true that Teresi does write:
 * "The Vedas recognized the sun as the source of light and warmth, the source of life, the center of creation, and the center of the spheres. This perception may have planted a seed, leading Indians thinkers to entertain the idea of heliocentricity long before some Greeks thought of it.",
 * on that page, which might be taken—mistakenly, in my view—as supporting the opening sentence of the disputed material, in its first paragraph. The big problem with Teresi's statement is that his only source for it is this web page, the relevant part of which in turn seems to have been lifted entirely, without attribution, from Chapter 5 of a book, India's Contribution to World Culture, self-published on the web by one Subheer Birodkar.  Since neither Teresi nor Birodkar are recognised authorities on any aspect of the history of science, I fail to see how anything they write on that subject can be taken as being from a reliable source.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Since the determination of the units of time is contingent upon the accuracy with which the celestial phenomenon can be observed, the needs to study problems of mathematics and astronomy arose simultaneously ... The sen was considered the central point, the director of the Earth, around which all the planets revolved. "May the resplendent sun that comes from the center of the expanse of water of the vast ocean, purify me...", and "The sun generates all the earthly directions one by one and controls the seasons. Only the sun is the Lord of our universe."
 * Quoted from Indian astronomy in the era of Copernicus. Nature, volume 251, 283-285, https://doi.org/10.1038/251283a0.
 * It may be that Mathur's statements have been disproved since publication in 1974, but it was good enough for Nature. We should consider seriously the idea that Heliocentrism was an element of Vedic astrology. See also the Vedange Jyotisa of Lagadha, found here:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20110501084408/http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abd_s1.pdf Xiang Yu 99 (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Plutarch's passage on Aristarchus's heliocentrism
A passage in the article dealing with Plutarch's supposed assertion that the stoic philosopher Cleanthes thought Aristarchus should have been charged with impiety with an alternative, stating categorically that this is a "common misconception" and that Plutarch's assertion was instead that Aristarchus had (jokingly) suggested that Cleanthes should have been charged with impiety. The two sources cited for this assertion are Lucio Russo's book The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn, and a scholarly paper, Sulla presunta accusa di empietà ad Aristarco di Samo, by Russo and a scholar of classics, Silvio Medaglia.

There are all sorts of problems with this:
 * That heliocentrism was held to be "sacrilegious" by any contemporaries of Aristarchus other than Cleanthes is not a view that either of the cited sources—nor any other reliable source that I know of—asserts as being held by anyone, let alone that it is "common", as asserted in the amendment to the article under discussion. Athough Russo does write (on p.82 of The Forgotten Revolution) "The common idea is that Aristarchus was too far ahead of his time to have had a lasting influence on the course of science, and support is generally found for it in the accusation of impiety supposedly leveled at him because of his heliocentrism", this is very far from being the same thing as, or even implying that, there exists a common misconception that any more than a single contemporary of Aristarchus objected to heliocentrism on religious grounds.
 * In adopting the views of a single scholar, Russo, against the almost universal consensus of other scholars, this change quite obviously violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. I say "single scholar" here because I see no evidence in the Russo-Medaglia article that Medaglia shares Russo's apparent view that the matter has been conclusively settled in his favour.  Medaglia's role was confined to suggesting how the two primary manuscripts of Plutarch's text could be emended to produce a reading compatible with Russo's views.   Unlike Russo, however, he does not imply that this must be the correct reading of the text, merely that it is a plausible alternative to the traditional one.
 * In fact, a literal reading of the unemended primary manuscripts turns out to be obviously untenable, because it would seem to be attributing the proposal of heliocentrism to "Cleanthes the Samian" in contradiction to the well attested facts that Cleanthes was not Samian, but from Assos, and it was Aristarchus the Samian, not Cleanthes, who was responsible for proposing the idea of heliocentrism. To obtain a reading of the manuscripts consistent with Russo's thesis, Medaglia had to replace the two traditional emendations which are the targets of Russo's criticisms with three others, every one of which is more substantial than the two discarded single-letter emendations of the traditional interpretation. Supporters of the traditional interpretation would therefore appear to have very good grounds for regarding Russo's proposed interpretation as being somewhat less plausible than their own.  For anyone interested in the details, I have included them in the collapsed box below.

I shall therefore be replacing the text of this edit with something more consistent with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. I do agree, however, that the passage of the article which was replaced by this edit is unsatisfactory, and I have no intention of simply reverting back to it. David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 * A little Known fact of Heliocentrism is that the Sun is both Heaven and Hell; the center to your Being. 74.82.228.84 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Heliocentrism is the theory of Kepler, not of Copernicus
This part of the introduction "It was not until the 16th century that a mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler introduced elliptical orbits, and Galileo Galilei presented supporting observations made using a telescope" requires improvement. Copernicus did not introduce a "heliocentric" theory. It was Johannes Kepler who did it in 1609 (Astronomia Nova). Just look at the recent talk to the article "Nicolaus Copernicus". Ed Dellian, Berlin, Germany2003:D2:9724:2832:41CA:CAB5:87F9:858F (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I thought that Kepler put the Sun at a focus point of those elliptical orbits, not at the center. Likewise with Newton. Roger (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 * This is true. But, Kepler thought (falsely) that the sun would be at rest, and therefore it would be the "central" reference system of the revolutions, which revolutions, due to his presupposition (hypotheseis), turned out elliptical (as it must be, according to geometric considerations concerning the relations between circle and ellipse, shown by Newton: Principia, Book I, Sect. II and III). Ed Dellian2003:D2:9724:2892:E5CD:6765:8FD3:31FB (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Calvin's opinion
See https://biologos.org/articles/john-calvin-on-nicolaus-copernicus-and-heliocentrism/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.193.36 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you wish to add a section on Calvin, add a section, with links, and sources. one inlinked sentence gives no contect for reader, so is of no help. Such as which Calvin do you mean? as John Calvin was born in 1509, and would have only been 6 years old in 1515, his thoughts clearly have no relevance in a "before 1515" section IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Heliocentrism was a model of the Universe, not of the "Solar System"
In the first phrase, I reverted, for the second time, "Solar System" to "Universe". I detail here, open for the discussion, what I hinted in the two previous changes' comments.

What contemplated Heliocentrism is immediately evident to anyone who looks at the initial image on the page. It contains the Sun, the planets, the zodiac, and the stars' sphere ("sphera stellarum"). The model contains everything, all the known Universe.

The Solar System is a recent concept. The Sun and the planets (what we know today as the “Solar System”) were not a separated entity in the heliocentric models. In Heliocentrism, the Sun was the center of everything (as implied by the name), similarly to Geocentrism, which put the Earth at the center.

The introductory section is a short overview of Heliocentrism's history. Talking about "Universe" and not "Solar System" in the first phrase makes the section consistent. The summary starts with the Heliocentrism's origin as a model of the Universe in ancient astronomy, while the final sentence ("With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers, it was realized that the Sun, while near the barycenter of the Solar System, was not at any center of the Universe") marks the end of Heliocentrism as a model of the Universe. At the same time, the final sentence introduces the Solar System as a new entity with its own identity, separated from the rest of the Universe.

--Bg69 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think that's right. It would be interesting if anyone found where Copernicus or another early advocate of heliocentrism, said that the Sun was orbiting around the Milky Way, or that other stars has planetary systems, or anything like that. I think they just said the Sun was the center, or near the center, of everything. Maybe it should say that heliocentrism sometimes means near the center of the universe. Roger (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Per Archimedes as quoted in the article, Aristarchus explicitly put the Sun at the center of the Universe. "His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the sun..." --Noren (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I put a note to clarify between Universe and Solar system heliocentrism.207.96.32.81 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The note adds only confusion. The “Solar system heliocentrism” is an obviousness, a Lapalissade, and elaborating on the center of mass or anything else about the Solar System in the context of Heliocentrism is a misleading sophistication.
 * In other words, talking of a “heliocentric solar system” is tautological, as talking about a “geocentric solar system” is contradictory. Nobody, in fact, has ever proposed this last model.
 * In the history of astronomy, the Solar System was intrinsically conceived as “heliocentric.” Its name attests to that, and, again, there is no need to attribute to the Solar System the adjective “heliocentric” since its name implies it. Heliocentrism died at the very moment when the Solar System was understood to be a separate entity of the Universe. In the last proposition at the beginning of this article, the Solar System is introduced according to that historical fact:
 * “With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers, it was realized that the Sun, while near the barycenter of the Solar System, was not at any center of the Universe.”
 * For these reasons, the note should be deleted. Bg69 (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I deleted the note mentioned above.
 * Continuing on the same topic, I made some further adjustments, changed the caption of the first image, and moved it to a better context. The caption before presented the image as: "A hypothetical geocentric model of the Solar System (upper panel) in comparison to the heliocentric model (lower panel)."
 * As I tried to explain before, a "geocentric model of the Solar System" is an absurdity that no one has ever proposed.
 * Another point here is to show the nonsense better: If one puts the Earth at the center, and the Sun, like the Moon and the other planets, orbits around the Earth, then the Sun occupies no particular position. So, why should one call all those celestial bodies "Solar System"? Shouldn't "Earth's System" be more appropriate as their name? Bg69 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't Heraclides say that earth orbits the sun?
This article says that Aristarchus was the first to propose heliocentrism. But at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclides_Ponticus#Work it says "Simplicius says that Heraclides proposed that the irregular movements of the planets can be explained if the Earth moves while the Sun stays still". Why isn't Heraclides considered to have proposed heliocentrism (he was in the same time and it's hard to know who was first)? George Albert Lee (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Vedic heliocentrism again?
can anyone explain about the alleged Vedic heliocentrism which was readded in the subsection of ancient India and the reference provided isn't reliable as the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal. It was already removed back in 2018 but was been added again??.If the Vedas did talk about heliocentrism then we need to change the entire astronomy article to add this information. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am about to remove these lines and it's citations from the article as they directly falls under WP:NOR category
 * See, the provided citations are links to English translations of respective scriptures.
 * Removing the below line also as it lacks any reliable sources as citation
 * The reliability of sources provided for lines regarding Yajnavalkya is questionable. I am going to start a separate section here to discuss on the same.
 * അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the source titled Antiquities of India: An Account of the History and Culture of Ancient Hindustan is a book regarding the culture of Hindustan not a reliable book on scientific matters like heliocentrism. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea of these alleged Vedic heliocentrism come from this article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism which was created on november 2023 which already consist of questionable and unreliable sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have nominated that page for deletion. You can follow the deletion discussion by clicking on the same from the said page. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the source titled Antiquities of India: An Account of the History and Culture of Ancient Hindustan is a book regarding the culture of Hindustan not a reliable book on scientific matters like heliocentrism. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea of these alleged Vedic heliocentrism come from this article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism which was created on november 2023 which already consist of questionable and unreliable sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have nominated that page for deletion. You can follow the deletion discussion by clicking on the same from the said page. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of sources cited for Yajnavalkya
Information available from Google Books on Rodney Casdeden: a geographer and geomorphologist by training and has been actively involved in research on landscape processes and prehistory for the last twenty years. He has written books such as Inventions that changed the World, discoveries that changed the World, People that changed the World etc. Should scientific matters such as Heliocentrism be used from author of such books as he isn't clearly a subject expert on the matter, also Vedic-heliocetrism relation is a disputed issue and not widely published in any reliable scientific materials(Indians sources regarding the matter is subject to further reliability check as plethora of works produced from India are heavy embellishments of the actual fact). The second source clearly states it is a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual sans peer review. So it is explicit that citation is unreliable അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heliocentrism


text:
Talk:Queue area

Queue engineering

 * Expanding the capacity of the queue, thus allowing more patrons to have a place. This can be achieved by:
 * Increasing the length of the queue by making the queue longer

O RLY? - Zelaron (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening comment
I admit that it was tough to NPOV this entry, given that I don't like waiting in line (and I doubt the next guy does, either). However, I tried to NPOV as much as I could. Even with this NPOVing, there is still much advice to give on queue areas, given that (in my personal opinion) many amusement parks improperly design their queue areas, often putting too little shade over people's heads, not putting up enough props to satisfy wandering eyes of bored parkgoers, or not providing enough benches or exit points where folks can sit down or leave the line, respectively. "Batman and Robin: Chiller" at Six Flags Great Adventure is notable for having a poorly designed queue area (at least on the Robin side). While much of it is in the shade, the part in the shade is in, for all intents and purposes, an indoor location, without windows, without a proper exit at one end (in spite of the existence of an "Exit" sign), and lit solely with what appeared to be incandescent light bulbs, which are notoriously quick to burn out (indeed, the three bulbs at the turnaround end of the corridor in question were burnt out when I was there, in around the middle of this month (June 2003), plunging aforementioned end into darkness). The makers of the ride, in keeping with the theme, had apparently wanted an industrial setting. However, an industrial setting could as easily have been accomplished with fluorescent lighting - which has long been used in factories - and/or windows, another item common to industrial America. Fluorescent lights, moreover, have been commonly used in factories due to their energy efficiency and their tendency to stay lit longer than incandescent light bulbs. Given the tendency of riders of roller coasters (such as the Chiller) to be rather young folks, plunging the crowd into utter darkness seems a bad idea, as adolescent hormones may come into play in unwanted ways, pickpockets might take others' belongings, etc. That being said, the ride itself is a fine roller coaster, powered by magnetic induction (?) devices, allowing it to accelerate right out of the station rather than having to be hoisted up on a rack in the normal fashion and forced by gravity to roll all over the place. The acceleration is a tad quick for my taste, though. Rickyrab 19:16 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * I really like this article, it's fantastic. -- user:zanimum

Multi-cultural approach needed
The article is good, but it needs at least one addition: the fact that, if we assume a global perspective, there are enormous differences. Let me give just three examples:

(1) When you board a bus in England or America (and also elsewhere I guess) you have to queue because there is just one door in front, and you have to squeeze past the driver to buy or show them your ticket. In other countries you may board the bus also at the rear, so there is no queueing at bus stops.

(2) Enter any busy sandwich bar in England at 1 p.m. and everyone there (customers and staff alike) will know who is next, mainly due to the fact that there is a queue. In a similar outlet in a country such as Austria, complete chaos will rule. The whole layout of the shop will not encourage customers to form a queue (or queues), and the staff will be happily unaware of who they should serve next, smiling, shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Well I don't know who's next". The fittest will survive.

(3) Leave any railway station in England and there will be a taxi queue. Again, this is unknown in many European countries, with people hailing taxis anywhere. Survival of the fittest again.

These cultural differences should be mentioned somewhere. I'm not enough of a cosmopolitan myself, so I'd rather someone else did it. And I'm afraid I can't add anything on rollercoaster rides.  16:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

misleading picture
The picture of US troops 'in line' is a bit misleading. Those at the front are actually all being processed in a serial processing system. So they are not actually queueing. The other picture is fine. Vignaux 22:24, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

 * That's what I thought too.. and that is why I added the other pic here. Halibutt 00:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Solution to Queueing
I want to add this article, but I'm not sure if it belongs here and if it meets the quality standards of Wikipedia. I hope someone will paste it...

The problem is defined as followed: if too many people want to reach one place, a queue place will occur. People have no other choice than to wait their turn to be served.

The only thing that can be managed is the time that person needs to wait in the queue area.
 * The time residing in the queue can be prolonged. This is for example done in certain airport terminals. In most airports people need to wait a long time before they get their luggage. Certain airports just expand the queue area. They 'make' the people to take a longer route to reach their luggage. The perception is that people think they never had to wait, although it took longer to reach their luggage.
 * The time residing in the queue can be shortened. This is for example done by opening a new box-office during peak-times at theatres. Although this has sometimes a retroactive effect. More and more people will go to that theatre and you need to open more box-offices. Perhaps another real-life example is found in traffic jams, where the construction of more roads to prevent traffic jams does not work. If there is a "fast route" and a "slow route" to reach a destination, this can change in a second. Other cars try to take the "fast route" and the "fast route" is congested, then it takes even a longer time to reach the destination.

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no move. --  tariq abjotu  22:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
A "queue area" is secondary to the queue itself. This article talks about how people queue up, not about the hallways, parking lots, waiting rooms, etc. where they do so. --Smack (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Hm. Upon rereading this article, it seems that the first section (Queuing) is the only part that isn't true to the title of the page. The rest is relevant to the "area" specification, although the virtual queuing part may need to be clarified to focus more on the queue area than the queue itself.  --Perimosocordiae 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose. At least for now.  The article needs a big cleanup to focus on the queue area.  There seems to be a lot of material, like other waiting areas, that have nothing to do with a queue area.  Vegaswikian 17:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Waiting Room?
I was looking for somewhere to link 'Waiting Room' for another article I was writing and it linked me to this. How on earth is a queue area the same as a waiting room? I think I shall do an article of waiting rooms as they are quite different. If waiting rooms are actually described elsewhere please do not hesitate to tell me! Cls14 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

a fact about the word
according to the dictionary, Queue is one of two words in the english language that contain 4 vowels in a row when spelled. just a tidbit about the word, maybe worth mentioning. the other word is Hawaiian. ueue and aiia look it up, youll find a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.33.77 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

History?
Anyone know when/where queuing started as a cultural phenomenon? My inclination is to think that it was a British contribution...

Kind regards, David Bergan (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Wrong. See Joe Moran, Queuing for Beginners. If I had the book on me now, I'd give you the straight scoop. But I don't, so I can't. Note the spelling of "queuing": so much for the assertion in the article that this is a misspelling. Morenoodles (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The people are the queue.
The "Physical queue" section somehow manages to avoid simply stating that a line of people waiting their turn to access a product, service or facility is a queue.

I'm also a bit uncomfortable about how the section launches into an excessively detailed description of queues at Disneyland specifically while barely acknowleging the simple fact that billions of people queue every single day all around the world for utterly mundane purposes such as boarding a bus, entering a classroom, using an ATM or buying food. Very few queues are exciting or even interesting. Roger (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

anglocentrism
In American English the term is "standing in line," yet this is discussed nowhere in the article. One would think the term "queuing" for waiting for services is universal, but it just ain't so. It is never used in North America. --SchutteGod (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 * 'standing in line' Is a phrase, though, and an awkward one. The word in the english langugage is queue or queueing.--Dr zoidberg590 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

 * That's a tough one. I suggest you add a section, with sources, explaining the fact but allow the rest of the article to retain the Commonwealth style. Also one should note the geographical difference between standing in line and standing on line. Sorry, but I myself am busy writing and editing other articles now. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. The explanation was already there, in the notes at the bottom, so I simply moved it to the lead. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Queue area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726205839/http://treasurer.jocogov.org/tre/doc/qlessonline.pdf to http://treasurer.jocogov.org/tre/doc/qlessonline.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.supalocal.com/sqblog/master-the-art-of-substitution
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070609111920/http://standinaqueue.wordpress.com:80/ to http://standinaqueue.wordpress.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose rename to Queuing or something else
Most other wikis have more general articles about queuing or "live-queuing", e.g. in Russian wiki there is an called Живая очередь — literally "A live queue". Other possible interwikis — see wikidata Q1783115. See also proposed merge of wikidata entries. —andrybak (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly support this. Queuing is interesting behaviour, why is the area the primary topic? Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Queue area


text:
Talk:Descendents

Spelling
Well, which is it The Descendents, or The Descendants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.229.26 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 June 2003 (UTC)

 * Probably The Descendents (that's what it says throughout the article). I'll look it up when I'm done here and fix it if necessary. --Hephaestos (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2003 (UTC)

 * It is Descendents. See ALL central for a brief history. --Vern (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So if the name of the band is just "Descendents"... then why not move this page there? Or "Descendents (band)" if need be? --Blue Dream (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Did you look at the All central Descendents link? Both 'the Descendents' and 'Descendents' (no the) are referred to there. I think in the original context Vern was saying it is (The) Descendents rather than ..ants. The article referenced doesn't really clear things up though, as I said. --mat_x (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, my mistake. --Blue Dream (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The official title is DESCENDENTS; sometimes there is a THE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.174 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no The in Descendents
Take out the The. Just because the linked article on the All page sometimes refers to them as the Descendents (*note the lower case the, that means its not part of the name it's just there for syntax's sake). The Descendents (*note the the is capitalized because it came at the beginning of the sentence) have never been a The band. Take a look at any recording, merchandise, or flyer and you will always see just DESCENDENTS. Descendents are not a The band. The The and a million other The bands are. --Redleaf (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You mean like The Ramones? Adding "the" to the title of certain punk bands is implicit while not stated. --69.164.100.92 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Redleaf. I notice "the" is usually prefixed to band names whose names wouldn't sound "grammatically correct" without it. Nevertheless, Descendents are just Descendents, I've never seen them officially adopt a "the" so adding it would be like calling Neutral Milk Hotel "The Neutral Milk Hotel". felt  _   friend  23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pop punk
As of a discussion and vote concerning about this issue, it has been decided that "pop punk revival" is a neologism (specific to wikipedia), similarly, "punk-pop" is a term which is more or less a neologism (specific to the music industry, public relation firms, and especially All Music Guide. These terms are referring to the style known as pop punk. In the case of the Descendents they may actually be one of the first pop punk bands. Of course they are also considered hardcore and college rock/indie kinda fit the bill too. --Xsxex (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * They are in NO way pop punk. They started out as a hardcore band. They were social outcasts and sunned by the populous. They weren't mainstream or played on the radio. There wasnt even poppunk back then. Therefore it is impossible for them to e poppunk. Just so happens that when looking back on them their songs have a pop punk mold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.119.213 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * You seemed to have missed the point. You don't necessarily have to be super popular to be pop punk. I first heard the Descendents as a hardcore band with pop punk influence. Greenday was pop punk before they were signed to a major. --24.5.110.50 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

 * No i think you missed the point: pop punk didnt exist. Because if it works this way Mozart was punk as hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.101.89 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Someone had to invent a sound. It's like saying that you can't call Bauhaus goth because it didn't exist yet. Mozart was too complex to be punk. There is nothing punk about Mozart. For the record, I am a huge fan of the Descendents so I'm not trying to bad mouth them or anything. Pop punk is a sound- it doesn't necessarily state anything about there popularity. Even if they aren't fully pop punk (which I will give to you), they are pop punk enough to have it included. --69.181.253.64 (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. They're a pop punk band. Sure, Milo Goes To College was a hardcore album, and they still have other hardcore songs, but why not add pop-punk as well? And yeah, pop punk existed ever since The Buzzcocks, and even The Ramones. Besides, Descendents are still going, and how can you not admit that "Clean Sheets", "I'm The One" and "Nothing With You", and many more are pop punk songs? Pop punk is not an insult, it's punk rock but with more upbeat and catchy songs and lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.234.231 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Descendants are definitely punk. Not pop punk, but punk. Punk is not a sound is an attitude. And The Ramones are definitely the opposite of pop punk. And just in case you did not know, pop is short for popular, these guys were not popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tm315 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The term "Pop Punk" is a confusing one because it has very little to do with the "Punk" subculture and the term "Pop" is not related to the word "popularity". Instead, it is meant to mean that it is a genre that shares qualities of the "Pop" musical genre as well as some qualities of the "Punk" musical genre. To be even more confusing, it developed a sound/ethos/subculture that is distinct from either musical genre. Still, NO, Descendents cannot be labeled Pop Punk. Though the Descendents have some musical qualities that can be deemed to be "Proto-Pop Punk" because they share many of the hallmarks of the beginning of the sound of Pop Punk music, they are much closer related to Punk then Pop Punk. Dreap 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreap (talk • contribs)
 * You can read all about pop-punk at the Wikipedia article on (you guessed it :) pop punk. benzband  ( talk ) 15:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Member list, formation date, etc
Not sure why the two early singers were erased from the 'previous members' section of the member list or why the dates were tinkered with and such, but I'm going to go ahead and revert all of that. Colinclarksmith (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to have to get to this later. A number of the changed dates are wrong and there are some omissions, I'll need more time to fix it all up. Also, I don't see the point of the member list if we're going to omit the intermediary lineups and merely list who plays on each record. If you ask me, the point of member lists is to see what exists between the gaps of album liner notes. Colinclarksmith (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd prefer if we could discuss the issues here rather than you simply reverting my work. I couldn't find sources for two of the names previously listed (David Nolte & Gwynn Kahn). This was the source for Nolte, which kinda establishes him as an early member during the group's embryotic stages, but he wasn't part of any recording lineup and only sang at "a few early gigs", and isn't listed on the infamous "All/Descendents Family Shrub", which begins with the "power trio" lineup. This was the source for Kahn, and it actually doesn't mention that name anywhere in it, so...

 * Also I'm not sure what you mean about the dates being wrong: from going through the website & other sources (as well as the recording & release dates of the albums) I feel they're pretty accurate. I'm not sure about the formation date: the official site says '78 but nearly every secondary source I can find, like Allmusic, gives '79, likely based on the date of the first single. Also the previous version of the table had a number of dates that were just flat-out wrong: A lineup in 1984? That's when the band were on hiatus after Milo went to college. In fact Milo states (Juice interview, Sept. '95, question 6) that they were "on hiatus – no shows or recordings during 1983-1985." Also, 1987-1989? Milo left the band in 1987 following the "FinALL" tour. If you're basing those dates on the release dates of Liveage!, and Hallraker: Live!, those were released posthumously; both were recorded in '87 on the band's last 2 tours supporting All (the album). There were no Descendents from 1988 through 1995: By '88 All were already underway, releasing Allroy Sez and Allroy for Prez that very year. The Descendents didn't re-convene until Everything Sucks, which was recorded June–July 1996. Cool to Be You was recorded Feb–April 2002 and released March '04, so I think 2002–2004 as a range of their most recent active dates is accurate.

 * Finally, I've got no problem with listing the intermediary lineups but we've got to be able to verify the dates somehow, which is a bit difficult. Even the "family shrub" diagram doesn't give dates. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Pretty soon I'm going to take a stab at rewriting and sourcing the history section, so maybe some details that come up in that process will add clarity to the dates & lineups, and the members section can be adjusted accordingly. Please give me some time to work on it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Everything you're saying is fair. I think I was a little frustrated this morning when I saw the massive changes, but the whole article (member section included) needed a lot of work so I'm glad that you've embarked on all of that and I think it's fair to say that a lot of the info is interpretive and can stand to be re-evaluated.  Also, I shouldn't have made it sound like I planned to wholesale "revert" any edits, merely specific bits of certain information, but I will definitely hold off on that while you do your work.  Anyway, moving along....  I think the biggest point I would contend in what you're saying is the 1978 formation and the legitimacy of Nolte as an original member.  The formative years of band histories often get tricky, since bands evolve out of other bands and a simple bifurcation between one group and the next isn't always unambiguous.  This seems to be the case with the Descendents, who actually give self-contradictory information about their history in various places.  The (indeed infamous) Family Shrub actually neglects to list several lineups, including the 1982-era post-Milo lineups, and doesn't seem to me to be a very good place to start since it seems only interested in an album/release-oriented chronology.  Even though the 'Shrub doesn't mention Nolte, it seems to me that the band's own F.A.Q. makes a clear-cut case for Nolte's having been involved in a significant, formative version of the band.  Also, while I remember reading that interview where Milo claimed that there were no live shows from 1983-1985, I found another source (which I can't seem to find right now) that seemed to confirm shows in both '83 and '85.  My only point here is that their own primary sources are not always trustworthy.  But of course, you're right that the Descendents properly disbanded in 1987 (I could have sworn it was '88, but it doesn't even matter because the chart incorrectly said '89), and a 1984 lineup would also have been wrong, so you're definitely addressing problems with the chronology.  So go ahead and do the work you have in mind and we'll talk about any concerns at a later date.  Again, sorry for being crabby this morning : ) Colinclarksmith (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * No worries. I'm not a morning person myself :) Thanks for the polite reply. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's Just Bad
This article is extremely badly written and requires a major overhaul in my opinion. It is written more like an (favorable) opinion column than an objective encyclopedic article, there are no sources and citations, and there are a lot of claims that (even though I agree with some), just make this article seem ridicules. I think there's a great need to start collecting information about the band from different sources, not just on the web, and attempt to find as much content that goes back to the band's origins. With a large enough arsenal of sources the article can then be overhauled.

 #   Ido50  ( talk  to me), at 07:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free content
You have a real issue with non-free content in this article, which needs to be resolved- the article is certainly unable to pass at GAC until the issue is dealt with. Basically, you have a large number of non-free music samples, which is problematic in and of itself (ideally, we need the minimum number of samples that can still convey the message). However, the samples themselves are far too high a quality (64kbps should be sufficient) and have useless, copy-paste rationales that clearly do not apply to this article. Instead, non-free content should have specific, individual rationales taylored to the use in question, explaining what the sample is adding and why it is needed, tying it in with the article. J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your concern. Most of them are valid, but I see no issue with the quality of the audio being an issue due to there size not being incredibly large. But the rest I will work on. Cowik (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I have finished cleaning up the file descriptions. Thank you Cowik (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Descendents. 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/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207044805/http://www.descendentsonline.com:80/archive/shows/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/shows/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324082952/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/interviews/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Descendents. 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/20110709014738/http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/gnusletters/pages/1996fall-b-norb.htm to http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/gnusletters/pages/1996fall-b-norb.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205014747/http://www.descendentsonline.com/discography/full_lengths/ to http://www.descendentsonline.com/discography/full_lengths/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/shows/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108051619/http://www.epitaph.com/videos/player/596 to http://www.epitaph.com/videos/player/596
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221112207/http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/64/Im_The_One to http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/64/Im_The_One
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418035045/http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/65/When_I_Get_Old to http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/65/When_I_Get_Old

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  sami  talk 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Descendents → Descendents (band) – With there being a multitude of notable, and possible even more notable, subjects and articles at the disambiguation page Descendant (which redirects Descendent and Descendants redirect to), I'm not seeing how the spelling variation of this subject distinguishes itself from the other notable subjects at the aforementioned disambiguation page, including Descendants (2015 film) (which gets more page views that Descendents almost daily.) In order to ensure that readers are locating the correct artidle when looking up this spelling variation, I propose that this page be moved to Descendents (band) and the leftover redirect Descendents be redirected to Descendant, the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. This band is fairly notable and is the only topic on the DAB page to use the spelling "Descendents" outside of the obscure Chilean horror film which is rarely viewed. Google also points to the band being the majority usage of this spelling variation. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per the small text of WP:SMALLDETAILS re details which aren't consistent. This band's name is a misspelling but a very common misspelling for Descendants. (band) is only going to help readers and hurt no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The only two articles that use the spelling descendent (with an "e" instead of an "a") include the band, and the 2008 film. Per |Descendents_(2008_film) page views, the band is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. All other articles listed on the disambiguation page use descendant with an "a" instead of an "e" and according to WP:SMALLDETAILS, ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, which in conjunction with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, allows the band to have the current page title.  CookieMonster755  ✉    03:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary overprecision. This is the primary topic for the precise title. Any possible confusion is best handled by a hatnote. Station1 (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * according to this search there are 2,174 pages on Wikipedia with "descendents" "-band".   the primary topic for the precise title is clearly not a punk band which has never had even one charting single, but a misspelling of descendants. I cannot see with so many Wikipedia articles misspelling the word how anyone can argue all those mispellings mean a band. Unless those opposing are volunteering to go through those articles and fix every one? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note this Oxford Dictionary of English Angus Stevenson - 2010 Page 474 0199571120 USAGE The correct spelling for the noun meaning 'person descended from a particular ancestor' is descendant, not -ent. Descendent is a less common adjective meaning 'descending from an ancestor'. Almost 15 per cent of the citations for the term in the Oxford English Corpus use the wrong spelling. 15% of all usage is very high for a misspelling. And again those 15 per cent of the citations for the term in the Oxford English Corpus we can guess that not one of them refers to a non-charting punk band. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Descendents" is the correct spelling for the band, whereas it's an incorrect spelling for "descendants". In an encyclopedia, correct data should take precedence over incorrect data, otherwise we're further encouraging the misspelling. Furthermore, Descendents is getting about 470 hits per day, while descendants is getting only about 23 |Descendants. Using your figures, if descendants is misspelled about 15% of the time, it means only about 4 hits per day (23 x 0.15) out of 470 are landing on the band's page in error. Station1 (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but (not even mentioning mislinks) I think this comment shows a misunderstanding of how people get to articles. And why are those 23 people a day not important? No one would be harmed by (band) and 23 a day could be saved downloading an article onto their phones they don't want. Wikipedia isn't here to bully readers into submission, or correct spelling or anything else - the reader is the customer. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not 23 people per day, it's about 4, and yes, they are important. That's why there's a hatnote on the article. But those 4 are not more important than the larger number who search for or link to "Descendents" knowing what they want, who would be sidetracked to a dab page. That larger number would in fact be harmed unnecessarily by adding "(band)" to the title. And I'm amazed that anyone thinks correct spelling is not important in an encyclopedia. Next thing someone will propose redirecting beatles as a common misspelling of beetles. Station1 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Support Per WP:ASTONISH, the page descendents needs to be an R from misspelling.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. In conjunction with this RM, a concurrent RM has been initiated at Talk:Descendant (2003 film), proposing to move Descendant (2003 film) → Descendant (film), Descendants (2008 film) → Descendants (film) and Descendents (2008 film) → Descendents (film). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The above stats from Station1 prove that this article is likely what readers expect when they search "Descendents". Nothing else challenges it for the title, either.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, see incoming link from article Elmont, New York; where a link from "descendents" of Sephardi Jews is arriving at a punk band. Or from List of biochemists.... this is a misspell and mislink magnet. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But that misspelling should be corrected (I just did Elmont) whether or not this article were moved. Don't the vast majority of incoming wikilinks correctly point to the band? The one from List of biochemists is correct, btw. Station1 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the 2,174 pages on Wikipedia with "descendents" "-band" that aren't linked? Those show that Wikipedia content editors reflect the OED comment, that these are just variant spellings. The purpose of titles is to help readers find articles not hinder them. How does the current title help the 15% of readers who spell descendants as descendents? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The current title does help the greater number of readers find the article. As explained above, only roughly 1% of the readers landing on the article are here in error, and they are helped by the hatnote. The far far greater number want the band, and redirecting them to a useless (to them) dab page hinders that larger number. Station1 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article has conflicting info about founding members
The summary states the band was formed by Navetta, Lombardo and Stevenson, but the history starts by saying the band was founded by Navette and Nolte. -Joltman (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Descendents


text:
Battle of Fei River

The Battle of Fei River, also known as the Battle of Feishui, took place in the autumn of 383 AD in China, where forces of the Di-led Former Qin dynasty were decisively defeated by the outnumbered army of the Eastern Jin dynasty. The location of the battle, the Fei River, no longer exists but is believed to have flowed through modern Lu'an, Anhui, near the Huai River. The battle is considered to be one of the most significant and pivotal battles in Chinese history, as it ensured the survival of the Eastern Jin and Han-ruled regimes in South China. In the aftermath of the battle, the Former Qin fell into a massive civil war, resulting in its eventual collapse, ensuring the survival of Eastern Jin and subsequent Han-ruled regimes south of the Yangtze River.

Background
The state of Former Qin, led by ethnic Di tribesmen, rose rapidly from a string of successes in the 350s. Fu Jiān, the nephew of the founder Fu Jiàn, was a vigorous leader of tremendous drive and ambition. In 370 he conquered the state of Former Yan and in 373 seized modern Sichuan and Chongqing from Jin. In 379, the strategically important city of Xiangyang, gateway to the Middle Yangtze, fell to Qin. By 381, he had conquered all of north China and was preparing for an invasion of the south.

In May 383, a Jin army of 100,000 commanded by Huan Chong attempted to recover Xiangyang but was driven off by a Qin relief column of 50,000 men. In response, Fu Jiān ordered a general mobilization against Jin: 6 of every 10 able-bodied men were conscripted, and 30,000 elite guards were gathered. In August 383, Fu Jiān sent his brother, Fu Rong, the Duke of Yangping (who had opposed the campaign), with an army of 300,000 as the advance force. Later that month, Fu Jiān marched with his army of 270,000 cavalry and 600,000 infantry from Chang'an. In September, Fu Jiān reached Xiangcheng. Separate columns were to push downstream from Sichuan, but the main offensive would occur against the city of Shouchun on the Huai River. Emperor Xiaowu of Jin hurriedly made preparations for defense. He gave Huan Chong responsibility for the defense of the Middle Yangtze. The pressing defense of the Huai River was given to Xie Shi (謝石) and Xie Xuan and the elite 80,000-strong Beifu Army. Prime Minister Xie An oversaw overall strategy.

Huan Chong was deeply worried and sent three thousand elite soldiers into the city to support the capital, but was resolutely stopped by Xie An, saying: "The way the imperial court will deal with it has been decided, there is no shortage of soldiers and weapons, please stay in the west, just in case." Huan Chong sighed at his subordinates and said, "Xie An has the strength to live in the imperial court, but he is not familiar with the means of leading troops to fight. Now that the great enemy is coming, they are still playing to their heart's content, they will talk big, and they can only send young people (Xie Xuan) who have never fought to resist, coupled with the lack of numbers and weak troops, the end of the country has long been known, and we are about to be ruled by barbarians!" Later, the Jin army on the eastern front defeated the Qin army, and Huan Chong was ashamed to learn the news, and died of an attack of illness at the age of 57.

Former Qin Army
Fu Jiān's force was composed of many smaller armies levied from the conquered northern territories, along with cavalry drawn from the nomadic peoples of the north (the Xianbei and Xiongnu). Most men had little or no loyalty to the Former Qin, and many were forced to join or joined only because of military rations and pay. Many battalions had problems following orders as instructed by their commanding officers. Fu was warned of the poor training of his heterogeneous army, but instead chose to rely on the vast number of men that made up the army, saying, "My army is so huge that if all the men throw their whips into the Yangtze, its flow will be stopped" (投鞭断流).

Jin Army
Xie Xuan's Beifu army was drawn from the militarized settlements of powerful local families, with officers bringing along their own hereditary troops. This army underwent significant training and could be considered a professional military unit.

Battle
In October 383, the Former Qin forces under Fu Rong captured the important Jin city of Shouyang (, in modern Lu'an, Anhui). Fu Jiān, seeing the possibility of achieving a quick victory, left his main force at Xiangcheng and led 8,000 light cavalry to rendezvous with Fu Rong. Fu Jiān sent captured Jin official Zhu Xu as a messenger to try to persuade Xie Shi to surrender. Instead, Zhu tipped off Xie Shi to the fact that the entire Former Qin force had not yet arrived and that he should try to defeat the advanced Former Qin forces to cripple the Former Qin's campaign. At Zhu's suggestion, Xie Xuan and Liu Laozhi (劉牢之) led 5,000 elite troops to engage the advanced Former Qin force, scoring a devastating victory, killing 15,000 men. Afterwards, Jin troops were lined up in a wide formation to give the illusion that the Jin forces could match Former Qin's manpower. Because of the early minor defeats and the Jin formation, Fu Jiān overestimated the amount of Jin forces.

In November 383, the Former Qin troops set up camp west of the Fei River. The Jin forces stopped east of the Fei and could not advance. Xie Xuan sent a messenger to Fu Rong, suggesting that the Former Qin forces retreat slightly west to allow Jin troops to cross the Fei River so that the two armies could engage. Most Former Qin generals opposed that plan, since maneuvering such a large army in that manner was too complicated for the benefits that might be obtained, especially with so many poorly trained troops. Fu Jiān overruled them, however, planning to attack the Jin army as it was crossing the river to seize a tactical advantage, as the Jin would be split in two. Fu Rong agreed and ordered a retreat.

The Jin's tactics of ambush and bribery now paid off. Many soldiers in the Former Qin army began to wonder why a sudden retreat order was given. Already retreating and demoralized, the Former Qin army went into a panic when Zhu Xu raised a cry of "the Qin army has been defeated" and it was routed. Xie Xuan and generals Xie Yan (謝琰) and Huan Yi crossed the river and launched a major assault. The "Qin is Defeated" rumor spread like wildfire, and chaos followed. Fu Rong personally tried to halt the retreat and reorganize his troops, but his horse suddenly fell and he was killed by advancing Jin troops.

The Jin generals noticed the chaotic footprints and wheel marks and declared that the Former Qin army was not in an organized retreat but was indeed in total disarray. The Jin soldiers continued their pursuit, and the entire Former Qin force collapsed. A large amount of food and supplies were abandoned as Former Qin soldiers tried to escape with their lives. In the ensuing retreat and pursuit, an estimated 70-80% of the Former Qin troops died from combat, starvation and exposure to the elements.

Aftermath
The Jin army defeated the overwhelming Former Qin forces with only minor casualties. The Jin had routed and killed most of the escaping soldiers of the Former Qin army, greatly weakening the pool of troops from which the Former Qin could draw. Fu Jiān's forces were not able to be reorganized, even after he eventually withdrew to Luoyang under the protection of Murong Chui, whose 30,000-man army was one of the few that did not collapse.

Meanwhile, agrarian rebellions arose after news of the defeat at Fei River. Murong Chui used this opportunity to ask Fu Jiān to let him try to lead an army to pressure the rebels in the eastern empire back into submission. Instead, Murong Chui himself rebelled in early 384, which started a chain reaction of many Xianbei and Qiang uprisings. The Former Qin capital Chang'an would fall in 385 to the Xianbei forces of Western Yan, and Fu Jiān himself would die later that year at the hands of his former general Yao Chang, the founder of Later Qin. While Former Qin would last until 394, it would never regain its power and glory. In addition, after the battle, Jin forces advanced to the Yellow River and recovered much of the Chinese heartland, forming a basis for Liu Yu's expeditions and the Southern and Northern dynasties period that would follow soon afterward.

This battle is famous not only because of its significance in history but also because it demonstrated the importance of troop training, morale, loyalty and organized battle command. The battle was also significant in that it ensured South China would remain independent until 589 AD, when North China was again under a Han Chinese regime, the Sui dynasty.

title: Battle of Fei River


text:
User:Dhum Dhum/Sandbox

 * Auderghem - Oudergem
 * Berchem-Sainte-Agathe - Sint-Agatha-Berchem
 * Forest - Vorst
 * Ixelles - Elsene
 * Molenbeek-Saint-Jean - Sint-Jans-Molenbeek
 * Saint-Gilles - Sint-Gillis
 * Saint-Josse-ten-Noode - Sint-Joost-ten-Node
 * Schaerbeek - Schaarbeek
 * Uccle - Ukkel
 * Watermael-Boitsfort - Watermaal-Bosvoorde
 * Woluwe-Saint-Lambert - Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe
 * Woluwe-Saint-Pierre - Sint-Pieters-Woluwe

 * Oudergem / Auderghem
 * Sint-Agatha-Berchem / Berchem-Sainte-Agathe
 * Vorst / Forest
 * Elsene / Ixelles
 * Sint-Jans-Molenbeek / Molenbeek-Saint-Jean
 * Sint-Gillis / Saint-Gilles
 * Sint-Joost-ten-Node / Saint-Josse-ten-Noode
 * Schaarbeek / Schaerbeek
 * Ukkel / Uccle
 * Watermaal-Bosvoorde / Watermael-Boitsfort
 * Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe / Woluwe-Saint-Lambert
 * Sint-Pieters-Woluwe / Woluwe-Saint-Pierre

 * Auderghem / Oudergem
 * Berchem-Sainte-Agathe / Sint-Agatha-Berchem
 * Forest / Vorst
 * Ixelles / Elsene
 * Molenbeek-Saint-Jean / Sint-Jans-Molenbeek
 * Saint-Gilles / Sint-Gillis
 * Saint-Josse-ten-Noode / Sint-Joost-ten-Node
 * Schaerbeek / Schaarbeek
 * Uccle / Ukkel
 * Watermael-Boitsfort / Watermaal-Bosvoorde
 * Woluwe-Saint-Lambert / Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe
 * Woluwe-Saint-Pierre / Sint-Pieters-Woluwe

 * Oudergem
 * Sint-Agatha-Berchem
 * Vorst
 * Elsene
 * Sint-Jans-Molenbeek
 * Sint-Gillis
 * Sint-Joost-ten-Node
 * Schaarbeek
 * Ukkel
 * Watermaal-Bosvoorde
 * Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe
 * Sint-Pieters-Woluwe

 * Auderghem
 * Berchem-Sainte-Agathe
 * Forest (Belgium)
 * Ixelles
 * Molenbeek-Saint-Jean
 * Saint-Gilles
 * Saint-Josse-ten-Noode
 * Schaerbeek
 * Uccle
 * Watermael-Boitsfort
 * Woluwe-Saint-Lambert
 * Woluwe-Saint-Pierre

title: User:Dhum Dhum/Sandbox


text:
Index of management articles

This is a list of articles on general management and strategic management topics. For articles on specific areas of management, such as marketing management, production management, human resource management, information technology management, and international trade, see the list of related topics at the bottom of this page.
 * Management an overview
 * Balanced scorecard
 * Benchmarking
 * Business intelligence
 * Industrial espionage
 * Environmental scanning
 * Marketing research
 * Competitor analysis
 * Reverse engineering
 * Operations
 * Popular management theories : a critique
 * Centralisation
 * Change management
 * Communications management
 * Conjoint analysis
 * Constraint Management
 * Focused improvement
 * Corporate governance
 * Corporation
 * Board of directors
 * Middle management
 * Senior management
 * Corporate titles
 * Cross ownership
 * Community management
 * Corporate image
 * Cost management
 * Spend management
 * Procurement
 * Crisis management
 * Critical management studies
 * Cultural intelligence
 * Decentralisation
 * Design management
 * Diagnostic Enterprise Method
 * Engineering Management
 * Enterprise content management
 * Content management system
 * Web content management system
 * Document management system
 * Contract management
 * Fixed assets management
 * Records Management
 * Enterprise legal management
 * Event management
 * Extended Enterprise
 * Facility management
 * Force field analysis
 * Fraud deterrence
 * Human Interaction Management
 * Information technology management (MIS)
 * Knowledge management
 * Organizational development
 * Overall Equipment Effectiveness
 * Management effectiveness
 * Management fad
 * Management information systems
 * Management of Technology (MOT)
 * Midsourcing
 * Peter Drucker's Management by objectives (MBO)
 * Management consulting
 * Management science and operations research
 * Manufacturing
 * Just In Time manufacturing
 * Lean manufacturing
 * News management
 * Planning
 * Planning fallacy
 * Professional institutions in management
 * Quality management
 * Value-based management
 * Volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity
 * Project management
 * Risk management

title: Index of management articles


text:
Lincoln Financial Field

Lincoln Financial Field is an American football stadium in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It is the home stadium of the Philadelphia Eagles of the National Football League (NFL) and the Temple Owls football team of Temple University. The stadium is located in South Philadelphia on Pattison Avenue between 11th and South Darien streets alongside I-95. It is part of the South Philadelphia Sports Complex and has a seating capacity of 67,594.

The stadium opened on August 3, 2003, after two years of construction that began on May 7, 2001, replacing Veterans Stadium, which opened in 1971 and served as the home field for both the Eagles and Philadelphia Phillies through 2002 and 2003, respectively. While total seating capacity is similar to that of Veterans Stadium, the new stadium includes double the number of luxury and wheelchair-accessible seats and more modern services. The field's construction included several LED video displays and more than 624 ft of LED ribbon boards.

Naming rights were sold in June 2002 to the Lincoln Financial Group, for a sum of $139.6 million over 21 years. The City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cumulatively contributed approximately $188 million in public funding to the stadium construction. Additional construction funding was raised from the sale of stadium builder's licenses, which are necessary to purchase season tickets for some of the stadium's best seating levels.

The Army–Navy football game is frequently played at the stadium due to Philadelphia being located halfway between both service academies, the stadium being able to house the large crowds in attendance, and the historic nature of the city. Temple University's Division I college football team also plays their home games at Lincoln Financial Field, paying the Eagles $3 million a year to do so as of February 2020. The Philadelphia Union of Major League Soccer have played exhibition games here against high-profile international clubs when their stadium Subaru Park does not provide adequate seating. The stadium also plays host to several soccer games each year and will host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. It has also played host to the NCAA lacrosse national championship five times: 2005, 2006, 2013, 2019, and 2023.

Features
The design of the stadium is meant to evoke the team's namesake eagle with wing like canopies above the east and west stands and the Eagle's Nest balcony beyond the north end-zone. The team's primary eagle logo is patterned in the dark green seats of the upper deck of the east and west stands. Three open corners of the stadium provide fans with views of the Philadelphia skyline and the field. The exterior of the stadium uses a brick façade to reference the historic brick architecture present throughout Philadelphia, while the exposed steel structure evokes the city's bridges and future.

In late spring 2013, the Eagles announced that there would be some major upgrades to Lincoln Financial Field over the next two years. The total project estimate was valued at over $125 million. The upgrades included seating expansion, two new HD video boards, upgraded amenities, WiFi, and two new connecting bridges for upper levels. These upgrades were decided upon after research from season ticket holders, advisory boards, and fan focus groups. The majority of these changes, including WiFi (which would accommodate 45,000 users and have coverage over the entire stadium), were completed by the 2013 home opener. The upgraded sound systems and video boards were finished for the 2014 season.

Suites and lounges
There are 172 Luxury Suites at Lincoln Financial Field. They range in capacity from 12 to 40 people and cost $75,000 to $300,000 per year or $20,000 for a single game rental. The suites are located in six separate areas throughout the stadium. There are 3,040 luxury suite seats in total.

There are two exclusive 40000 sqft club lounges in the stadium. The lounge on the west side is the "Hyundai Club" and the one on the east side is the "Tork Club". Suite holders and club seat holders have access to these 2 lounges. There are a total of 10,828 club seats in the stadium. These club seats feature some unique benefits above and beyond the lounges. One major benefit is the lounges open hours before the event, in most cases 2–4 hours. The lounges also have multiple full-service bars in them. The seats in the club level are padded, and there is also a wait staff present to serve food and drinks.

Parking
There are numerous parking lots surrounding Lincoln Financial Field. The parking assignments may change depending on other activities in the area on a particular day. According to the stadium's website, all lots cost visitors $45 and $90 for an oversized vehicle. Tailgating is allowed in all lots except for T-X lots. The majority of the lots are public cash lots.

Notable events

 * August 3, 2003: Lincoln Financial Field hosted its first ticketed event, a soccer match between Manchester United and FC Barcelona
 * August 22, 2003: The Philadelphia Eagles hosted the New England Patriots in the first pre-season football game at Lincoln Financial Field, with the Patriots defeating the Eagles 24–12.
 * September 6, 2003: Lincoln Financial Field hosted its first regular-season college football game, a college matchup of local Philadelphia rivals, Villanova and Temple. Villanova prevailed 23–20 in double overtime.
 * September 8, 2003: The Eagles and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers competed on Monday Night Football in the first regular-season NFL game at Lincoln Financial Field. The game was referenced as the "Inaugural Game" at Lincoln Financial Field. The defending champion Buccaneers shut out the Eagles 17–0 in their new home.
 * January 11, 2004: NFL Divisional Playoff game (Philadelphia Eagles 20, Green Bay Packers 17). This game is also known as "The Miracle of 4th and 26". Donovan McNabb connected on a 28-yard pass to receiver Freddie Mitchell on 4th and 26 late in the 4th quarter with the Eagles out of timeouts. This led to the game-tying field goal that sent the game into overtime. In the overtime period, Brett Favre tossed an interception to Brian Dawkins, which set up David Akers' game-deciding 37-yard field goal that sent the Eagles to their third straight NFC Championship Game.
 * January 18, 2004: NFC Championship Game (Carolina Panthers 14, Philadelphia Eagles 3). Eagles lose their third straight NFC Championship Game.
 * May 2004: Minor modifications were made to the stadium to change capacity slightly. Some seats were removed from the club box level to increase handicap access. The temporary seats were removed in the north east end zone and a permanent structure was erected and formally named The Pepsi Zone. It is designed as a family-friendly section.
 * January 16, 2005: NFC Divisional Playoff Game (Philadelphia Eagles 27, Minnesota Vikings 14). Eagles advance to their fourth consecutive NFC Championship Game.
 * January 23, 2005: NFC Championship Game (Philadelphia Eagles 27, Atlanta Falcons 10). Eagles advance to the Super Bowl for the first time since 1980.
 * January 7, 2007: NFC Wild Card Playoff Game (Philadelphia Eagles 23, New York Giants 20). David Akers wins the game with a field goal as time expires.
 * September 23, 2007: Wearing 1933 throwback uniforms celebrating the team's 75th anniversary, the Eagles set multiple team records in a 56–21 victory over the Detroit Lions, the second most points in team history. It was the first time the Eagles ever had a 300-yard passer (Donovan McNabb), a 200-yard receiver (Kevin Curtis), and a 100-yard rusher (Brian Westbrook) in the same game.
 * April 10, 2010: The Philadelphia Union win their inaugural home opener, a 3–2 victory over D.C. United. A second match was played against FC Dallas on May 15, ending in a 1–1 tie; those games served as home games before the opening of Subaru Park June 27 against Seattle Sounders FC.
 * May 29, 2010: US men's national soccer team won their match 2–1 against Turkey in the last game of the 2010 World Cup Send Off Series. A crowd of 55,407 people attended, setting at the time a new attendance record for U.S. Soccer at Lincoln Financial Field.
 * July 21, 2010: Philadelphia Union hosted Manchester United on their North America tour. Manchester United won, 1–0.
 * September 12, 2010: The Eagles honored the 50th Anniversary of their 1960 NFL Championship, wearing replicas of the uniforms in a 27–20 loss to the Green Bay Packers.
 * January 9, 2011: NFC Wild Card Playoff (Green Bay Packers 21, Philadelphia Eagles 16). Michael Vick throws a game-ending interception.
 * December 8, 2013: The Eagles erased a 14-point deficit to score 20 unanswered points in the fourth quarter en route to a 34–20 victory over the Detroit Lions amidst a driving snowstorm that lasted throughout the game. This game is referred to as the "Snow Bowl".
 * January 4, 2014: NFC Wild Card Playoff (New Orleans Saints 26, Philadelphia Eagles 24). Shayne Graham kicks the game-winning field goal at the end of the game.
 * July 26, 2015: In the 2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup final, Mexico defeated Jamaica 3–1 in a nearly sold-out game with 68,930 in attendance.
 * October 31, 2015: Temple hosts Notre Dame on ESPN Saturday Night Football on ABC in primetime in front of a sold-out record crowd of 69,280. Notre Dame defeated Temple 24–20.
 * January 13, 2018: NFC Divisional Playoff (Philadelphia Eagles 15, Atlanta Falcons 10). The Eagles stopped the Falcons on 4th and goal in the final minute to preserve the victory.
 * January 21, 2018: NFC Championship Game (Philadelphia Eagles 38, Minnesota Vikings 7). Eagles advance to the Super Bowl for the first time in thirteen years.
 * September 6, 2018: NFL Kickoff Game (Philadelphia Eagles 18, Atlanta Falcons 12). The Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles defeated the Atlanta Falcons in a rematch of their 2017 NFC Divisional Playoff matchup.
 * February 23, 2019: In the 2019 NHL Stadium Series, the Philadelphia Flyers defeated the Pittsburgh Penguins 4–3 in overtime, in front of a crowd of 69,620, the largest recorded attendance for a hockey game in Pennsylvania.
 * November 20, 2019: The Linc hosted a high school football game between the Pleasantville Greyhounds and Camden Panthers in a resumption of a game that was interrupted on November 15 due to a shooting that left one dead.
 * January 5, 2020: NFC Wild Card Playoff (Seattle Seahawks 17, Philadelphia Eagles 9). Russell Wilson leads the Seahawks past the Eagles after Carson Wentz left with a head injury following a controversial helmet-to-helmet hit from Jadeveon Clowney.
 * January 21, 2023 NFC Divisional Playoff (Philadelphia Eagles 38, New York Giants 7). The Eagles complete a 3-game sweep of the Giants for the 2022 season en route to the NFC Championship Game.
 * January 29, 2023: NFC Championship Game (Philadelphia Eagles 31, San Francisco 49ers 7). The Eagles won in dominant fashion against the 49ers to advance to Super Bowl LVII.
 * April 6–7, 2024: WWE held their 40th annual WrestleMania, the largest annual pro-wrestling event, at this venue. The event was held across 2 nights. WrestleMania XL holds significance as the first pro-wrestling event taking place in the stadium.

Controversies

 * For the inaugural season at Lincoln Financial Field (2003), the Eagles imposed a ban on hoagies and cheesesteaks being brought into the stadium, citing security concerns related to the events of September 11. The ban only lasted one week after much mockery by fans and sports radio, along with traditional media.
 * Prior to the first Eagles game of the 2007 season, a ruling was made concerning a Philadelphia and national tradition: tailgating. While the Eagles did not ban the act entirely, they did ban the use of tables and tents as well as the purchasing of more than one parking spot per vehicle. Prices were also doubled to $40 for RVs and buses, and $20 for cars. Fans have been reported to be upset.

Training camp
The Eagles decided after the 2012 season to move training camp from Lehigh University in Bethlehem to Philadelphia. As a part of this new agreement, the Eagles will have multiple practices, which are open to the public, at Lincoln Financial Field. The rest of the practices will be closed, and will take place across the street at the NovaCare Complex.

College football
Lincoln Financial Field is the home field for Temple University football. On August 13, 2003, the Philadelphia Eagles and Temple University announced a 15-year agreement for Temple to play their home football games at Lincoln Financial Field. Temple played its first game at the Linc on September 6, 2003, against Villanova, the teams' first meeting since 1980. During the 2015 season, the Temple Owls sold out the Linc on two occasions. The September 5 season opener against Penn State, and again on October 31 in a prime time matchup against Notre Dame. With its capacity of 67,594, it is the largest stadium in the American Athletic Conference.

Lincoln Financial Field is the primary home to the Army–Navy Game. The game has been played the most often in Philadelphia. It was played at Veterans Stadium for the final time in 2001, and prior to the Vet, at John F. Kennedy Stadium and Franklin Field. The Linc hosted the game five times between 2003 and 2009. It was announced on June 9, 2009, that the game would be played in Philadelphia at the Linc in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017.

Lincoln Financial Field is one of only five stadiums to be the home of both an NFL and college team; the other four are Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas (Raiders and UNLV), Hard Rock Stadium in Miami (Dolphins and Hurricanes), Acrisure Stadium in Pittsburgh (Steelers and Panthers), and Raymond James Stadium in Tampa (Buccaneers and South Florida).

Attendance Records

Soccer
The stadium opened on August 3, 2003, with 68,396 attending a preseason friendly with Manchester United defeating Barcelona 3–1. It hosted some 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup matches.

In 2004, after winning the gold-medal in soccer at the 2004 Summer Olympics, the U.S. women's team conducted a "Fan Celebration Tour", playing ten matches across the United States from September to December 2004. The matches were the final national team appearances for Mia Hamm, Joy Fawcett, and Julie Foudy, all of whom retired after the tour. The team played at the Linc on November 6, 2004, where they lost 3–1 to Denmark in front of 14,812 spectators.

In late July and early August 2004, Manchester United returned to play Celtic and AC Milan played Chelsea in two friendly matches.

On July 18, 2009, Lincoln Financial Field hosted a doubleheader quarterfinal for the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup. The first game was between Canada and Honduras, and the second between USA and Panama. This was the first full international appearance for the United States national soccer team in Philadelphia since a 1968 friendly against Israel at Temple Stadium.

Lincoln Financial Field was listed by U.S. Soccer's World Cup bid committee as one of 18 stadiums to be potential sites for the United States to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

The Linc was also the first home of the Philadelphia Union early in 2010. The Union played their home opener against D.C. United at the Linc on April 10, 2010, due to construction delays at their new stadium, PPL Park (now Subaru Park). The Union defeated United, 3–2. The Union also played FC Dallas to a 1–1 tie in the second home game in franchise history at the Linc. After moving to their permanent venue in Chester, the Philadelphia Union continued to use the Linc for matches where ticket demand is expected to far exceed the full capacity at its regular home until 2011. English powerhouse club Manchester United met the Philadelphia Union during their pre-season tour on July 21, 2010, with Manchester United defeating the Union by a score of 1–0. The Union played the Spanish powerhouse club Real Madrid on July 24, 2011, with Real Madrid prevailing, 2–1.

Lincoln Financial Field also hosted the US National team's final match on home soil before the 2010 World Cup. The US defeated Turkey 2–1 on May 29, 2010.

The US men's national team returned to Lincoln Financial Field on August 10, 2011, for an international friendly match against Mexico, where they tied 1-1.

In 2012, the stadium hosted a World Football Challenge match between Real Madrid and Celtic F.C. with Real Madrid winning 2–0.

On August 2, 2014, Lincoln Financial Field hosted a soccer match between A.S. Roma and Inter Milan which was part of the 2014 International Champions Cup. Inter Milan won the match 2–0.

On July 26, 2015, the Linc hosted the final match of the 2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup.

In 2016, the stadium hosted games in the Copa América Centenario.

The Linc hosted a doubleheader of quarterfinals of the 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup and did so again for the 2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup.

On July 25, 2018, the Linc hosted a 2018 International Champions Cup match between Juventus FC and FC Bayern Munich that Juventus won 2–0.

On August 29, 2019, the Linc hosted the US Women's National Team in the second match of their victory tour in a game against Portugal. The match set the record for the highest attendance for the team in a friendly match, attracting 49,504 fans. The United States won 4–0.

2026 FIFA World Cup
Lincoln Financial Field will host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, making it one of the eleven selected U.S. venues. During the event, the stadium will be temporarily renamed to "Philadelphia Stadium" in accordance with FIFA's policy on corporate sponsored names. The stadium will host six matches: five group stage matches and one Round of 16 match on Independence Day.

Other sports
The NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship in 2005, 2006, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2023, and 2024 were held at the stadium. In 2020, the event was scheduled to take place in May but was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Philadelphia Phillies celebrated their 2008 World Series championship with a parade down Broad Street, appearance before a sold-out crowd at the Linc, and then a ceremony at Citizens Bank Park. The Citizens Bank Park ceremony was simulcast to the crowd at the Linc. Tickets to the event at Lincoln Financial Field were made available at no cost to the public and were gone within 45 minutes when they were made available at 3pm on October 30, 2008.

Monster Jam performed at the stadium from 2010 to 2012 as part of the summer stadium tour. After a six-year absence, Monster Jam returned to the stadium on May 5, 2018. Previous events took place during the winter at the Spectrum and the Wells Fargo Center from 2013 to 2015. The Linc would host Monster Jam again in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

On February 23, 2019, the Philadelphia Flyers defeated the Pittsburgh Penguins 4–3 in overtime in the 2019 NHL Stadium Series in front of a crowd of 69,620, the largest record attendance for a hockey game in Pennsylvania.

On July 27, 2022, it was announced that Lincoln Financial Field would host WrestleMania XL, on April 6, and April 7, 2024.

In TV and Movies
The stadium is prominently featured in the opening of the TV show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. It also features in the third episode of season 3 of the show. The stadium also appeared in the 2012 movie Silver Linings Playbook.

In The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live, the stadium was destroyed in an airstrike during the early days of the zombie apocalypse by U.S. Air Force pilot Donald Okafor, killing 4,000 U.S. Marines, including his own wife, as mentioned in episode 1 of the show. In the same episode, Okafor uses the ruins of the stadium to hold a secret meeting with Rick Grimes and Pearl Thorne. Rick later returns to collect a zombie corpse for his escape plan. In episode 3, Thorne uses the ruins to meet with Rick and Michonne in secret.

It was featured on the finale of The Amazing Race 36.

Awards
In 2013, Lincoln Financial Field was considered one of the "greenest" NFL stadiums. Energy-efficient additions include 11,000 solar panels, and 14 UGE-4K wind turbines outside and on top of the stadium respectively. These installations account for 30% of the electricity used to run the facility. 2013 also marked the fourth year in a row that the venue made the top of PETA's list of "Vegetarian-Friendly NFL Stadiums".

title: Lincoln Financial Field


text:
Linc

Linc, The Linc or LINC may refer to:

Science

 * LINC, Laboratory Instrument Computer
 * LINC 4GL, a programming language
 * LINC complex, a protein complex of the cytoskeleton
 * LINC complex, or simply LINC, another name for the DREAM complex

Organizations

 * MIT LINC, Learning International Networks Consortium of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
 * Linc Energy, an Australian energy company
 * LINC TV, a community television station based in Lismore, New South Wales, from 1993 to 2012

Other

 * Linc (name), a list of people and fictional characters
 * Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada, Canadian federal government language education programme
 * ASF LINC, Loan Identification Number Code of the American Securitization Forum
 * Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway, expressway in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
 * Lincoln Financial Field, the home stadium of the Philadelphia Eagles
 * LINC (Learning Innovation Centre), Edge Hill University, Lancashire, England
 * LINC, the computer controlling Union City in Beneath a Steel Sky
 * LINC, reporting mark of the Lewis and Clark Railway, Clark County, Washington, United States

title: Linc


text:
Retribution

Retribution may refer to:

 * Punishment
 * Retributive justice, a theory of justice
 * Divine retribution, retributive justice in a religious context
 * Revenge, a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance

Films

 * Retribution (1921 film), an Australian silent film by Armand Lionello
 * Retribution (1969 film), a Soviet drama film by Aleksandr Stolper
 * Retribution (1987 film), an American horror film by Guy Magar
 * Retribution (2000 film) or Complicity, a UK film based on a novel by Iain Banks
 * Retribution (2002 film), a British television film in the Hornblower series
 * Retribution (2006 film), a Japanese horror film by Kiyoshi Kurosawa
 * Retribution (2015 film), a Spanish thriller film by Dani de la Torre
 * Retribution (2023 film), an American thriller film by Nimród Antal
 * Resident Evil: Retribution, a 2012 film, the fifth in the Resident Evil series

Television

 * Retribution (TV series), or One of Us, a 2016 British drama miniseries
 * "Retribution" (Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future), a 1988 two-part episode
 * "Retribution", a 1994 episode of BattleTech: The Animated Series

Literature

 * Retribution (Hoffman novel), a 2004 novel by Jilliane Hoffman
 * Retribution (play), an 1818 play by John Dillon
 * Retribution (Southworth novel), an 1849 novel by E. D. E. N. Southworth
 * "Retribution", an 1846 poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow; see Mills of God
 * Retribution, a 2007 novel in the Warhammer Von Carstein trilogy by Steven Savile
 * Retribution, a 2007 Dreamland novel by Jim DeFelice and Dale Brown
 * Mass Effect: Retribution, a 2010 novel by Drew Karpyshyn

Albums

 * Retribution (Malevolent Creation album), 1992
 * Retribution (Nightingale album), 2014
 * Retribution (Obscura album), 2006
 * Retribution (Shadows Fall album), 2009
 * Retribution (Tanya Tagaq album) or the title song, 2016
 * Retribution, by Ektomorf, 2014

Songs

 * "Retribution", by Fantom Warior, 2012
 * "Retribution", by Thunder from Bang!, 2008

Video games

 * Retribution (video game), a 1994 first-person shooter computer game
 * Eve Online: Retribution, a 2012 expansion of the MMO Eve Online
 * Resistance: Retribution, a PSP game in the Resistance series
 * StarCraft: Retribution, a 1998 authorised add-on for the game StarCraft
 * Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II – Retribution, a 2011 stand-alone expansion pack for the game Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II

Other uses

 * Retribution (professional wrestling), a professional wrestling stable

title: Retribution