text:
Talk:Philosophy of space and time

VfD
I was going to list this on VfD, since it seems kind of like a personal project rather than an encyclopedia article, but I stopped myself. I still have a few questions about it, though.

 * 1) How is this different from metaphysics?
 * 2) How can you write about the philosophy of space and time without mentioning Kant?
 * 3) The article is currently a near-orphan (Nothing else is really referring to it outside of a circle of articles that all seem to be primarily your contributions) - is there a reason for this?
 * 4) Is this really a distinct branch of philosophy, or is most of this better served in articles on the philosophy of science, on metaphysics, and on the individual debates being mentioend?
 * 5) Really. Why no Kant?

Thanks. Snowspinner 19:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * maint. comment: Above contrib is currently attributed by edit history to User: Phil Sandifer; i shan't check nor annotate further contribs bearing the "Snowspinner" sig, in this section. --Jerzy•t 20:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the author of the article, but I thought I could weigh in on at least your question (1).

There are in my estimation two reasons why the philosophy of space and time is different from metaphysics.
 * 1) To compare this field of study with the field of study known as 'metaphysics' would be to commit some sort of category error.  Metaphysics is traditionally distinguished from epistemology, ethics, etc.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to ask, say, how the philosophy of mind is different from metaphysics, since the philosophy of mind is to be more fairly contrasted with other subject matters, like the philosophy of language, perhaps.  Of course, that isn't to say that many of the issues of the philosophy of mind aren't metaphysical: but many of them are, for example, epistemological as well.  The same goes for the philosophy of space and time.  As the intro says, many of the issues raised therein are ontological (and therefore metaphysical), but others are clearly in large part epistemological (the experience of time, for instance).  A more interesting question might be how this subject is different from the philosophy of physics, but I think the answer here is that the former is simply a subset of the latter.
 * 2) Assuming that I'm wrong and no category error is taking place in your (1), it's still clear that the subject matter of metaphysics at large and the philosophy of space and time are distinct.  I'm not certain, for instance, that the philosophy of S&T has anything to say about personal identity.

I agree that the near-orphan issue might be a problem of sorts, but this is not a bad thing. I assume that the author has a significant interest in the subject matter and so decided to contribute it to the community. Now that the information is there, it should be integrated into the rest of the wikiliterature--but that there was previously relatively little demand for this article is no reason that it shouldn't be written. Kachooney 21:28 edt, 18 May 2004

 * This does seem to me like a personal project rather than an encyclopedia article. However, it does seem to be good work from what I can tell, despite some problems (including the odd lack of Kant, definitely.) However, I don't think there's any such subfield as "philosophy of space and time" even though this is certainly a philosophical issue. it seems to me that "Philosophy and space and time" would be a much better title, so I'm moving the page there.   —  Adam Conover † 02:28, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * At the risk of moving it even more, perhaps "Space and time in philosophy" would better still? Snowspinner 02:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. Sorry, I should have waited for more discussion. I think you'd agree that this should be listed under Peer Review at WP:WPP as well.   —  Adam Conover † 04:05, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * No crime in being bold. I'll go ahead and list it at peer review later tonight if you haven't already done it. Right now, I need to close Safari and actually finish this damn paper. Snowspinner 04:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Howdy, thought I'd interject a couple of things (I wrote this page)

 * 1. I started this page originally because there was an edit link from philosophy of physics, and since it is my area of specialization I took it upon myself to add this rather lengthy entry. I did link to it from some other philosophy pages, but I didn't know that would be an issue.

 * 2. Philosophy of space and time involves metaphysics, but it also involves epistemology and philosophy of science. Some question whether it still deserves to be called a discipline in its own right, since many feel the issues have dissolved into more general issues in philosophy of language, for example, but it was a true sub-discipline for at least the period between the 1920's till the late 80's.

 * 3. Why no Kant? Because Kant only seems to be discussed in space and time literature as an absolutist, with his argument of incongruous counterparts, but as many of us may know, this argument was only one half of his Antinomy on the subject of absolutism/relationalism.  Certainly some content concerning Kant could be added here.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.39.217 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2004
 * 4. I'd rather we didn't change the name of the page to "philosophy and space and time".  I have studied a lot of philosophy which exists in the proper category "philosophy of space and time" and everything I wrote in this page comes from those studies.  So, given that the term of art "philosophy of space and time" is that which is generally used I propose that I should change the name back, unless there is some other argument for why this should be changed.  For those who are in doubt that this is an established field, I would first refer them to the title of Reichenbach's book in the References section. And, for example, David Albert, chair of the philosophy of physics program at Columbia University refers to "philosophy of space and time" as one of his areas of specialization in his website: David Albert
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.39.217 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2004

 * I think that space and time in philosophy would be a better title, in that it would encompass more related things - including antecedents like Kant. Snowspinner 04:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess I'm not sure what the motivation is, since philosophy of space and time does contain some information on Kant, as pointed to in my comment above, that I just didn't add. There are, however, two reasons for not changing the name:

 * 1. I wrote the entry about the philosophy of space and time, which is a specific area within analytic philosophy, and is a proper subset of philosophy of physics, where this page was originally linked from, and so this entry is only catered to that.

 * 2. space and time have played central roles in philosophy from the very beginning, so my entry here would just be one of literally a dozen or so other entries, e.g. aristotelian cosmology, Plato's Timaeus, Kant's Transcendental Idealism which would probably make more sense in an Aristotle, Plato and Kant entry, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.145.33 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2004

 * I feel as though an entry on Philosophy of space and time should be an overview of the formation of a discipline, and of major topics within the discipline - i.e. like metaphysics or any other article on a field of study. This article is much more a discussion and summary of thought itself in development (As opposed to a field), and so is better suited to Space and time in philosophy. And yes, much of the information would hopefully be found in articles somewhere on Plato, Aristotle, and Kant as well - redundancy is not innately bad, however, if the information is being presented in a new context. Snowspinner 14:37, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't know what to say, this entry is an an overview of a discipline, called the philosophy of space and time. I'm sorry you haven't heard of the field before, but it exists and is just as real as the philosophy of mind, language, etc.  This plea for generality seems to me misguided, like arguing that we should involve Plato's tripartite soul in the philosophy of mind page.  The "philosophy of" locution is one peculiar and novel to analytic philosophy and what I have written here is an overview of the field of the philosophy of space and time as it is so understood within contemporary analytic philosophy.  If you'd like to follow up on this, you can take a look at Sklar's book from the references, which is a thorough summary of the field and looks a good deal like what I've written here. So anyway, I'm not sure how this works on Wikipedia, perhaps I'll bring it up in the philosophy forum, but, not to make an appeal to authority here, I am a bit of an expert in this field and unless you can offer more than a gut feeling about why this title should be different, I would like to change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.39.217 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2004

 * My point is that the article is too specific for a general article on a field - look at analytic philosophy or something. It's a great article . I just think that Philosophy of space and time should be an article summarizing what the major concerns of the field are (Not even major conclusions, but major questions) and noting some major theorists. And that this article should be reworked into a more expansive article on the concepts of space and time in philosophy, which is also a really useful article to have. Snowspinner 17:16, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Article name
To clarify, here's what I think should happen.

Philosophy and space and time should go away. Philosophy of space and time should be a short article giving an overview of the major issues within this field - not summarizing any thinkers, just laying out issues and noting who major figures are. A good model would be Continental philosophy or Metaphysics. Space and time in philosophy should contain much of the content of this article, as well as new content that fully expands the role of these concepts in philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2004

To clarify my position

If there really is such a problem with the title, maybe something like Analytic philosophy of space and time or Contemporary philosophy of space and time would be better.

While maybe this article looks like I've gone into too much depth, I guess that's the complaint, rest assured I haven't, and I don't see how I could explain, for example, absolutism v. relationalism without at least one example.

In any case, I don't want to quibble over terminology here, but if this article is unacceptable, then it strikes me that there is no room for actual statements about analytic philosophy on wikipedia, and that is fine if that's how it is wanted. But it would be inaccurate to describe the article I have written as Space and time in philosophy as this articles would just be one chapter of at least a dozen. I think it would be great to start such a page, but I am not qualified to write an entry on, e.g., neo-Platonist cosmology.

In any case, to reiterate, philosophy of space and time is an area of philosophy, I work in that area of philosophy, and what I have written is a summary of major topics in that area of philosophy. It would be inaccurate to change the name to what it has currently been changed to, or to the second change recommended above. If the community thinks it would be misleading to the casual reader then I would again recommend adding "analytic" or "contemporary" to the beginning.Spacetimeguy —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 19 May 2004

 * Spacetimeguy -- I am not entirely satisfied by your explanation that "philosophy of space and time" is an actual sub-field of philosophy. If you could cite an entry from a philosophical reference work (here, not necessarily in the arictle) that would satisfy me. Apart from that, you have done a great deal to address my concerns about this article, and if you can find such a citation I will support moving this article back to Philosophy of space and time. (I hope you are not put off Wikipedia by all this -- as you will see for yourself, a lot of people attempt to pass off their own obsessions or theories as devastatingly topics for articles, so those of us who work quality control can be a bit reactionary at times.)   —  Adam Conover † 18:38, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I did a quick google search and most of the hits were either to variants of the philosophy of physics site here, or to course syllabi for classes titled "Philosophy of Space and Time". I did find [this link] which points to the papers that were presented in the philosophy of space and time at their Pitt's philosophy of science symposium, which I hope would be evidence that such a specialty is recognized.  Spacetimeguy —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 19 May 2004
 * I agree that this article isn't the complete "Space and time in philosophy" article. Then again, I can't think of a single article in Wikipedia that's complete, so that's not a bad thing. It's a start, and a really helpful start. Other people will add the stuff you're not qualified to write on. It's OK to not be able to write a whole article. Long as there's a lot of people who can all write parts of it, we get a whole article one way or another. :) Snowspinner 18:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm agreeing with Spacetimeguy here. Philosophy of space and time is a subfield of philosophy, albiet a relatively new one - I've read several books on the subject myself, and one of the professors at my school, Michael Philips, has recently published a paper on it, or rather a specific problem within the field.  Neither Space and Time in Philosophy nor Philosophy and Space and Time really refers to the subject as it is today at all, but would suggest a historical overview of different philosophers' approaches to space and time.  Also the article as it stands now does exactly what an article on the philosophy of space and time should do: it gives an overview of various approaches, some proposed solutions to problems, and even has a list of references.  I think it probably should reference Kant, but that's not a criticism at all but an invitation to some other editor to add a new section.  -Seth Mahoney 19:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd like to clarify once again that I do support an article called Philosophy of space and time, however I do not think that all of the content currently in this article is best suited for it - I'm proposing splitting the article into two - not eliminating one, moving one, or anything else like that. Snowspinner 19:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

In light of Spacetimeguy's citation of sources, I no longer have any objection to this article being moved back to "philosophy of space and time". I also don't object to Snowspinner's suggestion, but I am not entirely sure how it would work. Snowspinner, perhaps you could create a mockup showing which text you think belongs on which page? — Adam Conover † 22:36, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

This article either needs to be renamed to reflect its analytic pov, or a section on Heidegger is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.207.97.7 (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Time and Chaos theory
I don't see any reference to Prigogine's "Arrow of Time" in this article, which I understand to be pretty significant. I think of the sections here, it would be most appropriate under statistical mechanics. The reversibility - irreversibility problem is easily solved: When we're talking statistics, we're talking about the expectation, and there we have irreversibility. In information theory, we have destruction and production of information (in both adiabatic and chaotic systems, but this has been elaborated on much more in the latter), and thus irreversibility - the precedent states cannot be predicted, not merely by the observer, but by the observed system itself, and therefore cannot be "gone back into". If two paths converge, when you're on the path that was converged to, you can't look back and tell which path you came from (the only information/"memory" you have is the "state", which is what path you are on and where you are in that path.) If paths diverge, you cannot predict which path you go to. It's simply a matter of the ratio of precedents to antecendents. That ratio determines the information production/destruction rate. (i'm oversimplifying a little - one really has transition probabilities and it's a weighted problem, but the concept is the same.) In any case, Prigogine's "Arrow of Time", currently absent from this article. Kevin Baastalk 06:01, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Also missing is the relation of Gibbs free energy production (via the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to information entropy, consistent w/the POV that time is information production/destruction, and Jaynes' information theory formalism of statistical mechanics. (Jaynes, E. T., 1963, `Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics,' (905Kb) in Statistical Physics, K. Ford (ed.), Benjamin, New York, p. 181 (pdf)) Kevin Baastalk 06:15, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Anti-realism
Minimalist anti-realist position? --JimWae 2005 July 4 22:36 (& reworded 5  03:17 )(UTC)  Banno further muddied the record of JimWae's contribs, by  B's 03:56 edit which corrected a presumed 1-char typo within this contrib by JimWae
 * physical objects are not necessarily mind-dependent, though whatever more they are (beyond our conception) is unavailable. "Physical object" nouns can have a referent.
 * Not only are time & space not the same kind of substances as physical objects, thay are not substances at all. Spatiotemporal nouns (time space length) do not refer to anything
 * this is entirely compatible with relativity theory, indeed makes acceptance of relativity a bit less "counter-intuitive"

 * ?? These questions are indeed the topic of much of the article. --Banno 02:07 & 03:56 July 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * The warp in space-time produced by an object is as much a part of the substance (what ever that is) of that object as is its mass. If "Spatiotemporal nouns do not refer to anything", then what is it that is distorted by the presence of a mass? If one supposes that the presence of a mass changes the geometry of spacetime, then one presupposes the existence of a spacetime in order for it to have a geometry. --Banno 04:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * But this is just a re-working of standard arguments between realists and idealists; the point of the anti-realism section is to distinguish between these arguments and those of Mach, Newton and Liebniz - they are quite distinct. --Banno 05:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not to quibble...
but I'm a little concerned about the accuracy of the new "idealist anti-realist" section.

While certainly Leibniz was a realist about monads, that did make him an idealist about the external world (i.e. he thought that space and time were "confused perceptions") which puts him in line with a Berkeley, not a Newton, who could be construed as a "realist" about minds also, while being an anti-realist about the external world.

Similarly, any positivist position, as in the article: a Mach, Einstein or Reichenbach, will better be seen as an anti-realist, as space and time are not substances on their view but relations, or even just useful fictions. --Spacetimeguy

 * It appears to me to confuse the issue to talk about "substance", as both respondents here do. Substance is an Aristotelian notion; in Relativistic physics, the notion simply does not occur, having been replaced by mass, spacetime and energy. Furthermore to describe Mach and Einstein as “anti-realist” strikes me as, to say the least, rather revisionist. --Banno

 * Substance is a philosophical notion. That starts with Aristotle and remains pretty popular up through and including the 20th century.  Leibniz was an Idealist, at least as far as that category has any meaning he was.  Mach and Einstein were positivists.  They explicitly said they were, and Einstein once said that Reichenbach's "Philosophy of Space and Time" was the philosophical interpretation that he thought was the correct one for General Relativity.  Positivism is a form of anti-realism.  So, I'm not seeing where the revisionism is coming in. --Spacetimeguy

Positivism is a form of anti-realism??? Then you have work to do in the article positivism. --Banno 00:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...that's too bad...Maybe I should just forget about it. Anyway...all of this jargon is notoriously inconsistent from speaker to speaker. Positivism, as far as I am aware, is thought to be a form of anti-realism since the posits of surface grammar do not, on their view, exist. So, for example, comparing positivism against scientific realism, a scientific realist believes in the existence of entities called "electrons" where positivists believe that electrons are merely "useful fictions" that can help to explain the regularities of phenomenal appearances and to predict future phenomenal appearances (in brief "realism", for the positivists is one of those pesky "metaphysical" positions) This is certainly the position held by Ayer, Reichenbach, Schlick, and depending how your read him Carnap. The positivism article makes reference to the scientific realist Karl Popper, but of course he wasn't a positivist! Nor a member of the Vienna Circle. But, I'll just take my nose out of it. I originally wrote this article (the space and time one) and ran into a lot of nonsense...as you can see from the discussion on this page.

But just to summarize my quibble: Newton v. Leibniz, Newton thinks space a substance and is a Realist (classic) and Leibniz thinks it is just relational, part of confused perceptions and is an Idealist (classic; Conventionalism: Positivists thought the metric of space-time to be merely a matter of convention and are anti-realists (thinking the concept of space-time a useful fiction) and scientific realists denied this (although in a number of ways).

So, wrote this long thing...because I guess it's time for me to retire from Wikipedia. Best of luck. --Spacetimeguy

 * Well yes, there are interpretations of positivism that are compatible with some forms of anti-realism; sorting it out would be a major task. I will maintain that Mach, Einstein and Newton were not idealists, at least in the sense that they held that the world existed independently of our conception of it.
 * What I was keen to do is to separate out the view that holds that nothing is real except thought from the view that substance is real, but time and space are not; perhaps this is to ambitious? i think it improves the clarity of the article. I value your opinion, as I think the article you have written is quite good. --Banno 02:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I think the difficulty is that in these arguments there are a lot of different issues. For example, in the absolutism/relationalism stuff...the argument takes on a very specific tone in the primary texts that is pretty anachronistic (space as "sensorium" in Clarke's letters for example)  So, I suppose it's useful to put these things into a more analytic framework whereby the issues really are these two:

 * 1. Is Space-time an object (instead of substance)? and

 * 2. Are there "facts of the matter" concering spatio-temporal determinations (e.g. location)?

 * In general, then, an Idealist will certainly say no to (1), while it will depend what sort of anti-realism you subscribe to to know the answer to (1) (for example I think Putnam would say that spacetime is an object, per his system, but that VanFraassen would not).

 * But the answer to (2) is a bit complicated. Leibniz, for example, although he didn't believe that spacetime was an object, does believe there are facts of the matter concerning the lengths of spatial intervals.  Conversely, Grunbaum, a realist about spacetime as an object, thought that all spatio-temporal determinations were conventional, i.e. set by some (arbitrary) co-ordinative definition.  To complicate matters again, Reichenbach held the self-same view about facts of the matter concerning spatiotemporal determinations, but was very much in the phenomenalist spirit of the positivists in general, and their neo-Kantian Plus view of the role of conceptualization in the setting of facts.

 * So I don't know, I get worried about the use of idealism and anti-realism in such close proximity to one another as they really are two different creatures. Take for example the flow of time issue (I kind of short shrifted this section...should have said more probably).  Take the "B-Theorist" solution to Mctaggart's paradox.  On this view, the paradox doesn't arise because a) A-determinations can be reduced to B-determinations (via some "token-reflexive account" or what have you...where what "It is raining now" comes out to / has as truth conditions "The tokening of 'It is raining now' is simultaneous with it raining") and b) real change can be found in the B-series alone.

 * So, for a B-theorist the flow of time is merely a feature of our experience of time, not found in some objectively moving NOW. Certainly we would call a b-theorist an anti-realist about the flow of time...but idealist?  I wouldn't think so...as they believe time (as the B-series) to be what it is independent of observers.  But again, to further muck up matters a B-theorist could still be a relationalist about spacetime (spacetime not an object but just a system of relations among events) and a conventionalist about spacetime determinations (e.g. lengths between objects).
 * Anyway, I'll stop typing now... --Spacetimeguy 08:54, July 16, 2005

I've re-jigged the flow of that section, so that the controversial paragraph is in a better position. Open to comments from Idealists.... --Banno 05:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

There's scarcely a mention of what the realist position is.
Which is closest to it? --JimWae 05:47, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

 * Newton, Clark, Mach, Einstein - realists in the sense that they thought objects exist independently of mind. Is that not clear from the final para in that section? --Banno 05:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mach does not come off as a realist with respect to space, nor does Einstein. There's also little explication on what the realist position is regarding space - though I see a little in Newton. Even Kant was also a realist regarding material objects --JimWae 07:49, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

 * True, but they are far more realists than Kant and McTaggart. The article needs to distinguish various "levels" of realism and idealism - but how to do that? I'm working on Realism in relativity at the moment - but find it difficult to simplify sufficiently. Comments? --Banno 08:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

summary?
This article seems very disjointed. What is the CURRENT status of philosophy of time? What is the current approach among physists? After reading this article as it currently stands, one does not come away with much of a sense of having been informed about time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.57.44.38 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2005
 * What do mean, "what is the current approach among physicists?" This article is about philosophy.  While it may be true that physicists tend to unwittingly import philosophy into their views, only a few of these issues are directly touched on.  Moreover, is it proper to add that much text over what view is popular right now?  What if that changes overnight?  Let's stick to the facts. Postmodern Beatnik 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

endurantism and perdurantism in space, rather than time...
Endurantist philosophy states that an object is present in its entirity across time, and perdurantist philosophy would state that only particular aspects of an object are present at any one time. I'm interested to know if there is a nomenclature for equivelant philosophies in the spacial dimension - ie. contrasting ideas of whether a given object is, indeed, a distinct object with a specific location in space (spacial equivelant of endurantism), or whether that object is actually an apparently distinct aspect of a single, undifferentiated spacial reality (spacial equivelant of perdurantism).

What are the names for these ideas?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.26.64 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2006

 * I rather like the labels "entension" / "entended" for the spatial analogue of "endurance" / "enduring" and "pertension" / "pertended" for the spatial analogue of "perdurance" / "perduring", and have tried to use them in print when convenient. You'll also see philosophers referring to entended objects as "extended simples". Josh Parsons 00:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only find two philosophers who use that word, 'entension', Josh Parsons and Hud Hudson. But it does seem that the way they use it captures the ideas. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.137 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2006

A professor of mine at Indiana University Northwest thinks there are problems with entension. It's in the last section of this paper: A New Argument Against Extended Simples 64.12.116.70  17:37& 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)C.N. Yeah, that's still confusing. See my summary in the edit history of my 21:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC) cleanup edit. Jerzy•t

If I have understood it correct, correct me if I'm wrong, entension and pertension are used when we discuss how obects persist through spacetime and perdurance and endurance are used when we only discuss time. /RickardV 2006-11-04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by  RickardV (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2006

western bias
It is unbelievable that there is zero mention of Buddhist/Daoist/Hindu (and other) Eastern conceptions of space in this article. I am certainly not the one to write them, but without them, this is staunchly Western traditionalist article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.50.245 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2007
 * Interestingly enough, the debate in the East is quite the same. Perhaps there could be some mention of what positions Buddhists, Hinduists, and Taoists hold, but I'm not positive that is appropriate. Postmodern Beatnik 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This could go under religious views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.14.79 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2009

The Western Bias (perhaps unintended) extends to ignoring the Jainist conception, shared by Chinese materialist philosophy, where space and time are both infinite. From this comes the ontological distinction or absolute difference between time, space and matter as independent entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.73.24 (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

26 May 2007 edits
I apologize to those who find this tedious, but "Eternalism" and "Presentism" are both traditionally capitalized. Endurantism and perdurantism, however, traditionally are not. I have no explanation for why this is, but thus is the history of philosophy of time. I have altered the page accordingly. I have also included links to the main pages for these views and spruced up the language under the Eternalism and Presentism headline. There is a lot of work to be done on this page, however. I'm putting it on the top of my list, but help is always appreciated. Postmodern Beatnik 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Look at the Fundamental Nature of Time
Apologies up front if I am doing things incorrectly here; that certainly is not my intent. I am an inexperienced Wikipedia contributor, but I have given many years of thought to the topic of time, and especially to the fundamental nature thereof. I don't know where else to offer my thoughts on the topic to anyone who might care to know them, so I'll offer them here in the form of a link to a relatively brief essay I've written on the topic. You will find it here: http://sites.google.com/site/smithjcn/time Should anyone think these ideas worthwhile, feel free to use the link, the essay, or the ideas contained therein in any reasonable way. Thank you. JCNSmith (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC) JCNSmith (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

the direction of time?
Is this trying to say that physicists have actually done experiments with reversing time in order to prove what is being stated as a fact here? There's no citation for it. I think it should be removed from the article. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Good point, I cn-tagged the offending statement. I assure you, though, that there are citations for that one, in peer-reviewed literature as well as in physics textbooks and popsci works. IIRC, there have been experimental confirmations of Poincaré recurrence using soundwaves in a cavity containing scattering objects, I'll see what I can dig up. Paradoctor (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Substantivalism" versus "Absolutism"
The former term is used, briefly, in the section on the hole argument. However, it is by far the term most commonly used in the literature. Therefore, I suggest "absolutism" be replaced with "substantivalism" throughout the majority of the article. Malreux1 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cyclic time
Originally any temporal understandings relied on a cyclic conception: the Greek did not make a difference between a cycle and a circle. Many languages have the same word for weather and time, which hints how the concept devlopped: time, as we know it, is a rather modern and strong abstraction. I think the archaic view should be outlined and emphasized (see M.Eliade's Eternal Return). And does Newton's definition preclude time from flowing equably in a circle?91.92.179.172 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Newtonian space and time is also Galilean
Currently there is in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time#Historical_frameworks the following statement: "Newtonian space and time has absolute position, but not special positions. Galilean space and time has absolute acceleration, but not absolute position or velocity." Its my understanding that Newton understood and worked within the paradigm of the classical space and time of Galilean relativity, in other words Newton's space was Galilean, yet these incompatible statements are clearly contrary to this. The absoluteness of space that Newton referred might have been a preferred reference frame, but more generally speaking, for him to be successful during his career, his work was definitely in agreement with Galilean relativity for which spacial distances are invariant (thus absolute in this sense). The idea that Galilean relativity implies that spacial positions or distances between objects are not invariant and vary with the reference frame is incorrect and should go (or be attributed to a reliable source). Furthermore, I just took a look at our article on Galilean invariance to see if I've misunderstood their views, and this article supports my understanding of them. -Modocc (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the inaccurate  original research. --Modocc (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization of discussion into canonical order
The article didn't exist when i started editing WP, i doubt i ever contributed to either it or this talk page, and i probably never previously consulted it. In short, i'm start editing, from scratch, and that makes it a good time to make it practical to read the discussion page sections in the order they were created, and each section in the standard tree-traversal order: in trying to describe that, it seems to me depth-first traversal from the root is the proper terminology. In any case, it's too frustrating to execute when previous discussants have not adhered to the tree-building algorithm that supports it, so that my first two tasks are retrofitting sig/date info where omitted, and moving the misplaced contribs. If that upsets you in any way, please ping me at least and (if convenient) start, on my talk page, your effort to dissuade me. (There's no time like the present, so i'm proceeding for now.) --Jerzy•t 19:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK sigs & misplaced contribs are dealt with. I guess i gotta go read the article. --Jerzy•t 02:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Counterfactual and tagging
Had 4 then (1/2010) and eleven now, but no clear call on delete or update the tag, so left as is. Apparent statement of the reverse of the normal connotation of materialism/realism vs idealism. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 * The counterfactual reading was a misread on my part. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Finding no other defect, after reading lightly in its entirety (imo it's just local seriality of events, essentially I presume Kantian and conventionalist although haven't looked sufficiently at the latter), and also the tagged for lack of support and insupportable reification of it as an ether anyway, not in fact supported after a couple of years, updated that tag. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Philosophy of space and time


text:
User talk:Snicklefritzdee

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Many thanks for your fine contribution to the whale article. I have removed it, not because I thought there was anything wrong with it, quite the contrary, it's just that we already have an article on the Gray Whale, where that detail would be more appropiate. At the moment your content is at Talk:Gray Whale. I will merge it into the main article soon, unless you beat me to it.

If you have any questions about Wikipedia, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at the Village pump. Welcome again. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Snicklefritzdee


text:
Cotswold-Severn Group

The Cotswold-Severn Group are a series of long barrows erected in an area of western Britain during the Early Neolithic. Around 200 known examples of long barrows are known from the Cotswold-Severn region, although an unknown number of others were likely destroyed prior to being recorded.

Definition
The concept of the "Cotswold-Severn group" was coined by 1937 by the archaeologist Glyn Daniel. They represent a regional grouping of long barrows, a broader architectural tradition found across Atlantic Europe. This tradition stretches from southeast Spain up to southern Sweden, taking in the British Isles to the west. Overall, about 40,000 long barrows are known to survive from the Early Neolithic across Europe. The long barrows are not the world's oldest known structures using stone—they are predated by Göbekli Tepe in modern Turkey—but they do represent the oldest widespread tradition of using stone in construction. The archaeologist Frances Lynch has described them as "the oldest built structures in Europe" to survive. Although found across this large area, they can be subdivided into clear regionalised traditions based on architectural differences, of which the Cotswold-Severn Group is one.

The long barrow tradition originated somewhere in the area of modern Spain, Portugal, and western France; here, the long barrows were first erected in the mid-fifth millennium BCE. The tradition then spread north, along the Atlantic coast. It had reached Britain by the first half of the fourth millennium BCE, either soon after farming or in some cases perhaps just before it, and then moved into other parts of northern Europe, for instance arriving in the area of the modern Netherlands by the second half of the fourth millennium BCE. On the basis of dates ascertained from a number of excavations, Darvill argued that long barrows appeared in the Cotswolds-Severn region fairly abruptly around 3700 BCE. They continued to be built for about 600 years. By 2600 BCE, very few of them had chambers that remained in active use and many had been deliberately blocked up.

Within the Cotswolds-Severn area, there are around 200 known long barrows. An unknown number have been destroyed before ever having been recorded; at least ten of those that had been recorded have since been destroyed or lost. Over 140 long barrows are known within the Cotswolds area itself. In northern Wiltshire and in the Dorset chalk hills, the Cotswold-Severn Group of long barrows overlap with the style of earthen barrow found largely across the east of the island.

Design

The choice of place in which the Cotswold-Severn long barrows were erected is unlikely to have been random.

Darvill noted that "when these sites were new, they were brutal and hard; bright white rocky mounds covering dark dank shadowy chambers."

Funerary deposits
The Cotswold-Severn Group long barrows usually contained human bone in large quantities, with said barrows averaging the remains of between 40 and 50 individuals each. In some cases, the individual corpses may have been placed into the chamber whole and then left to decay inside; in others, the body may have been dismembered or excarnated outside the barrow before the bones were then placed into the chamber. Usually, the bones of different individuals were jumbled up within the chambers of the tomb, perhaps reflecting a deliberate decision to symbolically merge the individual with the collective dead. In some cases, the bones were segregated into different chambers within the tomb according to age or sex. In most cases, such deposits of human bone were made successively, at various intervals. It is also apparent that in some cases, select bones appear to have been removed from the chambers, perhaps for use in ritualised practices.

When entering the chambers to either add or remove new material, individuals would likely have been exposed to the smell of decaying corpses. It is unknown if entering this area was therefore seen by Early Neolithic Europeans as an ordeal to be overcome or an honourable job to be selected for.

In a few instances, other items were deposited in the chambers with the human bone. Such deposits included pottery, worked flint, pebbles, stone discs, beads, bone pins, dog bones, and most prominently, cattle bone. The deposition of animal bone—especially the skulls of cattle and pigs—was also a common recurring factor in the forecourts of the Cotswold-Severn long barrows. The purpose of these is not known; they may have represented totemic animals, have been seen as protective deposits, or been the remains of feasts.

Meaning and purpose
While the purpose and meaning of these long barrows are not known, archaeologists have made suggestions on the basis of recurring patterns that can be observed within the tradition. Many archaeologists have suggested that this is because Early Neolithic people adhered to an ancestor cult that venerated the spirits of the dead, believing that they could intercede with the forces of nature for the benefit of their living descendants. It has furthermore been suggested that Early Neolithic people entered into the tombs—which doubled as temples or shrines—to perform rituals that would honour the dead and ask for their assistance. For this reason, the historian Ronald Hutton termed these monuments "tomb-shrines" to reflect their dual purpose.

In Britain, these tombs were typically located on prominent hills and slopes overlooking the surrounding landscape, perhaps at the junction between different territories. The archaeologist Caroline Malone noted that the tombs would have served as one of a variety of markers in the landscape that conveyed information on "territory, political allegiance, ownership, and ancestors." Many archaeologists have subscribed to the idea that these tomb-shrines served as territorial markers between different tribal groups, although others have argued that such markers would be of little use to a nomadic herding society. Instead it has been suggested that they represent markers along herding pathways. Many archaeologists have suggested that the construction of such monuments reflects an attempt to stamp control and ownership over the land, thus representing a change in mindset brought about by the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic. Others have suggested that these monuments were built on sites already deemed sacred by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.

Distribution
Tombs of this type are concentrated in the Cotswolds but extend as far as Gower and Avebury with some isolated examples in North Wales. Tombs of all three types are generally evenly distributed and it has been theorised that the design evolved over time. Severn-Cotswold tombs share certain features with the transepted gallery graves of the Loire and may have been inspired by these, with the lateral chambers and other differences being local variations.

In the 1960s and 1970s Dr John X. W. P. Corcoran and others argued that the group in fact consisted of three contemporary types, and later excavations have supported this.

Archaeological investigation

One of the first major studies of the subject was The Long Barrows of the Cotswolds, written by the archaeologist O. G. S. Crawford and published in 1925.

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a number of sites in the Cotswold-Severn Group were subject to restoration efforts to turn them into visitor attractions.

title: Cotswold-Severn Group


text: User talk:69.19.16.1

title: User talk:69.19.16.1


text:
William Eckert

William Dole Eckert (January 20, 1909 – April 16, 1971) was a lieutenant general in the United States Air Force, and later the fourth Commissioner of Major League Baseball from to.

Personal life, career, and death
William Eckert was born on January 20, 1909, in Freeport, Illinois, to Frank Lloyd and Harriet Julia (née Rudy) Eckert. The Eckert family moved to Indiana, settling in Madison.

In 1924, at age 15, Eckert enlisted in the Indiana National Guard. His older brother had also been a member of the Indiana National Guard.

Eckert matriculated at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in July 1926. It was there that he earned the nickname "Spike" while playing intramural football. He also played intramural baseball while at West Point. He graduated in June 1930.

Eckert served in the U.S. military from 1930 to 1961. In 1940, he married Catherine Douglas Givens. They had two children – William Douglas Eckert and Catherine Julia Eckert.

Upon retirement from the U.S. Air Force in 1961, Eckert was a management consultant and served on the board of directors of several companies. He was the Commissioner of Baseball from 1965 to 1968.

Eckert died in 1971 of a heart attack, while playing tennis in the Bahamas. Eckert is buried in Arlington National Cemetery along with his wife, Catharine Givens Eckert (1919–1995).

1930–1940
In 1930, upon graduation from West Point, Eckert was appointed a second lieutenant of Field Artillery in the Regular Army.

He then attended the Air Corps Flying Schools at Brooks and Kelly Fields in San Antonio, Texas, graduating in October 1931 and was transferred to the Air Corps Advanced Flying School at Kelly Field, Texas. Two months later he transferred to the United States Army Air Corps and was assigned to Selfridge Field, Michigan, for duty with the 36th Pursuit Squadron.

In April 1935, Eckert joined the 29th Pursuit Squadron at Albrook Field, Panama Canal Zone, where he was stationed from 1935 to 1937.

In May 1937, he was named a flying instructor at the Air Corps Primary Flying School at Randolph Field, Texas.

In September 1938, he was selected as one of two officers for advanced education at the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration and in June 1940 graduated with a master's degree.

1940–1950
After graduating from Harvard, he was assigned to Wright Field, Ohio where he served successively as Production Executive, Comptroller, and as Executive of the Materiel Command.

In January 1944, Eckert entered the Army and Navy Staff College. Upon graduation two months later, Colonel Eckert was assigned to Europe as commander of the 452nd Bomb Group (August 1944 – September 1944) He later served in the European theater as chief of maintenance and chief of supply of the Ninth Air Force Service Command.

In July 1945, Eckert was assigned as executive in the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Materiel at Air Force headquarters, and later was appointed chief of the Readjustment and Procurement Division of that office. In November 1947, he was assigned to the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and two months later became executive to the Undersecretary of the Air Force.

In April 1949, Eckert became comptroller of Air Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

1950–retirement (1961)
In October 1951, while comptroller of the Air Materiel Command, Ekhert assumed additional duty as deputy commander of the Air Materiel Command.

Eckert was transferred to Air Force headquarters in June 1952 for duty as assistant deputy chief of staff for materiel.

On July 15, 1956, he reported to Tactical Air Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia to assume the duties of deputy commander (redesignated vice commander November 5, 1956).

In 1957, at the age of 48, Eckert was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general, making him the youngest three-star officer in the United States Armed Forces.

On February 1, 1960, Eckert was assigned to Headquarters U.S. Air Force for duty as Deputy Chief of Staff, Comptroller of the Air Force. However, after suffering a heart attack in early 1961, he retired from active duty on April 1. On the day of his retirement, was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for his career achievements in the Air Force.

Promotions
Eckert's promotions during his military career are as follows:
 * 2nd Lieutenant – June 1930
 * 1st Lieutenant (temporary) – May 8, 1935
 * 1st Lieutenant (permanent) – August 1, 1935
 * Captain – June 12, 1940
 * Major (temporary) – July 15, 1941
 * Lieutenant Colonel (temporary) – January 5, 1942
 * Colonel (temporary) – August 1, 1944
 * Major (permanent) – June 12, 1947
 * Colonel (permanent) – April 2, 1948
 * Brigadier General (temporary) – April 14, 1948
 * Major General (temporary) – July 28, 1951
 * Brigadier General (permanent) – July 21, 1952
 * Major General (permanent) – September 4, 1951
 * Lieutenant General – August 29, 1957

Decorations
His military decorations, in addition to the Distinguished Service Medal, also include the Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, and various foreign medals.

He was rated a bomber, command pilot, and technical observer.

Commissioner of Major League Baseball
Eckert served as the Commissioner of Major League Baseball from 1965 to 1968.

More than 150 names appeared on the original list of nominees for the commissionership following Ford Frick's retirement. The club owners initially were unable to decide if the next commissioner should come from the ranks of the game (e.g., the president of the American or National Leagues), or elsewhere. They finally decided that the new commissioner should have a strong business background to deal with the problems that were confronting the game at the time.

Eckert had not appeared on any lists of prospective candidates at first. He only became a serious candidate for the commissionership after fellow officer Curtis LeMay gave Major League Baseball a recommendation for him. On November 17, 1965, by a unanimous vote of the then-20 major league club owners, William Eckert became the fourth Commissioner of Major League Baseball.

When he became commissioner, Eckert had not seen a baseball game in person in over ten years. He was almost completely unknown to the public, leading sportswriters to nickname him "the Unknown Soldier."

He incurred the public's ire by refusing to cancel games after the assassinations of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., and team owners' disdain because he refused to deal forcefully with substantive business issues. By 1968, the owners anticipated a players' strike, and had long since lost confidence in Eckert's ability to handle the situation. For this reason, Eckert was forced to resign at the end of the season, although he still had three years on his contract. Eckert resigned as commissioner in December 1968. Bowie Kuhn was appointed the interim commissioner.

In spite of his much publicized failures and shortcomings, Eckert also developed more effective committee actions, streamlined business methods and helped stabilize franchises with bigger stadiums and long-term leases. In addition, Eckert worked hard toward promoting the game internationally, including a 1966 tour of Japan by the Los Angeles Dodgers.

title: William Eckert


text:
Colorado House of Representatives

The Colorado House of Representatives is the lower house of the Colorado General Assembly, the state legislature of the U.S. state of Colorado. The House is composed of 65 members from an equal number of constituent districts, with each district having roughly 80 thousand people. Representatives are elected to two-year terms, and are limited to four consecutive terms in office, but can run again after a four-year respite.

The Colorado House of Representatives convenes at the State Capitol in Denver.

Committees
The House have 11 current committees of reference:
 * House Agriculture, Livestock, and Water Committee
 * House Appropriations Committee
 * House Business Affairs and Labor
 * House Education
 * House Energy and Environment Committee
 * House Finance Committee
 * House Health and Insurance Committee
 * House Judiciary Committee
 * House Public and Behavioral Health and Human Services Committee
 * House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee
 * House Transportation and Local Government Committee Committee

Members

 * *Representative was originally appointed

Women who served in the House of Representatives
The first women who served in the Colorado House of Representatives were Clara Cressingham, Carrie Holly and Frances Klock. All three were elected to serve in 1895-1896. Carrie Holly introduced and passed a Bill that raised the age of consent for girls from 16 to 18 and another that gave mothers the same rights to their children as fathers.

A total of 10 women served in the period up to 1904, the last of them being Alice Ruble, after which the party leaders declared that 'no woman will ever again be elected to the (Colorado) legislature'

Their prediction proved wrong, as demonstrated by the list of subsequent women members of the House.

title: Colorado House of Representatives


text:
Talk:Computer networking device

Descriptions
It seems to me a list of these things is lacking because readers won't know which one to select unless there's a bit of a description. For that reason, I added some descriptions. I don't particularly like the layout, but it's something we can start with. Comments? -- Ke4roh 20:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

 * i don't like the layout either...

 * i'm working on the "hub" page, which is a messy little disambiguation page. it had a whole paragraph about computer hubs, which is not really the point of disambig. pages.  i moved that information over to this article (chopping that part of the "hub" page down to a brief sentance, as it should be).  This seemed to be the best place to put it, although this article also needs work.

 * -drolldurham

I believe too if there are some sort of graphics using perhaps a Visio diagram, it would make conceptualizing the inforamtion easier for novices.

 * -jamre01--161.76.195.105 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DTE vs. DCE
From the content, I gather that network device is a synonym for data communications equipment. I suspect it is not a technical term and so can also refer to data terminal equipment. --Kvng (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Networking hardware
I propose a merge as it looks like these two articles are covering the same set of devices. I prefer Computer networking device as the merge destination but am not committed to that. --Kvng (talk)
 * Networking hardware is the lead article for Category:Networking hardware, so it should be kept. The fact that the other article isn't even currently in that category speaks volumes about which article is "out of place" and needs to be merged to the proper location. Thanks. —Wbm1058 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which would be consistent with computer device redirecting to personal computer hardware. —Wbm1058 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hub text is broken
The current text reads " When using a hub, every attached all the objects, compared to switches, which provide a dedicated connection between individual nodes." This needs to be fixed. Could someone do it, please? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, along with other vandalism reverts. Ya gotta wonder when vandalism goes unrepaired for over a year.  Thanks for reporting it. —Wbm1058 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Computer networking device


text:
Talk:Yer

ʺ
Article should explain why ʺ redirects here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A457:9497:1:F938:499E:52BC:CB4C (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yer


text:
Set Your Goals (album)

Set Your Goals is the debut studio album by the punk rock band CIV. It was released in October 1995 on Lava Records. The album is best known for the hit single "Can't Wait One Minute More."

Although listed as co-producer in the inlay, Walter Schreifels has indicated that he was the main songwriter for the album (despite not being a member of the band).

"Can't Wait One Minute More" and "Choices Made" were released as music videos.

"Can't Wait One Minute More" features vocals from Lou Koller of Sick Of It All.

The San Francisco Bay-area pop punk/hardcore act Set Your Goals named themselves after this album.

Critical reception
Ira Robbins, in Trouser Press, wrote: "Making the most of clear sound, tight, unfussy playing and a full complement of rhythmic shifts (these guys remember when moshing was a dance tempo, not a slamming catch-all), CIV recycles with detailed dignity."

Track listing

 * 1) "Set Your Goals" - 1:51
 * 2) "Do Something" - 1:14
 * 3) "So Far, So Good... So What" - 2:12
 * 4) "State of Grace" - 1:00
 * 5) "Can't Wait One Minute More" - 2:32
 * 6) "Trust Slips Through Your Hands - 1:13
 * 7) "Gang Opinion" - 1:29
 * 8) "Choices Made" - 2:29
 * 9) "Solid Bond" - 1:34
 * 10) "Marching Goals" - :33
 * 11) "United Kids" - 2:19
 * 12) "Soundtrack for Violence" - :32
 * 13) "Boring Summer" - 2:47
 * 14) "Et Tu Brute?" - 2:17
 * 15) "All Twisted" (Kraut cover) - 2:31
 * 16) "Don't Got to Prove It" - 1:57
 * 17) "Blessed" - 2:30 (A track hidden in "Don't Got to Prove It")

Personnel

 * CIV
 * CIV (Anthony Civarelli) - Vocals
 * Charlie Garriga - Guitar, backing vocals
 * Arthur Smilios - Bass, backing vocals
 * Sammy Siegler - Drums

 * Guests
 * Lou Koller - vocals on "Can't Wait One Minute More"

 * Production
 * Michael Barbiero - Mixing
 * Don Fury - Producer, engineer
 * Walter Schreifels - Producer, songwriter
 * George Marino - Mastering
 * Chris Gibson - Engineer

 * Artwork
 * Marcelo Krasilcic - Photography
 * John Mockus - Photography
 * Chris Capuozzo - Design

Charts
Album - Billboard (United States)

Singles - Billboard (United States)

title: Set Your Goals (album)


text:
Entrance grave

Entrance grave is a type of Neolithic and early Bronze Age chamber tomb found primarily in Great Britain. The burial monument typically consisted of a circular mound bordered by a stone curb, erected over a rectangular burial chamber and accessed by a narrow, stone lined entrance. Entrance graves have been discovered in the Isles of Scilly, west Cornwall, southeast Ireland, southwest Scotland, Brittany and the Channel Islands. They are often referred to as the Scillonian Group, named for the Scillonian Islands where the majority of entrance graves have been discovered.

History
Entrance graves in Britain are also known as Scillonian entrance graves, because the majority of these ancient burial monuments are found on the Isles of Scilly, a group of islands 25 miles (40 m) west of Cornwall. The islands were originally settled during the Neolithic era, circa 2500 BC. Burials on the islands range in date from the later Neolithic period to the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2500–1000 BC). Over eighty entrance graves have been recorded on the Isles of Scilly. Many date to the late Neolithic period and continued in use until the beginning of the eighth century BC. Excavated entrance graves have contained human remains, cremation urns, and pottery fragments. The excavation of the Knackyboy Carn entrance grave on St. Martin's Island uncovered sixty or more cremated individuals. Entrance graves continued to be built on the Isles of Scilly for many years after individual burials had become the standard burial practice on the mainland of Britain. Besides being used for interments, it has been suggested that entrance graves could have been used for ritualistic and cultural purposes, or to mark land boundaries between different family groups.

Description
An entrance grave usually consisted of a circular mound of stacked rubble and earth, generally up to 25m in diameter. The edge of the mound would be marked with stone. The mound encompassed a rectangular, roofed burial chamber lined with stone, either large slabs or rubble masonry. Many graves have a narrow entrance or passage lined with stone slabs. The chamber roof was typically covered by small stones are large granite slabs. Some grave entrance are blocked with a large stone. Entrance graves may contain single or multiple interments and occur in small or large groups. Along with other types of megalithic chambered tombs, entrance graves are found in western Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly, southeast Ireland, southwest Scotland, the Channel Islands and Brittany. In Britain, the majority of entrance graves are located on the Isles of Scilly.

title: Entrance grave


text:
Talk:Set Your Goals (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:CIV Set Your Goals.jpg
Image:CIV Set Your Goals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Set Your Goals (album). 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/20090711153415/http://www.truepunk.com/interviews/set_your_goals/ to http://www.truepunk.com/interviews/set_your_goals/

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) 23:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Set Your Goals (album)


text:
John Eliot, 1st Earl of St Germans

John Eliot, 1st Earl of St Germans (30 September 1761 – 17 November 1823), known as the Lord Eliot from 1804 to 1815, was a British politician.

Eliot was born at Port Eliot, Cornwall, the third son (second surviving) of Edward Craggs-Eliot, 1st Baron Eliot, and his wife Catherine Elliston. He was educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge, taking an M.A. in 1784. He served from 1780 to 1783 as Member of Parliament for St Germans and from 1784 to 1804 for Liskeard. He also held the position of His Majesty's Remembrancer in the Court of the Exchequer. On 17 February 1804 he succeeded his father as second Baron Eliot. In 1808 he became Colonel of the East Cornwall Militia, and in 1810, Lieutenant-Colonel Commandant.

On 28 November 1815, Eliot was created Earl of Saint Germans, in the County of Cornwall, with a special remainder to his brother William Eliot and his heirs male. In February 1816 he took his seat in the House of Lords.

Family
John married twice but without issue:

 * 1) On 9 September 1790 at St James Church, Westminster to Caroline Yorke (29 August 1765 – 26 July 1818). Caroline was a daughter of Charles Yorke, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain.
 * 2) On 19 August 1819 to Harriet Pole-Carew (9 February 1790 – 4 March 1877). She was the daughter of Reginald Pole-Carew.

Lord St Germans died on 17 November 1823 at Port Eliot, and was buried on 27 November at St Germans Church. He was succeeded by his brother William Eliot, 2nd Earl of St Germans.

title: John Eliot, 1st Earl of St Germans


text:
Talk:Jim Moir

Cancer research?
"Before moving to London to pursue a career in the civil service, Jim had worked as a pig farmer, a cabbage farmer, in cancer research and as a factory inspector." - i don't know but cancer research seems like an ood career move from pig farmer? is this correct it may need clarification. --User:Tomber

 * Assuming these professions aren't a joke, it could mean he worked in a Cancer Research charity shop (which sells second-hand goods). There are quite a number dotted around the UK IIRC though they may use a different name now as the charity has changed its name.--88.112.155.70 (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vic and Bob
I think it's right for Vic and Bob each to have articles of their own, as they don't always appear together. Deb 20:10, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm concerned about the duplication of information between here and the Vic and Bob article. Surely that article should talk about the history of the double act, and refer people to here and Bob Mortimer for the more detailed biographies. PaulHammond 17:26, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nah.--Crestville 18:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name
So what's his real (legal) name now? Vic or Jim? This article uses both Jim and Reeves.--Jmstylr 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * His real name is Jim, that;s what his family and, say, Bob call him. Vic is just a psyudonem. I still think he should be reffered to as Reeves in the article.--Crestville 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * His family actually all call him Rod... Jimshears 17:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the first sentence imply that the _pseudonym_ was born in 1959?

His name has always been James Roderick Moir so far as I am aware. Actually, in English law you are perfectly entitled to call yourself whatever you like, so he is entitled to call himself "Vic Reeves" if he wants to. That is perfectly legal. Actually though, he is clearly quite fond of his real name. He is on Twitter as "Jim Moir" and I refer also to the Telegraph newspaper edition of 17th August 2017: "Celebrity Masterchef fans left baffled by Vic Reeves appearing as 'Jim Moir'". I think this article perhaps ought to also reflect his current preference. John2o2o2o (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Career bits
Just as a reminder for anyone who can remember more details than I can, does anyone want to add a mention regarding the short series he did (for satellite TV, I think) about (in)famous pirates and assorted other ne'erdowells, presumably as a follow-on to his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind with that as his chosen subject? I seem to recall that it was rather good, just not its name or the channel! Chris 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It was on the History Channel or Discovery Channel and called "Vic Reeves' Rouges Gallery" or summat like that. Jog your memory at all?--Crestville 12:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Jogs my memory, just not my ability to articulate coherently, which is why I was trying to persuade someone else to write it up. :) Chris 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I am surprised that no one mentions the fact that it was in the Radio Times and thefore on their website. Of course it also on IMDb but tht contains very little information. JHvW 19:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the addition of his recent autobiography? I can't remember what it was called at the moment but it's a pretty good pun on his name. dnisbet 15 July 2006

 * Me:Moir--Crestville 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Can we have a picture of this guy?... :)

I REALLY REALLY REALLY want a picture of this guy... Its been quite some time since I originally posted this request...
 * Is your google broken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.190.65 (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Vic reeves investigates Jack the Ripper
Vic recently did a programme of the same title, when he decided to investigate the Jack the Ripper case. This should be included in the article.

 * I've added it to the television appearances section, but as I didn't see the program, I can't add much more. If you want to add further details, you can do so at the end of the As Vic Reeves section. BTW, anyone know if there'll be any more "Vic Reeves Investigates" shows? Gram123 11:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The Sky one website about the show seems to imply that it was a one-off show, but anything could happen. Here's a link to the web page... http://www.skyone.co.uk/jacktheripper/  I've also added a bit about the programme and applied the link above as a resource

Vic Reeves' Pirates
A recent show on the History channel in the UK is Vic Reeves' Pirates. It documents Vic Reeves exploring some of the most notorious pirates, such as Blackbeard. This should be added to the broadcast list. Here's an external link to the history channel website in regards to te programme.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_56.php

Looneyman 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Pirates was already mentioned in the article, just above the list, as are a couple of other shows like Rogues Gallery. However, they're not included in the list of appearances...
 * For the time being, I've changed the list title from "Television Appearances" to "Other television appearances", but it's a better idea to ensure the list is complete. Just because programs are mentioned in the "As Vic Reeves" section, doesn't mean we should omit them from the appearances list.

 * In fact, to improve the article, we should really expand the "As Vic Reeves" section, giving more info about his key programs (without overly replicating any articles, of course), as it's a bit listy itself at present. Plus, if that list of programs keeps growing, it'll probably need an article itself at some point. Gram123 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've gone ahead and added the other appearances to the list, plus I've moved a couple which belonged on the Vic and Bob article. Gram123 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I was attempting to edit this page and I've made a right mess of it; somehow the majority of the article is now a reference. I am very sorry and I promise I will not try to edit wikipedia whilst hung over at work again but can someone else sort this out as my manager is beginning to get suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangpangu (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Gram123 (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Image
I uploaded the Vic pic and tried to justify it by saying that this sort of appearance was typical of Vic's tv work in recent years. However, as the image is taken from the program "Never Mind the Buzzcocks", and this article is not about that show, nor does it have a section about that show, I have received a "Possibly unfree Image" notification. I guess this means that it will ultimately be deleted unless by some bizzare chance the image is copyright free, or if this article or the image rationale can be amended. This may be more work than anyone cares to undertake, but if you are interested, the image page is here: Image:VicReevesScreenshot.jpg and to contest the argument that it should be deleted, go here:.

Should the image be deleted, I was thinking of what image could be uploaded in its place, and how the article would have to be amended to allow for it. Obviously if anyone's got a shot of Vic that they took themselves, that's the best option. Otherwise a screenshot of one of Vic's shows could be used, but going by the logic that dictates that the current pic will be deleted as there is no Buzzcocks section, the article would have to be re-written slightly in order to devote a section to whatever program the screenshot was taken from. Maybe "Vic Reeves Examines", or "Rogues Gallery" would be the best options as 1) both were Vic without Bob; 2) there is sufficient material to write a little chunk about (particularly Rogues Gallery); 3) Vic presented the whole series', whereas most of his other solo TV appearances have been occasional appearances or one-offs; and 4) neither of those two series have their own articles, so we wouldn't be repeating info that is available elsewhere.

Gram123 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Drunk or Disorientated
In the section regarding the Brits 2008, it says he was 'visibly drunk' and then goes on to say he argues that the autocue was falty. I'm changing the line to say that he was 'visibly dir-orientated' because its, well fairer. Just thought I'd explain before it gets changed back automatically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.10.14 (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Did Vic and Bob fall from favour in the nineties and early 2000s partly due to their drinking? I remember seeing at least three charity telethon-type things (Children in Need, Red Nose Day, that sort of thing) that they were on and they were both clearly pissed. It seemed very unprofessional, but as it was for charity you thought oh, they probably aren't getting paid for this anyhow so ....   A recent tv prog about Shooting Stars had Johnny Vegas saying they asked him if he was going to be drinking on the show because they were, so I guess they had a 'work culture' of drinking.  Vic has had a drink conviction, so did all this factor in to their fall from favour on the box? 86.134.25.144 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, personal experiences count as original research and aren't allowed here; neither are we allowed to say that because of a drink-driving conviction Vic has a drink problem. Therefore, we cannot mention this (per policy) without a dam' good source - and this means not the Sun. If you can find an admission, fine. Otherwise.... -- Rodhull andemu  23:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

House Arrest
I started the article Vic Reeves' House Arrest, but I only heard a few episodes, so don't have a lot of details for it. Any help would be appreciated! Gram123 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Appearance as Jim Moir
I think it's worth adding a note in the table mentioning his appearance on the BBC drama "Eric and Ernie" in which he is credited under his real name - the first time I think this has been the case. I'm not adept at editing tables so maybe someone could help here? JohnB57 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Vic Reeves Examines
I just amended the episode count of this show from 8 to 12. I'm watching them now, there are 12 of them. Here's the info in case anyone wants to do something with it:
 * Episode 01-01 - Pottery (with Johnny Vegas)
 * Episode 01-02 - Whistling (with Ricky Gervais)
 * Episode 01-03 - Part 1 = Cuddling (with Jo Guest), Part 2 = Dog Dirt (with Jenny Powell)
 * Episode 01-04 - Birds (with Bill Oddie)
 * Episode 01-05 - Cutlery (with John Craven)
 * Episode 01-06 - Nightfarts (with Kate Thornton)
 * Episode 01-07 - Dynamite (with Jools Holland)
 * Episode 01-08 - Volcanoes (with Lauren Laverne)
 * Episode 01-09 - Language (with Bob Holness)
 * Episode 01-10 - Small people who drive cars (with Sarah Cawood)
 * Episode 01-11 - Underwater Fish People (with Emma Kennedy)
 * Episode 01-12 - Darts (with Claudia Winkleman)

 * As you can see, they're all mostly full episodes (24 minutes) that had an ad-break half way through, but episode 3 was like two short episodes, one either side of the break. Some sites are showing these as separate episodes (with a total of 9) and some are showing it as 8, counting them as one. They're all wrong though, there are 12. The only site I've found that confirms this is this one (it's not mine): http://www.btinternet.com/~jp1885/reeves-mortimer/exam/index.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.190.65 (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent appearances have all been as Jim Moir
It looks like his Vic Reeves character has now been relegated to specific comedy contexts, and all his recent public appearances as himself have been under the name Jim Moir as have his recent acting roles. This is a change to the pre-2012 period when he was universally known as Vic.

I suggest that the article is now renamed Jim Moir and rewritten in the light of this. I'll do it myself if I get time and there are no strong objections.

--Dominic Sayers (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think many people would know to search for Jim Moir, pretty much everyone (who isn't an avid fan) knows and recognises Jim as "Vic Reeves". It's a tricky situation, but I think the way the first sentence is worded covers the issue quite well and I don't think that the whole article needs to be changed.

Perhaps to make the name difference more obvious the first sentence/paragraph of the article could explain that, as you've said, since 2012 the Vic Reeves pseudonym has mainly been used for comedy (such as House of Fools, which has a new series coming out this year where he is credited as Reeves) and Jim Moir for public appearances as himself or in straight acting roles?

Caro89 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

83,500 plus followers on Twitter currently recognise him as "Jim Moir". I think the man's real name maybe ought to be given more weight here. John2o2o2o (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding more sections, losing repeated information
I'm sorry to say that I find this article a bit messy. It's full of information (albeit a lot of it lacking in sources), but I think it could be laid out better - advice or suggestions would be great as I'm a bit nervous to just dive straight in. I find the Vic Reeves section particularly hard to read as there's just so much. Would it be helpful if I separated the "As Vic Reeves" section it into further parts such as Radio, Television, Presenting etc. as the Vic and Bob section is over at Vic and Bob?

Also, should information be repeated? For example, under "As Vic Reeves" is this one-sentence paragraph:

"On 25 August 2009, Reeves appeared as a guest on the BBC One's The One Show with Mortimer." (There is no source.)

This information is then repeated below in the table under Vic Reeves. The "Television Appearances" section also states: "For Reeves' television appearances with Bob Mortimer, see Vic and Bob." As this particular appearance is with Mortimer (and appears on the Vic and Bob page), should it be included in the Vic Reeves Television Appearances table, or even be on this page at all?

I'd love to discuss how this page could be improved visually, so it flows better :) Once that's been sorted out I would like to go through and add sources where I can and expand certain sections.

Caro89 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Vic Reeves. 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/20150202021942/http://www.officialcharts.com/search-results-album/_/born+free to http://www.officialcharts.com/search-results-album/_/born+free
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927230108/http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_56.php to http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_56.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090916091824/http://www.convilleandwalsh.com:80/index.php/authors/author/vic-reeves/ to http://www.convilleandwalsh.com/index.php/authors/author/vic-reeves

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) 00:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Television appearances
On my screen, this section starts by listing Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series), as a show Vic Reeves did without Bob Mortimer. But the article states that it included Bob Mortimer. I did not care much for this show, as I preferred the original but I cannot edit this section. This entry should be removed. When you look at HTML level there is a line: "Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series)"

Between the usual HTML paragraph notation. But I am not going to delve into Wikipedia's HTML. The remark is also not wikified.

JHvW 19:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vic Reeves. 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/20090221032549/http://tv.sky.com/preview-my-brilliant-britain to http://tv.sky.com/preview-my-brilliant-britain
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204053554/http://illuminatingyork.org.uk/the-main-events-2/kippa-matthews-copyright-notice-4/ to http://illuminatingyork.org.uk/the-main-events-2/kippa-matthews-copyright-notice-4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722010404/http://www.thebookseller.com/news/76657-atlantic-buys-vic-reeves-nous.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/news/76657-atlantic-buys-vic-reeves-nous.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename article?
As per the above 'Recent appearances … 'section, perhaps this article does need renaming. See here:. 31.52.160.65 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 * No need, Reeves is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. As noted in the discussion, WP:NAMECHANGES applies here, so sources from after the subject's name change will be given greater weight. Numerically, people were evenly split on whether Vic Reeves or Jim Moir was this figure's WP:COMMONNAME; however, the supporters of the move provided better sourcing to bolster their claim, leading me to find a consensus for this move. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Vic Reeves → Jim Moir – Formal move discussion based on the section above, and the section from back in 2015. He's now exhibiting artwork, publishing books and presenting TV shows with his name in the title as Jim Moir, apparently doing nothing out-of-character under the "Vic Reeves" name. A rename of the article probably is overdue. Belbury (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still overwhelmingly better known as Vic Reeves. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as still better known as Vic Reeves. His most-recent Netflix series also credits him as Vic Reeves and I'm guessing the end credits refer to him as Vic. Non-starter RM. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That Netflix series was 2020; as linked above, the title and end credits of his 2023 TV show Painting Birds With Jim And Nancy Moir refer to him as Jim. His IMDb page appears to list all of his non-Vic-and-Bob TV work since 2015 (with the possible exception of that one Netflix show?) "as Jim Moir", so I think there is something of a starter here. Belbury (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I hadn't checked the table so I've struck the incorrect part out, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support; this is a WP:NAMECHANGES case, so we should look at how RSes have handled the name change. Generally, they seem to have preferred to use Moir after the "formerly/more well known as Vic Reeves" qualifier; see, , . Sceptre (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jim Moir


text:
User talk:Nguyentriet

Hello Nguyentriet, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Burgundavia 20:14, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I see you are following the golden rule of Wikipedia, be bold but I noticed you are creating a number of pages that might need a little bit of work with style editing. Feel free ask around if you want help with this particular subject. Burgundavia 20:14, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nguyentriet


text:
Trilobyte

Trilobyte Games, LLC (formerly Trilobyte, Inc.) is an American video game developer based in Medford, Oregon. The company was founded in February 1991 by Graeme Devine and Rob Landeros, who had been fired from Virgin Games after pitching their idea for The 7th Guest. They developed the game as Trilobyte and followed it up with The 11th Hour. Following a string of less successful titles and cancellations, the company shut down in February 1999. In 2010, Landeros resurrected the name under Trilobyte Games.

History
Graeme Devine and Rob Landeros founded Trilobyte on February 1, 1991, after being fired from Virgin Interactive. They established the first office in the second floor above J'Ville Tavern in Jacksonville, Oregon.

The 7th Guest
The 7th Guest was one of the first computer games for CD-ROM. Most of the footage for the game was filmed with a US$35,000 budget, Super VHS cameras, and blue butcher paper as a background that would later be removed using chromakey to insert the actors in the game. In the game, the player must move around the map solving puzzles in a style similar to Myst. Most of the puzzles in The 7th Guest were based on versions of pre-existing puzzles invented by people such as Max Bezzel. The 7th Guest was the first game to use full rendered 3D animation and navigation. For the time, it had state-of-the-art graphics by Rob Landeros, Robert Stein III, Gene Bodio, Alan Iglesias, MIDI music by The Fat Man, and a story by Matthew J. Costello. During planning, a sequel was being considered. The final version of The 7th Guest was released in April 1993, with 60,000 copies sold overnight.

The game was a turning point in CD-ROM based technology. Bill Gates called The 7th Guest "the new standard in interactive entertainment."

The 11th Hour
The 11th Hour was released in the winter of 1995, after missing its original release date by more than a year. It was one of the first games to support 16-bit color, with detailed environments and fluid motion. However, the game drew criticism for several reasons:

 * The game was released in DOS when Windows 95 was dominant in the market
 * The game still used MIDI for music, instead of CD audio.
 * Gameplay featuring puzzles and riddles, which ranged from abstract logic to anagrams.

Despite pre-orders, sales did not meet the expected amount, and the game did not recover its production costs. This was a key factor in the company's financial downfall.

Subsequent projects
The next projects for Trilobyte were published by Trilobyte itself. Clandestiny, with gameplay similar to the previous The 7th Guest, and The 11th Hour, though using cel animated (cartoon) video rather than live action, and Uncle Henry's Playhouse, a re-packaging of a number of the puzzles and games from The 7th Guest, The 11th Hour, and Clandestiny. Neither were commercially successful.

It has been reported that the relationship between Landeros and Devine became so strained that they last spoke to each other at a board meeting in November 1996.

After Clandestiny, the company effectively took two different internal directions. Landeros led a project called Tender Loving Care, while Devine started a Massively Multiplayer project, Millennium. Tender Loving Care, starring John Hurt, was completed in 1998.

About the same time, Red Orb Entertainment, a division of Brøderbund, signed on to publish two titles on Devine's "side" of the company – Assault!, a top-down multiplayer action game, and Extreme Racing, a racing game, which ran on a shared game engine. Assault! was later renamed Extreme Warfare and changed from top-down to a first person perspective. Extreme Racing was retitled Baja 1000 Racing and attached to a SCORE International racing license. Both games made appearances at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) trade show that year.

Closing
In June 1998, The Learning Company acquired Brøderbund. The Learning Company was not interested in any kind of online games and thus canceled Trilobyte's by September. Unable to find another publisher for its projects, the company cut payroll on September 15, 1998. Publishers like Electronic Arts and especially Midway Games were interested in acquiring the company. By December, Trilobyte was close to reaching an agreement with Midway and Devine unsuccessfully sought funding from Paul Allen to keep the company afloat until it was finalized. However, the publisher stopped calling at the end of the month and, in January 1999, the company was being evicted. Trilobyte had its last day of operations on February 2, 1999. Devine took up a job at id Software and led the design of Quake III Arena. Other staffers were hired by the nascent local company N'Lightning Software Development to develop Catechumen.

Relaunch
In November 2010, Trilobyte was resurrected. The 7th Guest was relaunched for the iPhone and iPad in December 2010. In April 2011, The 7th Guest: Infection—a stand-alone version of the popular Microscope Puzzle from the original 7th Guest—was released for iPad.

The 7th Guest 3
On Halloween 2013, Trilobyte launched a Kickstarter campaign for The 7th Guest 3: The Collector, which failed to meet its funding target of $435,000. Another crowdfunding campaign was started at Crowdtilt with a smaller goal of $65,000 to build the first story of the haunted mansion but that too, failed, and the 7th Guest 3 was officially cancelled in June 2014.

Released games

 * The 7th Guest – the first title released by Trilobyte Software. It sold over 2 million copies, making more than US$50 million for the company in the 1990s. It was re-released for iPhone and iPad in December 2010, and re-released for PC by DotEmu in February 2012 as an updated version. It was also re-released for PC by GOG in a smaller package. On 13 March 2012 The 7th Guest for MacIntosh was released on the Mac App Store.

 * The 11th Hour – the sequel to The 7th Guest. Many production problems and release date slipped by a year resulted in lost profits and sales of 1.7 million units. This game was also re-released in February 2012 for PC by both DotEmu and GOG.

 * Clandestiny – a cel animated child-friendly puzzle game. It sold only 2,500 copies in the United States, bringing in a profit of just US$500,000. The game is currently available in the Mac App Store and published by GRL Games.

 * Uncle Henry's Playhouse – a compilation of some of the puzzles from The 7th Guest, The 11th Hour, and Clandestiny. It sold 27 copies in the United States, and 127 worldwide.

 * The 7th Guest: Infection – a stand-alone version of the Microscope Puzzle from the original release of The 7th Guest, which was excluded from the re-released iPhone and iPad versions due to technical issues. Released as an app for iPad in April 2011.

Unreleased games

 * Cybernet – The Fat Man has listed on his website that he composed the music for this game.

 * Dog Eat Dog – An office politics simulator. At a cost of over US$800,000, it was scrapped halfway through production.

 * The 7th Guest III – A game where the house would be back to its original form and all forms of media were to be controlled by Satan. US$500,000 went into production. Only a few highly rendered screen shots were created before the project was cancelled.

 * Extreme Warfare – Graeme Devine's online top-down perspective 3D tank game, originally named Assault. Red Orb Entertainment was sold to The Learning Company, who cancelled the game.

 * Baja Racing – originally called Extreme Racing. It was shelved due to the lack of development personnel.

 * The 13th Soul – a 3rd-person real time game inside the Stauf mansion. A few rendered rooms were made. The sale of Virgin Interactive resulted in the cancellation of the project.

 * Trojan Planet – a role-playing game set in a parallel universe where all the world is Troy. The company went under shortly after the concept arose.

 * The 7th Guest III (3rd Version) – Another version in which the town was abandoned and Tad (the young boy from the 7th Guest) was grown up and a writer, coming back to stop Stauf. The company went under shortly after the concept arose.

 * The 7th Guest III: The Collector – A completely new version of 7th Guest III where the events took place in a German museum rather than the Stauf house. Lack of funding and interest by the producer Lunny Interactive caused it to be shelved. Trilobyte later sought crowdfunding for a different concept bearing a similar title, but it was cancelled in June 2014.

title: Trilobyte


text:
TRM

TRM may refer to:

Government

 * Technical Reference Model, for the United States' federal government
 * Teleradio-Moldova, Moldovan state broadcaster

Places

 * Trimley railway station, Suffolk, England (by GBR code)
 * Troy Transit Center, Michigan, Amtrak station code

Science and technology

 * Thermoremanent magnetization, in geology
 * Time reversal mirror, in physics and telecommunications
 * TRM cell or tissue-resident memory T cell, in biology

title: TRM