text:
Granular material

A granular material is a conglomeration of discrete solid, macroscopic particles characterized by a loss of energy whenever the particles interact (the most common example would be friction when grains collide). The constituents that compose granular material are large enough such that they are not subject to thermal motion fluctuations. Thus, the lower size limit for grains in granular material is about 1 μm. On the upper size limit, the physics of granular materials may be applied to ice floes where the individual grains are icebergs and to asteroid belts of the Solar System with individual grains being asteroids.

Some examples of granular materials are snow, nuts, coal, sand, rice, coffee, corn flakes, salt, and bearing balls. Research into granular materials is thus directly applicable and goes back at least to Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, whose law of friction was originally stated for granular materials. Granular materials are commercially important in applications as diverse as pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, and energy production.

Powders are a special class of granular material due to their small particle size, which makes them more cohesive and more easily suspended in a gas.

The soldier/physicist Brigadier Ralph Alger Bagnold was an early pioneer of the physics of granular matter and whose book The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes remains an important reference to this day. According to material scientist Patrick Richard, "Granular materials are ubiquitous in nature and are the second-most manipulated material in industry (the first one is water)".

In some sense, granular materials do not constitute a single phase of matter but have characteristics reminiscent of solids, liquids, or gases depending on the average energy per grain. However, in each of these states, granular materials also exhibit properties that are unique.

Granular materials also exhibit a wide range of pattern forming behaviors when excited (e.g. vibrated or allowed to flow). As such granular materials under excitation can be thought of as an example of a complex system. They also display fluid-based instabilities and phenomena such as Magnus effect.

Definitions
Granular matter is a system composed of many macroscopic particles. Microscopic particles (atoms\molecules) are described (in classical mechanics) by all DOF of the system. Macroscopic particles are described only by DOF of the motion of each particle as a rigid body. In each particle are a lot of internal DOF. Consider inelastic collision between two particles - the energy from velocity as rigid body is transferred to microscopic internal DOF. We get “Dissipation” - irreversible heat generation. The result is that without external driving, eventually all particles will stop moving. In macroscopic particles thermal fluctuations are irrelevant.

When a matter is dilute and dynamic (driven) then it is called granular gas and dissipation phenomenon dominates.

When a matter is dense and static, then it is called granular solid and jamming phenomenon dominates.

When the density is intermediate, then it is called granular liquid.

Coulomb friction Law
Coulomb regarded internal forces between granular particles as a friction process, and proposed the friction law, that the force of friction of solid particles is proportional to the normal pressure between them and the static friction coefficient is greater than the kinetic friction coefficient. He studied the collapse of piles of sand and found empirically two critical angles: the maximal stable angle $$\theta_m$$ and the minimum angle of repose $$\theta_r$$. When the sandpile slope reaches the maximum stable angle, the sand particles on the surface of the pile begin to fall. The process stops when the surface inclination angle is equal to the angle of repose. The difference between these two angles, $$\Delta \theta=\theta_m - \theta_r$$, is the Bagnold angle, which is a measure of the hysteresis of granular materials. This phenomenon is due to the force chains: stress in a granular solid is not distributed uniformly but is conducted away along so-called force chains which are networks of grains resting on one another. Between these chains are regions of low stress whose grains are shielded for the effects of the grains above by vaulting and arching. When the shear stress reaches a certain value, the force chains can break and the particles at the end of the chains on the surface begin to slide. Then, new force chains form until the shear stress is less than the critical value, and so the sandpile maintains a constant angle of repose.

Janssen Effect
In 1895, H. A. Janssen discovered that in a vertical cylinder filled with particles, the pressure measured at the base of the cylinder does not depend on the height of the filling, unlike Newtonian fluids at rest which follow Stevin's law. Janssen suggested a simplified model with the following assumptions:

1) The vertical pressure, $$\sigma_{zz}$$, is constant in the horizontal plane;

2) The horizontal pressure, $$\sigma_{rr}$$, is proportional to the vertical pressure  $$\sigma_{zz}$$, where  $$K=\frac{\sigma_{rr}}{\sigma_{zz}}$$ is constant in space;

3) The wall friction static coefficient $$\mu = \frac{\sigma_{rz}}{\sigma_{rr}}$$ sustains the vertical load at the contact with the wall;

4) The density of the material is constant over all depths.

The pressure in the granular material is then described in a different law, which accounts for saturation:$$p(z)=p_\infin [1-\exp(-z/\lambda)]$$where $$\lambda = \frac{R}{2\mu K}$$ and $$R$$ is the radius of the cylinder, and at the top of the silo $$z=0$$.

The given pressure equation does not account for boundary conditions, such as the ratio between the particle size to the radius of the silo. Since the internal stress of the material cannot be measured, Janssen's speculations have not been verified by any direct experiment.

Rowe Stress - Dilatancy Relation
In the early 1960s, Rowe studied dilatancy effect on shear strength in shear tests and proposed a relation between them.

The mechanical properties of assembly of mono-dispersed particles in 2D can be analyzed based on the representative elementary volume, with typical lengths, $$\ell_1, \ell_2$$, in vertical and horizontal directions respectively. The geometric characteristics of the system is described by $$\alpha=\arctan(\frac{\ell_1}{\ell_2})$$ and the variable $$\beta$$, which describes the angle when the contact points begin the process of sliding. Denote by $$\sigma_{11}$$ the vertical direction, which is the direction of the major principal stress, and by $$\sigma_{22}$$ the horizontal direction, which is the direction of the minor principal stress.

Then stress on the boundary can be expressed as the concentrated force borne by individual particles. Under biaxial loading with uniform stress $$\sigma_{12}=\sigma_{21}=0$$ and therefore $$F_{12}=F_{21}=0$$.

At equilibrium state:

$$\frac{F_{11}}{F_{22}}=\frac{\sigma_{11}\ell_2}{\sigma_{22}\ell_1}=\tan(\theta +\beta)$$

where $$\theta$$, the friction angle, is the angle between the contact force and the contact normal direction.

$$\theta_{\mu}$$, which describes the angle that if the tangential force falls within the friction cone the particles would still remain steady. It is determined by the coefficient of friction $$\mu=tg\phi_u$$, so $$\theta \leq \theta_\mu$$. Once stress is applied to the system then $$\theta$$ gradually increases while $$\alpha,\beta$$ remains unchanged. When $$\theta \geq \theta_{\mu}$$ then the particles will begin sliding, resulting in changing the structure of the system and creating new force chains. $$\Delta_1,\Delta_2$$, the horizontal and vertical displacements respectively satisfies:

$$\frac{\dot{\Delta_2}}{\dot{\Delta_1}}=\frac{\dot{\varepsilon_{22}}\ell_2}{\dot{\varepsilon_{11}}\ell_1}=-\tan\beta$$

Granular gases
If the granular material is driven harder such that contacts between the grains become highly infrequent, the material enters a gaseous state. Correspondingly, one can define a granular temperature equal to the root mean square of grain velocity fluctuations that is analogous to thermodynamic temperature. Unlike conventional gases, granular materials will tend to cluster and clump due to the dissipative nature of the collisions between grains. This clustering has some interesting consequences. For example, if a partially partitioned box of granular materials is vigorously shaken then grains will over time tend to collect in one of the partitions rather than spread evenly into both partitions as would happen in a conventional gas. This effect, known as the granular Maxwell's demon, does not violate any thermodynamics principles since energy is constantly being lost from the system in the process.

Ulam Model
Consider $$N$$ particles, particle $$i$$ having energy $$\varepsilon_{i}$$. At some constant rate per unit time, randomly choose two particles $$i, j$$ with energies $$\varepsilon_{i},\varepsilon_{j}$$ and compute the sum $$\varepsilon_{i}+\varepsilon_{j}$$. Now, randomly distribute the total energy between the two particles: choose randomly $$z\in\left[0,1\right]$$ so that the first particle, after the collision, has energy $$z\left(\varepsilon_{i}+\varepsilon_{j}\right)$$, and the second $$\left(1-z\right)\left(\varepsilon_{i}+\varepsilon_{j}\right)$$.

The stochastic evolution equation:$$\varepsilon_{i}(t+dt)=\begin{cases} \varepsilon_{i}(t) & probability:\,1-\Gamma dt\\ z\left(\varepsilon_{i}(t)+\varepsilon_{j}(t)\right) & probability:\,\Gamma dt \end{cases}$$where $$\Gamma$$ is the collision rate, $$z$$ is randomly picked from $$\left[0,1\right]$$ (uniform distribution) and j is an index also randomly chosen from a uniform distribution. The average energy per particle: $$ \begin{align} \left\langle \varepsilon(t+dt)\right\rangle & =\left(1-\Gamma dt\right)\left\langle \varepsilon(t)\right\rangle +\Gamma dt\cdot\left\langle z\right\rangle \left(\left\langle \varepsilon_{i}\right\rangle +\left\langle \varepsilon_{j}\right\rangle \right)\\ & =\left(1-\Gamma dt\right)\left\langle \varepsilon(t)\right\rangle +\Gamma dt\cdot\dfrac{1}{2}\left(\left\langle \varepsilon(t)\right\rangle +\left\langle \varepsilon(t)\right\rangle \right)\\ & =\left\langle \varepsilon(t)\right\rangle \end{align} $$

The second moment:

$$\begin{align} \left\langle \varepsilon^{2}(t+dt)\right\rangle & =\left(1-\Gamma dt\right)\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}(t)\right\rangle +\Gamma dt\cdot\left\langle z^{2}\right\rangle \left\langle \varepsilon_{i}^{2}+2\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}+\varepsilon_{j}^{2}\right\rangle \\ & =\left(1-\Gamma dt\right)\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}(t)\right\rangle +\Gamma dt\cdot\dfrac{1}{3}\left(2\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}(t)\right\rangle +2\left\langle \varepsilon(t)\right\rangle ^{2}\right) \end{align} $$

Now the time derivative of the second moment:

$$\dfrac{d\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}\right\rangle }{dt}=lim_{dt\rightarrow0}\dfrac{\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}(t+dt)\right\rangle -\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}(t)\right\rangle }{dt}=-\dfrac{\Gamma}{3}\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}\right\rangle +\dfrac{2\Gamma}{3}\left\langle \varepsilon\right\rangle ^{2} $$

In steady state:

$$\dfrac{d\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}\right\rangle }{dt}=0\Rightarrow\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}\right\rangle =2\left\langle \varepsilon\right\rangle ^{2} $$

Solving the differential equation for the second moment:

$$\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}\right\rangle -2\left\langle \varepsilon\right\rangle ^{2}=\left(\left\langle \varepsilon^{2}(0)\right\rangle -2\left\langle \varepsilon(0)\right\rangle ^{2}\right)e^{-\frac{\Gamma}{3}t} $$

However, instead of characterizing the moments, we can analytically solve the energy distribution, from the moment generating function. Consider the Laplace transform: $$g(\lambda)=\left\langle e^{-\lambda\varepsilon}\right\rangle =\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\lambda\varepsilon}\rho(\varepsilon)d\varepsilon $$.

Where $$g(0)=1 $$, and $$\dfrac{dg}{d\lambda}=-\int_{0}^{\infty}\varepsilon e^{-\lambda\varepsilon}\rho(\varepsilon)d\varepsilon=-\left\langle \varepsilon\right\rangle $$

the n derivative:

$$\dfrac{d^{n}g}{d\lambda^{n}}=\left(-1\right)^{n}\int_{0}^{\infty}\varepsilon^{n}e^{-\lambda\varepsilon}\rho(\varepsilon)d\varepsilon=\left\langle \varepsilon^{n}\right\rangle $$

now:

$$e^{-\lambda\varepsilon_{i}(t+dt)}=\begin{cases} e^{-\lambda\varepsilon_{i}(t)} & 1-\Gamma t\\ e^{-\lambda z\left(\varepsilon_{i}(t)+\varepsilon_{j}(t)\right)} & \Gamma t \end{cases} $$

$$\left\langle e^{-\lambda\varepsilon\left(t+dt\right)}\right\rangle =\left(1-\Gamma dt\right)\left\langle e^{-\lambda\varepsilon_{i}(t)}\right\rangle +\Gamma dt\left\langle e^{-\lambda z\left(\varepsilon_{i}(t)+\varepsilon_{j}(t)\right)}\right\rangle $$

$$g\left(\lambda,t+dt\right)=\left(1-\Gamma dt\right)g\left(\lambda,t\right)+\Gamma dt\int_{0}^{1}\underset{=g^{2}(\lambda z,t)}{\underbrace{\left\langle e^{-\lambda z\varepsilon_{i}(t)}\right\rangle \left\langle e^{-\lambda z\varepsilon_{j}(t)}\right\rangle }}dz $$

Solving for $$g(\lambda) $$ with change of variables $$\delta=\lambda z $$:

$$\lambda g(\lambda)=\int_{0}^{\lambda}g^{2}(\delta)d\delta\Rightarrow\lambda g'(\lambda)+g(\lambda)=g^{2}(\lambda)\Rightarrow g(\lambda)=\dfrac{1}{\lambda T+1} $$

We will show that $$\rho(\varepsilon)=\dfrac{1}{T}e^{-\frac{\varepsilon}{T}} $$ (Boltzmann Distribution) by taking its Laplace transform and calculate the generating function:

$$\int_{0}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{T}e^{-\frac{\varepsilon}{T}}\cdot e^{-\lambda\varepsilon}d\varepsilon=\dfrac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\left(\lambda+\frac{1}{T}\right)\varepsilon}d\varepsilon=-\dfrac{1}{T\left(\lambda+\frac{1}{T}\right)}e^{-\left(\lambda+\frac{1}{T}\right)\varepsilon}|_{0}^{\infty}=\dfrac{1}{\lambda T+1}=g(\lambda) $$

Jamming transition
Granular systems are known to exhibit jamming and undergo a jamming transition which is thought of as a thermodynamic phase transition to a jammed state. The transition is from fluid-like phase to a solid-like phase and it is controlled by temperature, $$T$$, volume fraction, $$\phi$$, and shear stress, $$\Sigma$$. The normal phase diagram of glass transition is in the $$\phi ^{-1}-T$$ plane and it is divided into a jammed state region and unjammed liquid state by a transition line. The phase diagram for granular matter lies in the $$\phi^{-1}-\Sigma$$ plane, and the critical stress curve $$\Sigma(\phi)$$ divides the state phase to jammed\unjammed region, which corresponds to granular solids\liquids respectively. For isotropically jammed granular system, when $$\phi$$ is reduced around a certain point, $$J$$, the bulk and shear moduli approach 0. The $$J$$ point corresponds to the critical volume fraction $$\phi_c$$. Define the distance to point $$J$$, the critical volume fraction, $$\Delta\phi\equiv\phi-\phi_c$$. The behavior of granular systems near the $$J$$ point was empirically found to resemble second-order transition: the bulk modulus shows a power law scaling with $$\Delta\phi$$ and there are some divergent characteristics lengths when $$\Delta\phi$$ approaches zero. While $$\phi_c$$ is constant for an infinite system, for a finite system boundary effects result in a distribution of $$\phi_c$$ over some range.

The Lubachevsky-Stillinger algorithm of jamming allows one to produce simulated jammed granular configurations.

Pattern formation
Excited granular matter is a rich pattern-forming system. Some of the pattern-forming behaviours seen in granular materials are: Some of the pattern-forming behaviours have been possible to reproduce in computer simulations. There are two main computational approaches to such simulations, time-stepped and event-driven, the former being the most efficient for a higher density of the material and the motions of a lower intensity, and the latter for a lower density of the material and the motions of a higher intensity.
 * The un-mixing or segregation of unlike grains under vibration and flow. An example of this is the so-called Brazil nut effect where Brazil nuts rise to the top of a packet of mixed nuts when shaken. The cause of this effect is that when shaken, granular (and some other) materials move in a circular pattern. some larger materials (Brazil nuts) get stuck while going down the circle and therefore stay on the top.
 * The formation of structured surface or bulk patterns in vibrated granular layers. These patterns include but are not limited to stripes, squares and hexagons.  These patterns are thought to be formed by fundamental excitations of the surface known as oscillons. The formation of ordered volumetric structures in granular materials is known as Granular Crystallisation, and involves a transition from a random packing of particles to an ordered packing such as hexagonal close-packed or body-centred cubic. This is most commonly observed in granular materials with narrow size distributions and uniform grain morphology.
 * The formation of sand ripples, dunes, and sandsheets

Acoustic effects

Some beach sands, such as those of the aptly named Squeaky Beach, exhibit squeaking when walked upon. Some desert dunes are known to exhibit booming during avalanching or when their surface is otherwise disturbed. Granular materials discharged from silos produce loud acoustic emissions in a process known as silo honking.

Granulation
Granulation is the act or process in which primary powder particles are made to adhere to form larger, multiparticle entities called granules.

Crystallization
When water or other liquids are cooled sufficiently slowly, randomly positioned molecules rearrange and solid crystals emerge and grow. A similar crystallisation process may occur in randomly packed granular materials. Unlike removing energy by cooling, crystallization in granular material is achieved by external driving. Ordering, or crystallization of granular materials has been observed to occur in periodically sheared as well as vibrated granular matter. In contrast to molecular systems, the positions of the individual particles can be tracked in the experiment. Computer simulations for a system of spherical grains reveal that homogeneous crystallization emerges at a volume fraction $$\phi = 0.646 \pm 0.001$$. The computer simulations identify the minimal ingredients necessary for granular crystallization. In particular, gravity and friction are not necessary.

Computational modeling of granular materials
Several methods are available for modeling of granular materials. Most of these methods consist of the statistical methods by which various statistical properties, derived from either point data or an image, are extracted and used to generate stochastic models of the granular medium. A recent and comprehensive review of such methods is available in Tahmasebi and other (2017). Another alternative for building a pack of granular particles that recently has been presented is based on the level-set algorithm by which the real shape of the particle can be captured and reproduced through the extracted statistics for particles' morphology.

title: Granular material


text:
South Yarra railway station

South Yarra railway station is a commuter railway station and the junction point for the Cranbourne, Frankston, Pakenham and Sandringham lines, serving the south Melbourne suburb of South Yarra in Victoria, Australia. South Yarra is a ground-level premium station featuring six platforms, with two island platforms and two side platforms accessible by an overground concourse. It opened on 22 December 1860.

History
South Yarra station was opened by the Melbourne and Suburban Railway Company as Gardiners Creek Road. Initially, it served the Brighton line, on what was called the "Prahran Branch". On 1 January 1867, the station was renamed South Yarra. The private railway company, by then the Melbourne and Hobson's Bay United Railway Company, was taken over by the Government of Victoria in 1878, and its network became part of the Victorian Railways.

In 1924, historian John Cooper noted that when the South Yarra to Oakleigh line was first constructed, a set of points connected the line to the existing Brighton line. However, a high embankment obscured the vision of train drivers approaching South Yarra on both lines. To solve that problem, it was decided that the Oakleigh line should have its own tracks into Melbourne, and the Cremorne Railway Bridge, spanning the Yarra River, was duplicated to allow that. The opening of the South Yarra to Oakleigh line in 1879 made the proposed Outer Circle line largely redundant, but it was constructed anyway, a decade later.

In 1914, the line between South Yarra and Caulfield was completely rebuilt. The works included the quadruplication of the line, and the reconstruction of the stations at Hawksburn, Toorak, Armadale and Malvern.

In 1946, the current Cremorne Railway Bridge over the Yarra River was opened, replacing the earlier one. In 1947, a works siding opened, which was disconnected in 1955.

Even after the laying of six tracks from Richmond to South Yarra, and the abolition of the signal box, the station retained three emergency crossovers at the up end of Platforms 1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6. The latter set was removed in 1983, followed by the middle pair by 23 June 1984, and the final set in August 1986. The crossovers were originally provided in 1945 and 1960. Also in 1960, the "local lines", used by Pakenham and Cranbourne line services, were extended to Richmond, and the signal box, located at the up end of Platforms 4 and 5, was closed, but still remains in place.

In 1993, there were major re-signalling works between South Yarra and Toorak, with similar works occurring between South Yarra and Richmond in 1994. In 1997, South Yarra was upgraded to a premium station. As such, the station is staffed from the first to the last service each day.

According to Public Transport Victoria data, South Yarra is the eighth-busiest station on the Melbourne metropolitan network, with 4.59 million boardings per year during the 2017/2018 financial year.

In early 2020, it was announced that South Yarra was to undergo a $12 million refurbishment. The entrance to the station on Toorak Road was to be widened, and the layout changed to make the station larger.

Services on the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines will no longer stop at South Yarra when the Metro Tunnel opens, which is scheduled to take place in 2025. The entrance portal to the Metro Tunnel is located near the station, but South Yarra will not be integrated into the new tunnel, which generated some criticism.

Platforms and services
South Yarra station has six platforms: two side platforms and two island platforms with four faces. It is served by Cranbourne, Frankston, Pakenham and Sandringham line trains. V/Line's Bairnsdale rail services (Gippsland line) pass non-stop through the station.

Platform 1:
 * all stations services to Flinders Street

Platform 2:
 * all stations services to Sandringham

Platform 3:
 * all stations services to Flinders Street, Werribee and Williamstown

Platform 4:
 * all stations and limited express services to Frankston

Platform 5:
 * all stations services to Flinders Street
 * all stations services to Flinders Street

Platform 6:
 * limited express services to East Pakenham
 * limited express services to Cranbourne

From June 2025, Pakenham and Cranbourne lines will no longer serve South Yarra because they will be routed through the Metro Tunnel to Sunbury.

Transport links
Yarra Trams operates one route via South Yarra station:
 * Melbourne tram route 58 icon.svg: West Coburg – Toorak

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

title: South Yarra railway station


text:
User:Tobin Richard/monobook.css

display: block; }
 * 1) siteSub {

body { font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12px; }

title: User:Tobin Richard/monobook.css


text:
Talk:Caerleon

Hanbury additions
I have added an area about the Hanbury Arms Alehouse but want to get this picture : View_of_the_Hanbury_Arms_alehouse_from_the_bridge_in_Caerleon.JPG underneath the text. I tried but it appeared to big, can you help? Also I have asked the webmaster of Caerleon.net to add the wiki article on Caerleon to be added to his "Links" area on

County
Owain, why are you deleting things without giving a reason? I fail to understand your overwhelming desire to add a reference to Monmouthshire. As Caerleon has more recently been included in Gwent it is more logical to note this than an even older county. My solution: skip the information about past counties. There are more useful things that could be said in an encyclopaedia entry.

 * What's the point in a reference to a defunct administrative area? Traditional counties continue to exist as geographical references, which are quite handy when you're explaining where a place is. See Traditional counties of Wales Owain 13:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Gwent is also a traditional county, and is just as much a geographical reference as Monmouthsire. It also has the advantage of not being confused with a current area with the same name. By the way, referencing something you yourself wrote hardly backs up your argument. For a better reference try googling for Caerleon + Gwent and Caerleon + Monmouthshire - you get slightly more hits for the former, which I think is a good indication of where people think it is. Why not leave both out? It's not as if it is unclear where its position is. Rls 00:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid Gwent is NOT a traditional county. That phrase has a specific meaning - i.e. the county names and boundaries that exist separately of local government administrative counties. I didn't write the page on traditional counties myself, I've just contributed to it! How is Gwent a geographical reference? The defunct local government area was totally different to the original Early British Kingdom of the same name. As for the Google search, you must know that they are the least scientific way to prove anything. Where people think they are is largely influenced by the Royal Mail's bizarre Postal counties of the United Kingdom, which they've thankfully got rid of. By all means leave it out, but realise the difference between traditional counties and former administrative areas. Owain 11:51, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Introduction
WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements states that in an article introduction "The county and home nation must be mentioned". Walgamanus 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The county of Caerleon is Newport and it is governed by Newport City Council. If you want to read about the history of the Monmouthshire, Gwent, etc. it should be on the Newport article. None of the other articles for the districts of Newport mention Monmoutshire or Gwent. Marky-Son 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Newport is a city and a principal area, not a county. Caerleon is in the preserved county of Gwent. It used to be in the historic county of Monmouthshire (and some would argue still is). This information is given in the article's infobox. Walgamanus 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Newport used to be a county borough, are you implying a city has a lesser status than a county borough? Feel free to add the county for all the other districts of Newport, plus Cardiff, Bristol, Birmingham etc, otherwise I don't see why this is neccessary. If it used to be in Gwent, why does the article say it IS in Gwent? I've looked all other towns that were in Gwent and none of them mention Gwent in the opening paragraph. Marky-Son 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Newport's present status is a principal area with a city council. I would appreciate more information on its former county borough status. As members of the WikiProject UK geography work through places in the Newport principal area, as well as places elsewhere in the UK, the introductions should all be updated to include the counties and home nations as laid out in the How to write about settlements guidelines. Caerleon IS in the preserved county of Gwent, as I stated above (it is, of course, also in the principal area of Newport); and, at the risk of repeating myself, this information is given in the article's infobox. I'm just trying to follow general UK geography guidelines agreed by consensus. Walgamanus 08:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The borough of Newport was elevated to the status of a county borough under the Local Governmnet Act 1888 in November 1891. That corporation was dissolved by the Local Government Act 1972 in April 1974, but the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 established a new county borough of Newport in April 1996, which was additionally awarded the status of a city in March 2002. The distinction between principal areas labelled "county" and "county borough" in the latter Act is entirely arbitrary - it is just a label within the narrow meaning of the LG(W)A 1994. Owain (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was (and still is to my knowledge) that the administrative/ceremonial information should be restricted to the infobox and not cluttering up the opening sentence. The fact is that a "preserved county of Gwent" exists for certain functions - i.e. the appointment of a Lord-Lieutenant and to be taken into account by the Boundary Commission when drawing up constituencies every 8 to 12 years. It is NOT and never has been a general geographic description for an area. It most certainly is NOT correct to write "in the Welsh county of Gwent". Furthermore the historic county of Monmouthshire continues to exist as a geographic county independently of the administrative changes of 1974 and 1996. So "(formerly Monmouthshire)" is also incorrect. As I've already pointed out, having to explain this in the intro to EVERY article will become very tedious. Leave it out and let people see it in the infobox and click on the relevant articles if they want to know more. Owain (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd checked out the county borough, but thanks for the information. I am very aware that strictly speaking both forms of county still exist. As I stated, I am simply trying to follow Wikipedia agreed conventions.
 * I included the county in the intro because personally I find it useful, but mostly because WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements clearly states that you should do so: "The county and home nation must be mentioned". I have found no information concerning restriction to infoboxes, which would contradict the project guidelines. All the information I can find concerning referencing counties indicates that in non-historical subject articles the modern administrative or ceremonial counties should be used. Historic counties should be mentioned, but treated as not being currently in existence. Hence my description.
 * See Naming conventions (places): "We should use the current, administrative, county....We should mention historic (traditional) counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote. If a place is a unitary authority and not administered by a county council, it is acceptable to use ceremonial counties as geographic references, as this is often more in line with common usage. As has been pointed out, it is not useful to state that "Luton is a town in the county of Luton"...We should not take the minority position that they still exist with the former boundaries."
 * However, I have been browbeaten enough and have lost interest in this article, as I'm sure was the intention. I hope that adding "in south-east Wales" to the introduction is not too contraversial. I believe that naming the country in an article's introduction is useful to an international audience. Walgamanus 21:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Luton is a town and local authority/borough of the same name, Caerleon certainly isn't because it's in Newport. "Bushmead is a suburb/district in the town and borough of Luton." would be perfectly acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marky-Son (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

The opening paragraph should be updated.
I contend that the name of this place "CAER-LEON", means nothing more or less than "The Lion Fortress!" If you can find a "reliable" source that can prove that "LEON" in this particular place is referrenced to the word "LEGIO" or Legion, then please cite it? Common sense sometimes is the best policy and I will bet you that you can find more etymological sources supporting "LION" than "LEGIO?" Perhaps the site only considers these sources? http://search.aol.com/aol/search?&query=legio+or+leon%2C+meaning&invocationType=tb50-ie-aolrt-tbsbox-en-us Thanks for listening! Perhaps LYON, France is another example as well could be the Kingdom of LEON in Spain? But do any of you find it strange that, as far as I know, no Roman Legion was called "LEO", but it seems a few of them used "LEO" the LION in its "STANDARD"96.19.147.40 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
 * I've added a reliable source for the origin of the name. Your theory is novel but irrelevant; we publish what reliable sources say, not fringe opinions or contentions.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So, just what is your source? Is it the Enclylopedia Britannica? Wow! Oh, by the way, thanks for the comment "NOVEL!" LOL, I would that more of you would show as much respect for mere "common sense!" By the way did you know that no Roman Legion wa ever was called "LION? / Lyon / Leon"; but "Standards" were another thing, and since this regardred "Legio II Agustus", was also known to have fought in Spain before being transferred to Wales, we can only surmise that they might well have fought in "LEON" in Spain and perhaps they captured one of their "Standards?". Perhaps they merely added this victory to their "STANDARD" or the Flag that Flew at the Fort itself? After all most all of the information concerning most of these Legio's is made up of innuendo, perhaps, could have's, maybes, speculations, etc.! I would suggest that my "maybe" is just as good as theirs! Regards!96.19.147.40 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L.Hughes

OH! MY MY, I actually went and looked at your "reliable source", and his work entitled "Cair Legeion guar Uisc"!! Well, since we have been told the "River valley" that this port/fort was designed to guard, was called the (from you site; "Caerleon (pron.: /kərˈliːən/; Welsh: Caerllion) is a suburban village and community, situated on the River Usk [1]" You might well note that this Roman Fort was situated overlooking the river spelled as the "USK"!  Can you or one of your friends who are familar with etymology, tell me the difference between "Usk" and "Uiac or even Isca"?  I deign to suggest that the title of Jones missive should be translated as "Cair/Caere/Fort/Fortress" of the "Legeion/Legio/Legion" which was "quar/quarted/stationed/guarding" the area of the "Uisc / Usk / Isca" river port!  Please think of "Isca Augusta"!

And just what tribe did these Romans come here first to fight? From Wiki;

"According to Tacitus's biography of Agricola, the Silures usually had a dark complexion and curly hair. Due to their appearance, Tacitus hinted that they may have crossed over from Spain at an earlier date." "... the swarthy faces of the Silures, the curly quality, in general, of their hair, and the position of Spain opposite their shores, attest to the passage of Iberians in old days and the occupation by them of these districts; ..." (Tacitus Annales Xi.ii, translated by M. Hutton) Genetic studies carried out by the University College London, Oxford University and the University of California have suggested that some Welsh and Irish people share genetic similarity with the Basque people who originated in northern Iberia."

Thus it is possible that some of the genetic material left by the Roman Legion, that may well have fought against the King of Leon (Leo/Lion) in Spain might well have left their genetic mark upon the people of this area of Wales?

And interestingly, also from Wiki is this map of Spain (in the Middle Ages) that shows that the Kingdom of Leon was located precisely in the area of Spain/Portugal that is considered as Basque!~! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdom_of_Leon_1037.svg

Wow, could the Basque soldiers of the Middle Ages have actually occupied Wales during the Roman occupation? LOL

Can't wait to see your kind reply!96.19.147.40 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
 * It seems that the name of León also derives from the Latin legio. You are surely aware that the Roman occupation of Wales took place about 1000 years before the Middle Ages?  I'm not quite sure what you're trying to show here, or why, but the point is that what leading academics like Professor Owen write is relevant to constructing an encyclopedia, and your opinions and thoughts are not.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, hang on Mr Hughes, what you seem to be now suggesting is this: Romans fought the "King of Leon" in the region called Leon in Northern Spain. That some of those same soldiers inter-bred with Spanish people there and then came to Wales. That those soldiers then "left genetic material" in Caerleon (presumably again by inter-breeding). This made Welsh people in general look a bit like Spanish people (supported by Tacitus' claim that the shores of Spain are "opposite" those of Wales). And that's why the Leon in Caerleon refers to Leon in Spain (or maybe a lion, because some Roman legions had lions on their standards.) Yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hillfort
Not sure why Lodge Hill Iron Age hillfort is included under "Roman fortress". The two were quite separate. For a correct chronology, maybe there should be a separate sub-section on pre-history? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The Caerleon Industrial School
Here's a paper by D. B. Hughes, M.A. on "The Caerleon Industrial School". Hughes traces the history of the education of pauper children in Monmouthshire between 1834 and 1929. In this part, Chapter III, he deals with the provision made by the Newport Union for a separate school in Caerleon, away from the Stow Hill workhouse:. There's a bit more about it here with a location map. There's nothing about this in the article currently. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Caerleon


text:
Talk:Theogony

Similarity to Chinese mythology?
I've long noticed a link between the characteristics of the third generation gods and the eight trigrams of the I Ching. Their attributes are remarkably similar. The order of birth differs, but they both seem to be trying to describe the forces in nature (including human nature). Anyway, it seems like:

Parents: Gaia = 坤 kūn (receptive/field), and Uranus (maybe Cronus?) = 乾 qián (creative force heaven/sky).

The daughters: Hestia = 離 lí (fire), Demeter = 兌 duì (joy/fertility), Hera = 巽 xùn (penetrating wind).

The sons: Hades = 艮 gèn (mountain), Poseidon = 坎 kǎn (water), Zeus = 震 zhèn (thunder).

Did these two proto-scientfic systems evolve independently, or were these cultures in contact? If anyone has studied this, I'd love to know more!

Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most probably they evolved independently from one another. As far as I know there was no contact between ancient Greeks and Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.45.174 (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Eros
It mentions that Eros was created from Chaos (First Gen), and from Aphrodite (Last Gen). Which one is correct? 90.220.148.96 (talk)
 * As a matter of speaking both are correct. They are myths from different time periods just like the origin of Aphrodite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.45.174 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms
This article is full of somewhat confusing comments on the poem Theogony (mostly so if you have not read it) and it reads more like part of a school essay than an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what to do with it: it has a sort of vague summary, but maybe a more specific listing of the myths dealt with in the Theogony would be a good start. Andrew123 06:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why the author has to state specifically that Greek religion has a lot of contradictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-08-29T08:52:26 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-29T08:52:26

Authorship debate
This could use some mentions of the debate of authorship, no? Consider the article for Hesiod's standpoint on the notion. Λι 07:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pontos
"After Ouranos had been castrated, Gaia mated with Pontos to create a descendent line " - I don't see the name Pontos anywhere else before this statement. Is it supposed to be Pontos? or Pontus? or Ponos? --BlueRaja 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be Pontos. Pontus is the latin translation and Ponos an entirely different thing (pain). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.45.174 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tenses
Why are certain sections written in different tenses? This reads awkwardly, especially during shifts from past to present tense. The use of the present tense to describe the events also makes little sense seeing as the events were written about in the past as if they occurred even further in the past. Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.216.178 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-16T03:01:28

Hesiod
This article seems to be drifting farther from a report on Hesiod's poem. We have a general article Greek mythology, which, if it were better, would cover thie generations of gods, and their futures, more generally. --Wetman 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should present geneaologies as laid forth in Hesiod's poem, but I see no special reason why it must exclude them altogether. Since other versions of myths may lay forth alternate lineages, having the Hesiod versions collected in this article seems practical and useful.  It would be quite difficult to summarize the poem without mentioning any filiations. Robert K S 07:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sticking close to Hesiod's text surely involves the genealogies. Spinning them out with details that are not in Hesiod is simply distracting. --Wetman 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Khaos borning Gaia
I thought that Gaia came after Khoas, not a child of her, also Theoi Project can back that up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.54.124 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pandora
The author of the article mentions that Zeus created woman as a punishment for the theft of fire, and names her Pandora. However, the name "Pandora" is not substantiated by the text of the Theogony itself (it is a general assumption based on a similar theme in "Works and Days" which does mention Pandora). In the Theogony, the woman is nameless, and there is no discussion of her opening the jar of hope or any of the other activities associated with her. I think it should be re-written to be authentic to the text, or at least mention that this is supposition based on other works by Hesiod. Madnessandcivilization (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * That's Pandora. Any decent interpretation of the Theogony will tell you so. There's no reason to avoid using her name, though it should be mentioned that the Theogony doesn't use it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Creation of the world-mythical cosmogonies
In general, I agree with people that this article has a number of confusions. With regard to the section on "Creation of the world-mythical cosmogonies" specifically:

First, "creation of the world" and "cosmogony" are synonyms, so the title of the section is odd. The author must mean something like "Comparison with Other Cosmogonies".

Second, however, there are thousands of cosmogonies, so it is not clear why an arbitrary sample of Orphic, Vedic, Judaic, and Babylonian cosmogonies should be offered, especially when they seem to shed no particular light on Hesiod's.

Third, and in a related way, concatenating Babylonian, Vedic, Judaic, Hesiodic, and Orphic cosmogonies together creates a false impression that they are contemporary somehow, when in fact they differ in time by thousands of years.

Fourth, more than this, the specific valences implied by each are radically divergent as well. The Judaic, Orphic, and Hesiodic cosmogony, for instance, have put a very different spin on the Female. The patriarchal revision of the Great Goddess and her consort (Eve and the serpent) are overly familiar, while the Orphic version makes the feminine contribution one-remove distant, when a male creator-god (Phanes) results from the splitting the "world-egg" by Khronos and Ananke, and the world-egg formed of Gaia and Ouranos. With Hesiod, the feminine is still discernible, but merely as the vaginal "gap" of Chaos.

So I see no value in this section, except that it covers some of the first events. The author had the sequence wrong, leaving out the creation of Tartaros before Eros, but I made that change as an uncontroversial addition. That part of the text being kept, I really don't see what the rest has to do with the Theogony, even as a contrast. I'd delete it.

Fifth, though this is kind of non sequitur in a Hesiod article, I'm not sure the sequence of Orphic creation provided by the author is correct. Specifically, I'm not certain why Aither or Chaos are being mentioned in regard to the world-egg or Phanes' creation. Just one more reason to delete this section as irrelevant. Talastra (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As a further addition, to cite that "the spirit of God" did anything is problematic, since the deity claimed to do so in this biblical passage is Elohiym, not God (and not even yet YHWH). It doesn't matter if it is a convention to refer to YHWH as God (capital letter intact); that obviously has a Judeo-Christian bias, but is also inaccurate as figures like Chaos and Gaia and so forth might just as readily be identified as "God". In other words, god is a title, not a name, and to use a title in place of a name, in a passage where other names, not titles, are being used is biased in the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talastra (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

manuscripts
I moved manuscripts section from Hesiod to here, though the section has problems. McCronion (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mummu?
"...and his power is necessary to get the job of birth." What does this mean? rowley (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made it less gibberish, but the section needs to be based upon reliable sources. West's survey of Theogonic literature in his commentary doesn't bother with Mummu.  I don't own his East Face of Helicon or Walcott's Hesiod and the Near East, but these are the sorts of works that should inform this section, not the addition of parallels adduced by editors of online sources. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut —  20:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation
I know google translate probably isn't the best source for this kind of thing (well, it's actually quite good). nonetheless, I put the greek word for Theogony into it & had a listen. I must admit, the voiced velar stop (g) sounds a bit more like a voiceless velar nasal (ŋ̊) (voiced if you count the Ohs on either side). Lostubes (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I listened to it too and as a Greek I must say the pronunciation is 100% correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.45.174 (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Manuscript Image
The image at the top of the page is not from Hesiod's Theogony, it's from his Works and Days, of which the first line is Mοῦσαι Πιερίηθεν ἀοιδῇσιν κλείουσαι  which can be seen on the first line of the manuscript. Should it be removed? ---- Brian.Bakkala (talk)
 * I agree, and yes it should be removed. Paul August ☎ 16:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theogony. 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 tag to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=k561uXI-uPgC&printsec
 * Added tag to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=k561uXI-uPgC&printsec
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170710121207/http://www.books.google.com/books?id=kFpd86J8PLsC&printsec to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=kFpd86J8PLsC&printsec

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) 11:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Title
I propose to change the present title of this article from "Theogony" to "The Theogony (Hesiod)". The reason is that theogony is a general term to be used for a genealogy of the gods, of which that from Hesiod is but one, even if it is the most important.--Auró (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. If someone searches for "Theogony," the person is almost certainly searching for the poem by Hesiod. The name may have other applications, but all those applications are clearly secondary to the Hesiodic poem. If you want, you can create a separate Theogony (disambiguation) page dealing with other potential uses of the term. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Katolophyromai. Paul August ☎ 22:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, I create a Theogony (Desambiguation) page containing two elements. The first is an explanation of the meaning of the term "Theogony", the second is a link to "The Theogony (Hesiod)". Is it this what Katolophyromai proposes?--Auró (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing anything; I am just saying that you can do that if you think it is necessary. If you think it is necessary to create another article about an alternative use of the word "Theogony" you can do that also. Really, my main point that I was trying to make is that the title of this article should remain the same as it is right now. Whatever you decide to do regarding other possible uses of the word is your decision and I do not really have much of an opinion on the matter. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you plan on writing an article about the general term, there is no reason to have a disambiguation page, since the purpose of such a page is to disambiguate bewtween multiple articles. Paul August ☎ 01:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it will be the best procedure. I put it in my to do list.--Auró (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Section "Children of Zeus and his seven wives"
Could you please explain why in this edit, you broke up a perfectly good paragraph, into eight separate sentences? This makes no sense at all. Paul August ☎ 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with ; the paragraph format was better, in my view. I too am puzzled why ICE77 has broken it up. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One-sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged, see for example Manual of Style/Layout which says: ”The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text”, and Writing better articles which says: ”One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly.” Since Katolophyromai concurs, and ICE77 has yet to respond (besides the "ping" above, I've also left a note at User talk:ICE77, which I assume they've seen since they've edited since), I've decided to restore the original paragraph structure. Paul August ☎ 11:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent "Bibliography edits"
I've just undone this edit so that we can discuss these proposed edits here. I have some initial questions, and concerns. I don't understand why Gant'z Early Greek myth 1993 edition was was added—to the already present 1996 edition—to the "References section", and why the citations to Gantz were (for the most part, although one was left simply as "Gantz") were changed to "Gantz, (1993)", when in fact it is the 1996 edition that is being cited (at least by me, and I think that I'm the one who entered all these). I'm also not sure why a separate "Explanatory notes" section is needed, and why such notes needed to be separated from the "Citations", since the two often refer to and compliment each other. And it is not clear to me what the proposed criteria is for what "notes" go where? For example, other material, which I would also consider "explanatory", currently in the "Notes" section, was moved to the "Citations" section. These are just some initial thoughts. I haven't had time to examine all the proposed changes in detail. But I thought the best thing to do would be to undo the changes, until we had a chance to discuss them here first. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 12:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been working through the proposed changes in more detail (restoring any that I don't have issues with), and I've discovered another set of changes I don't understand, the addition of the "plain link" template for external-links (the template is intended to be used only for local or interwiki links not for external links) e.g. changing: Hard, p. 67, to Hard,, seems incorrect to me. Paul August ☎ 13:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 * If you want to go through the cleanup it's fine with me.

 * The reason I replaced using Gantz's 1993 were that 1) it was available in snippet view, so the page numbers could be confirmed straightaway by me or other editors (and I did check), 2) you listed the 1996 edition as "Two Volumes" so your citations were deficient when it failed to say "Gantz, volume I, p. xx".

 * "Explanatory notes" is obviously extra "explanatory" content you didn't contain in the main body but tucked it into footnote. "Citation" is just citation. Anyone can tell the difference, as I am sure you can.
 * Yes, there is probably some gray zone. And yes, I probably did leave a few which I did not shift over, because this turned out to be more laborious than I imagined.

 * This labor was that when I moved these footnotes to explanatory notes by containing it inside efn, it issued error messages, and I had to convert to Plain link to make the messages go away.

 * However you are right, the Plain link suppresses displaying the external link icon (Insertlink.gif), and the correct template I should been using was URL.--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for these comments. The reason I didn't specify the volume number for the Gantz, cites is because the two volumes are continuously paged, i.e. pp. 1–466 are in vol. 1, while pp. 467–873 are in vol. 2. But if you think it's necessary I can add the vol. number?

 * The current system of a "Notes" section, containing notes with a mix of citations and explanatory material, is common (in this field at least), and seems pefectly adequate to me. It's not clear to me that trying to segregate the citations from the explanatory text, is good idea. As I said above the two seem inextricably intertwined. And yes, of course, I can tell the difference between notes which contain only citations and those that contain only explanatory text, but it's precisely the "gray zone" that bothers me, notes that contain both citations and explanatory text, which can't be separtated since they, for example, mix citations with explanations of those citations, or explanations that use citations as part of the explanation, etc. Where would these go? Having them be either in a section called "Explanatory notes", or a section called "Citations" would seem incorrect to me.

 * Paul August ☎ 16:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The succession myth needs no introduction?
The article simply states that a succession myth exists, and gives what story is called the succession myth. It doesn't describe why it's called that or what special importance it has compared to the rest of the Theogony. That section's only source is Theogony itself. The section seems very off to me, and I can't find anything online that explains it. I imagine it's called the succession myth because its a succession within what early English writers called Greek myth, but the article doesn't give any clues on the matter. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Succession Myth, is one of the most important parts of the Theogony, arguably the main point of the poem. It is called the "Succession Myth" because it is the story of the succession of the rulership of the cosmos. How Uranus, the first ruler of the cosmos, was overthrown by his son Cronus, (i.e. succeeding his father as ruler), and how Cronus was overthrown by his son Zeus, (again succeeding his father). This is covered by that section's introduction, its first paragraph:
 * One of the principal components of the Theogony is the presentation of the "Succession Myth". It tells how Cronus overthrew Uranus, and how in turn Zeus overthrew Cronus and his fellow Titans, and how Zeus was eventually established as the final and permanent ruler of the cosmos.

 * And, contrary to the statement that that "section's only source is Theogony itself", that introductory paragraph provides secondary sources (one of which can be found online, follow the given links). And further secondary sources are given throughout that section: West 1988, p. 7; West 1966, pp. 206, 213, 214, 297–298, 303–305, 338; Gantz, pp. 10, 45; Caldwell, pp. 37, 65; Hard, pp. 74–75.
 * You say further that that section seems "very off". Could you say what it is you mean by that? Off in what way exactly?
 * Paul August ☎ 10:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the sources besides the first one by Hard and the storm of different sources listed under (10) in that section are the text of Theogony. The latter are just commenting on different interpretations of the Succession Myth. The section doesn't explain the relevancy of the Succession Myth beyond its internal contents, although it briefly says that the Myth is in Theogony; its said to be only 'one' of the principal components of Theogony so why not list them all? Why devote a section to this one in particular? That's what's very off about it. If I created a section that called "Casablanca" in the page on Humphrey Bogart, and only said "Casablanca was a very important part of Humphrey Bogart's career" and then recounted without context that story's plot and different interpretations of it, you'd still have no idea what Casablanca is or why there's a section devoted to it in Bogart's article. A section needs to be introduced and explained for its external value, not its internal value, and simply saying "it is important" isn't enough identification or justification. Any arguments over different interpretations should be explained in the article text if they're important, not as a dialogue inside a citation.
 * The section should read in the vein of "The Succession Myth is a narrative in ancient Greek mythology central to some Greek creation myths of [eras]. [Relate the Myth]. Theogony's take on it [differs in this way]. [Describe the Myth's relation to early Mythography, if applicable; which seems to be the case since there's a special name for it in English which is not given in the primary text]. Some modern scholars on the subject [think this] while others [think that]." I recommend something like this because articles should be presented with structure and context, not as narrative stories. This section doesn't tell you anything useful about the Succession Myth beyond how it is told as a story.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hesiod's account of the Sucession Myth is obviously relevant to the Theogony. As it forms a significant fraction of the whole poem, and is in fact, as the article states, one of the " principal components" of the poem, how could it not be relevant? As for other principal compoments, two others are the genealogies, and the Prometheus story, which are described in the two sections that immediately follow: "The genealogies" and "Prometheus". As for the Succession Myth not deserving it's own section why would it not? Paul August ☎ 14:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. The article needs to say what the Succession Myth is, and not indirectly imply what it is. I found this paper by a social anthropologist which states that "the story of the three gods is called the succession myth" and gives the West 1966 translation as a source. Do you have a copy of the West book? Is there a footnote or anything in there about what, in direct terms, the Succession Myth is, or what the impetus is for calling it that? I even looked in other language wikis, and only the Spanish one mentions it; but I looked up the term they used on Google Scholar and the term seems to only apply in Spanish literature to something that happened in the 1600s. So, it looks like the term is only used by English-speaking mythologists. However, I don't see any credence for the way this passage of myth is presented in the article from the sources given. What the current version of the article does is give interpretation and uses the primary source material as source of that interpretation. I would change it myself, but there isn't enough context for me to work with. I can't just say what I think the Succession Myth is and why it's called that, because that would be original research. But, again, it's a name not found in the primary source used as a way of identifying part of that source, for which we have no known citation. In example, we might as well call the story of Moses parting the Red Sea "The Walking on the Sea Floor Myth" simply because one scholar called it that. But why would we not clarify who calls it that and why? A tertiary source scholar doesn't necessarily inform what parts of a text are called. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I looked it up, and you created that section in 2019. The original source was West, and you later changed the same sentence to be sourced to Hard, whose source, if you click the Hard link, is West. I just don't understand what happened there. Could we perhaps just call that section something else? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to implement these changes. One remaining problem is that the synopsis below the section I edited is essentially interpretation of a primary source from original research. I don't want to create a massive workload for one or two people, but it would be better if there were secondary sources. If this were a book of modern religious significance, this section style would be considered unacceptable. Very problematic, too, are the footnotes that, without any source, explain and analyze the tertiary sources (Hard, West, and the 1914 translation) in an authoritative style. This might be different if Theogony were being used as a secondary source, but describing what it intends to tell the reader from within itself seems to violate standards on sourcing. Look at the article Book of Jeremiah for a good example. When that article gives an interpretation or even general descriptions, it cites a secondary or tertiary source, not the book itself. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You say: The article needs to say what the Succession Myth is. But it seems to me that it does say what it is. It says that the "Succession Myth" is the story of "how Cronus overthrew Uranus, and how in turn Zeus overthrew Cronus and his fellow Titans, and how Zeus was eventually established as the final and permanent ruler of the cosmos." You ask why it's called the Succession Myth? It is called that because it is the myth about the succession of the first three rulers of the gods, hence "Succession Myth". Why shouldn't it be called that?

Here are some additional sources that might help:
 * Hansen, pp. 293–294
 * Sowa, pp. 145 ff.
 * Frazer, pp. 8–9
 * Graf, pp. 88–89
 * Edmunds, p. 176
 * Stamatopoulou, p. 7
 * For others see Google Books search

You also say above that the synopsis given in this section is essentially interpretation of a primary source from original research. But the summary is based on the secondary sources cited in the first sentence, Hard and West, and for specific sentences to the secondary sources Gantz, Caldwell, as well as to the linked translation of the Theogony, the translation being a secondary source as to what the Theogony says (as opposed to say what it means). Can you give, as an example for discussion, a specific sentence, which you think constitutes original research?

I've also created a new section (see below) where we can discuss the newly added "Story" template.

Paul August ☎ 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 * The name of something can't tell you what it means. That's a self-reference. You could interpret what a word means from its constituent parts, but that's inference. Wikipedia should not rely on common sense alone to communicate ideas. And the words "succession myth" don't concretely tell you what the term means; there's nothing in the word itself that tells you "Cronus overthrew Uranus, and how in turn Zeus overthrew Cronus and his fellow Titans, and how Zeus was eventually established as the final and permanent ruler of the cosmos." You even put it in quotation marks; why? I think it's because it's a term which isn't mentioned in the actual story, especially not to describe the story. It's a succession within a myth, but only western classical scholars and mythologists, mostly working off the work of one person, call it that. As such, I think its a sort of ethnographic term passed around by western scholars. I think using terms simply because a scholar did so violates the concepts Wikipedia has been moving towards, of looking at culture from an inclusive (local and external) perspective rather than one of imperialism. Considering a Western term to describe a concept which is not from within that culture "obvious, and why wouldn't we use it?" seems, to me, to be support of the primacy of that external and examining culture. Why does Mr. West's commentary have more weight than the original text, which gives no name for the story? Or, at least, describe where the term comes from instead of assuming that it's very obvious we should use it.

 * A translation is only interpretation (and thus a secondary source) by implicit fact, so you're partially right. But a translation isn't direct commentary, and it's the only way people who don't speak the primary source's language can consider it. A translation is subject to further interpretation, so its Use the footnotes in a translation or sources like the ones you presented to give ideas which aren't in the text.

 * All that said, I've looked it over again and I was too hasty in judging the tone of some of the citations. I think a bias I have against a tone where Wikipedia articles write myths as if they happened, rather than from a intellectual point of view, tainted how I was reading your notes, and my inability to access some of the sources compounded that thinking. I now think I was wrong in thinking there was something wrong with the way the article was sourced, and I'll remove the "reads like a story" tag. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm still having some problems thinking of how to describe the Succession Myth. It seems to be the ideas behind the succession of gods to Zeus, and not exactly a specific section of Theogony. Is that right? That Theogony talks about the Succession Myth, which is an idea presented in other works besides Theogony. So when we say "it tells", what really are we describing as "it"? Theogony? The Succession Myth? Maybe I'm just overthinking things. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Story template?
recently placed the following template in the section on the "Succession Myth":

Could you please give examples?

Paul August ☎ 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I removed the tag, per above discussion. But I think there are still a few problems, like dropping (Sky) behind Uranus and expecting layman readers to know that doing so indicates that Uranos literally means "sky", but in a personified way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Pseudologoi vs pseudea and logoi
Almost every page on Wikipedia shows 2 opposing ideas towards the children of Eris. Even in this page, the text states Pseudologoi while the diagram states Pseudea and Logoi. Eris's page also has this problem. One translation should be chosen. Preferably the correct one. 2A02:A210:A401:4B80:8C47:E772:37F7:C3E1 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 * The relevant line from the Theogony is line 229:
 * Νείκεά τε Ψεύδεά τε Λόγους τ’ Ἀμφιλλογίας τε (Most 2018, p. 20; West (1966), p. 120.)

 * Here are four modern translations of line 229:
 * and Strifes and Lies and Tales and Disputes (Most 2018, p. 21)
 * Quarrels, Lies, Pretenses, and Arguments (West 1988, p. 10)
 * Neikea, Pseudea, Logoi, and Amphillogiai (Caldwell 1987, p. 42, which on p. 6 table 5 translates the names as "Neikea [Quarrels]", "Pseudea [Lies]", "Logoi [Stories]", and "Amphillogiai [Disputes]"),
 * Quarrels and Lies and Stories and Disputes (Wender 1973, p. 30)

 * Evelyn-White's 1914 Greek text:
 * Νείκεά τε ψευδέας τε Λόγους Ἀμφιλλογίας τε
 * and corresponding translation is simply out of date.

 * Works cited above:
 * Caldwell, Richard, Hesiod's Theogony, Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Company (June 1, 1987). ISBN 978-0-941051-00-2.
 * Most, G.W., Hesiod, Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia, Edited and translated by Glenn W. Most, Loeb Classical Library No. 57, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2018. ISBN 978-0-674-99720-2. Online version at Harvard University Press.
 * Wender, Dorthea, Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days; Theogonis: Elegies, Penguin Books, 1987 (first published 1973).
 * West, M. L. (1966), Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-814169-6.
 * West, M. L. (1988), Hesiod: Theogony and Works and Days, Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-953831-7.

 * Paul August ☎ 12:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Recently, user, in the list of offspring of Eris, has replaced the long-standing "Pseudea" and "Logoi" with "Pseudologoi". I reverted but Horkosianist reverted me. I'm hoping that we can come to a consensus on this talk page as what should be done here. Horkosianist's last edit summary says: Just because the translation is old does not mean the new translations. The Pseudologoi is mentioned in multiple greek texts as mentioned on theoi.com. Pseudea and Logoi are mistranslations. But the issue is not necessarily with Evelyn-White's translation but with the underlying Greek text being used (see above). Also, Theoi.com's entry on "Psedologoi", only mentions two texts other than the Theogony both of which are in Latin, so neither use the Greek "Psedologoi". In my view, unless we come up with a modern reliable source (per WP:RS) which supports Evelyn-White's Pseudologoi, we need to restore the prevoius version of the article. Paul August ☎ 11:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. As for the Greek text being used, West 1966, p. 231, in the commentary on Ψεύδεά in line 229, writes: "Some MSS. have ψευδέας τε λόγους, an expression common later, especially in philosophical writing (Pl. Crat. 385B, Soph. 240E, Arist. Top. 162b3, ... etc.) but unknown to early poetry: the adjective ψευδέής is itself not certainly attested before the fifth century (IG I2, 700; ...) Λόγους can stand alone, for the context shows that it is to be understood in a bad sense." Paul August ☎ 12:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 * This line you quoted is most interesting:
 * Νείκεά τε Ψεύδεά τε Λόγους τ’ Ἀμφιλλογίας τε
 * I do not have access to the wikipedia library as my account does not meet the requirements. However, as your quoted line includes a " τ’ " that is not included in the text Evelyn-White translated it piques my interest. If it is verifiable that this " τ’ " is in the original text then we can come to a conclusion, because it is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
 * Νείκεά τε ψευδέας τε Λόγους Ἀμφιλλογίας τε
 * These two lines are fundamentally different just because of that. Horkosianist (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Well, as I indicated above, that line is in both:
 * West, M. L. (1966), Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-814169-6
 * Most, G.W., Hesiod, Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia, Edited and translated by Glenn W. Most, Loeb Classical Library No. 57, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2018. ISBN 978-0-674-99720-2. Online version at Harvard University Press.
 * Both readily available works. Paul August ☎ 16:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 * So far I've gone through three manuscripts. Bodleian Library MS. Barocci 60, page f129v, from the 15th century, Bodleian Library MS. Barocci 109, page f95v, from the 15th century and Arundel MS 522, page f40r, from 1489. The former two mention pseudea and logoi. The latter only mentions "psadea". It occurs to me that these manuscripts are not perfect either, but so far the evidence leans in your direction. It makes me wonder why the term pseudologoi is so much better known on the internet than pseudea or logoi. I'll refrain from changing it for now. Horkosianist (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a respectable modern edition which follows Evelyn-White's text, I see no reason why we shouldn't accept the apparent consensus of modern scholarship – both Glenn Most and (especially) Martin West are highly respected scholars of Greek literature, and the field has made significant advances in the nearly 100 years since Evelyn-White died. Wikipedia follows the scholarly consensus of today; not the scholarly consensus of the 1910s. (As for Horkosianist's question as to why "pseudologoi" is so much more common on the internet - dated texts are often more available for free online thanks to being out-of-copyright; you can find some incredibly questionable translations uncritically repeated!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the main reason for the ubiquity of "pseudologoi" on the web is Theoi.com (a heavily used and useful, but unreliable source). Paul August ☎ 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's my instinctual criticism of new scholars that has come back to haunt me. I too did fall for those dated texts, as the most common unicode greek version of the theogony online forgoes that "τ’". It also makes me wonder which manuscript Evelyn-White translated from. At least the original texts can now be referred to as a source in this dispute. Pseudea and Logoi are the correct translation after all. Horkosianist (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be consensus for the previous version I will restore it here (and elsewhere). Paul August ☎ 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. thanks for your gracious discussion here.

mutulation of uranus by chronos or by saturn?
see relatedcpicture and corresponding title. saturn = chronos? 94.208.121.220 (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In Greek mythology the sky-god Uranus was castrated by his Titan son Cronus (not Chronus, the Greek god of time!). The equivalent god to Cronus, in Roman mythology is Saturn. However, for some reason, the painting was titled The Mutilation of Uranus by Saturn, confusingly using the Greek name for father sky-god ("Uranus") and the Roman name for his son ("Saturn"). Paul August ☎ 13:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Keres
This article lists both Ker (Destiny) and Keres (Destinies) among the Descendants of Nyx. They both link to this article which says there were multiple Keres, and Ker is the singular form of the word. If Ker is different than Keres, then they shouldn't both link to the same thing. And if they're the same, then either the article shouldn't list both of them, or it should explain why it lists both of them. - Burner89751654 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * The article lists "Ker" (which means death, doom, destiny, fate, etc.) and the "Keres" (the plural form of Ker) as both being offspring of Nyx, because that's what Hesiod's Theogony says. Hesiod is treating these as distinct personifications. Just like he lists both Moros (another Greek word which also means death, doom, destiny, fate, etc.) and the Moirai (the plural form of Moros) as separate offspring of Nyx. The reason that both Ker and Keres (unlike Moros and Moirai) link to the same article is because we currently only have one article which covers both topics. Paul August ☎

Common noun, not just 1 specific poem
Therefore, "theogony" linking here is wrong. Arminden (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yes provided there were somewhere else to link to, but at present there isn't (yet?). Paul August ☎ 18:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It might make sense to have a separate page for the theogonic form more broadly, though I think Hesiod's Theogony would still be the primary topic, and since we can't have "theogony" and "Theogony" going to different locations, "theogony" would still redirect here. Though maybe you're suggesting that the work by Hesiod shouldn't be the primary topic? – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Theogony


text:
Letcher

Letcher may refer to:

Places

 * Letcher, South Dakota
 * Letcher County, Kentucky

People

 * Chris Letcher, South African singer/songwriter
 * Cliff Letcher (born 1952), Australian professional tennis player
 * John Letcher, American lawyer and politician
 * John D. Letcher, American academic
 * Lesley Letcher, New Zealand soccer player
 * Robert P. Letcher, American politician
 * Tom Letcher, baseball outfielder

title: Letcher


text:
Administrative districts of Serbia

The administrative districts (управни округ) of the Republic of Serbia are the country's first-level administrative division. The term okrug (pl. okruzi) means "circuit" and corresponds (in literal meaning) to Bezirk in German language. It can be translated as "county", though it is generally rendered by the Serbian government as "district". Prior to a 2006 decree, the administrative districts were named simply districts.

The Serbian local government reforms of 1992, going into effect the following year, created 29 districts, with the City of Belgrade having similar status. Following the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, the districts created by the UNMIK-Administration were adopted by Kosovo. The Serbian government does not recognize these districts.

The districts of Serbia are generally named after historical and geographical regions, though some, such as the Pčinja District and the Nišava District, are named after local rivers. Their areas and populations vary, ranging from the relatively-small Podunavlje District to the much larger Zlatibor District.

As they are mere designations of territorial remit of regional administrative centres through which the central government exercises its power within a hierarchical order, the districts are distinctly not units of regional self-governance, and as such they do not have flags. Still, they are each run by a commissioner as well as cooperating municipal leaders. Rather than being further divisible into municipalities, each district overlaps with its corresponding cluster of municipalities (which are units of local self-governance).

Definition
Administrative districts were first defined by the Government of Serbia's Decree of 29 January 1992, which specifies that Ministries and other national-level agencies shall conduct their affairs outside their headquarters (i.e. outside the seat of government) via regional offices that they may establish per the designated clusters of municipalities (named only "districts"), also designating the administrative seat of each district ("regional center of state administration"). The 2005 Law on Public Administration provided a legal definition of a district, under the term "administrative district". "An administrative district shall be established for the execution of state administration tasks outside the headquarters of the state administration authority....The Government shall establish administrative districts by its regulation, by which it shall also determine areas and seats of administrative districts." In 2006, the Government enacted the Decree on Administrative Districts, which renamed the districts into administrative districts.

The territorial organisation of Serbia is regulated by the Law on Territorial Organization, adopted by the National Assembly on 29 December 2007. According to the Law, the territorial organization of the republic comprises municipalities and cities, the City of Belgrade with special status, and autonomous provinces. Districts are not mentioned in this law.

List of districts
Serbia is divided into 29 districts (8 in Šumadija and Western Serbia, 9 in Southern and Eastern Serbia, 7 in Vojvodina and 5 in Kosovo and Metohija), plus the City of Belgrade. The City of Belgrade is not part of any district, but has a special status very similar to that of a district.

title: Administrative districts of Serbia


text:
Talk:Administrative districts of Serbia

Note: ''All official material made by Government of Serbia is public by law. Information was taken from official website.

Make better and standardize
I've done some reordering of the districts on this page and in the template (alphabetical order is much more natural for a random reader, not familiar with the geography of Serbia.

I've also "touched up" the articles for the districts in Vojvodina. If they're good this way, I could use some help with standardizing the rest. Zocky 00:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * come on standardize it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avala (talk • contribs) 19:51, 3 July 2004 (UTC)

Rename
This articel must be renamed to District of Serbia during Milosevic time. and must be putit in Category History of Serbia--Hipi Zhdripi 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mergeto
This article, Regions of Serbia and Subdivisions of Serbia share 90% of information. I fail to see why it needs to be repeated, and, apart from the list of "regions", districts and municipalities and maps (most shared), what else could possibly be written about the division in general? I hate forks for no apparent reason. Duja 11:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On the "Serbia organization" section
The two following sentences are not clear (at least I couldn't understand their meaning): Also the "Serbia organization" title could be changed to "Territorial organization of Serbia". Being not familiar with the topic, I won't introduce any change myself. -- Best regards, Evv 08:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Under the law, the municipalities, cities and settlements make the bases of the territorial organization.
 * By its Enactment of 29 January 1992, the Government of the Republic of Serbia defined the state administration affairs that shall be run by the competent Ministries out of their seats, within the districts as regional centers of state authority.

 * Good spot. It's copied from http://www.arhiva.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cms/view.php?id=1010. It's legalese combined with poor translation. I'll try to clarify it somewhat. Duja ► 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Map of serbian districts
Some idiot changed the map of Serbian districts showing Kosovo as a autonomous republic!!! TheMiner (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
Clearly there is a question about what to say about Kosovo's districts.

The POV of the Government of Kosovo is that Kosovo is not part of Serbia.

The POV of the Government of Serbiais that Kosovo is part of Serbia, albeit a part outside the control of the Government of Serbia.

I would think there are two possible neutral POV ways of dealing with this situation
 * Kosovo district should not be inclueded here, but instead including a link to Districts of Kosovo.
 * Kosovo districts should be included in this article because of Serbia claim to Kosovo.

I've adopted the second choice, but other editors should feel free to adopt the first choice and delete the Kosovo districts from this article.

2007apm (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Administrative districts of Serbia


text:
Martin Clark (snooker player)

Martin Clark (born 27 October 1968) is an English organiser of snooker tournaments and retired professional snooker player.

Career
Clark reached ten ranking tournament quarter-finals in his career, but never progressed any further. He reached the last 16 of the World Championship three times – 1991, 1992 and 1993, and also in 1992 reached the first major semi-final of his career at the World Matchplay by knocking out defending champion Gary Wilkinson. He won two non-ranking events, defeating Ray Reardon in the final of the European Grand Masters in 1990 and Andy Hicks in the Pontins Professional in 1997.

He retired as a pro player at a relatively young age, due to neck problems, and is now a tournament director. He has also helped with equipment maintenance (e.g. checking the replacement cloths) at the World Snooker Championship.

In November 2017, Belgian player Luca Brecel was forced to borrow clothes from Clark and fellow player Michael White after lifting the wrong suitcase at an airport in Shanghai.

title: Martin Clark (snooker player)


text:
Hawksburn railway station

Hawksburn railway station is a commuter railway station on the Frankston line, serving the south Melbourne suburb of South Yarra in Victoria, Australia. Hawksburn is a below ground unstaffed station, featuring four platforms with an island platform and two side platforms accessible by a pedestrian bridge. The station is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, and was opened on 7 May 1879.

The stations' namesake is the locality of Hawksburn, situated 600 metres from the station. The station is only partially accessible due to multiple steep access ramps.

There are two principal station buildings, one of which is located on the stations central island platform (platforms 2 and 3) consisting of a small two story brick building, whilst the other is a one story brick structure situated on platform 4. These buildings were provided for the station in 1914, as ticketing and staff offices.

Hawksburn is only served by the Frankston line, part of the Melbourne railway network, although Cranbourne and Pakenham lines do run through the station these services are express and do not stop. Hawksburn doesn’t have any transport connections unlike the majority of Melbourne train stations. The journey to Flinders Street railway station is approximately 5.3 kilometres (3.29 mi) and takes 9 minutes.

Description
Hawksburn railway station is located in the suburb of South Yarra, a suburb of Melbourne, Victoria. The station is located nearby to the Hawksburn shopping precinct and the Prahran Housing Commission Estate. The station is owned by VicTrack, a state government agency, and the station is operated by Metro Trains. The station is approximately 5.3 kilometres (3.29 mi), or an 9-minute train journey, from Flinders Street station. The adjacent stations are South Yarra station up towards Melbourne, and Toorak station down towards Frankston.

The station consists of a single island platform and two side platforms with a total of four platform edges. Standard in Melbourne, the platform has an asphalt surface with concrete on the edges. The platforms are approximately 160 m long, enough for a Metro Trains 7 car HCMT. The station features a pedestrian bridge, accessed from the centre of the platforms by a ramp. The station features two principal station buildings, both former ticketing offices which are now heritage listed staff facilities. Distinct Edwardian architectural features of the red brick station buildings include ornate parapets, cement banding, tall chimneys with terracotta pots, tiled hip roof with terracotta finials, and stucco walls.

The station building, platform, and overpass are largely the same as when originally built, with the main change being updated signage, technology, and the addition of one new platform canopy amongst other minor building and platform upgrades. There is no car parking available at the station. The station is listed as an "assisted access" station on the Metro Trains website, as the access ramp is too steep and would require assistance for wheelchair customers to traverse.

History
Hawksburn railway station was opened on 7 May 1879 with the station consisting of a single platform and track for commuter and freight service. Like the locality itself, the station was named after Hawksburn Estate, where the station is located. The first station buildings were opened on the site between 1881 and 1883 to coincide with the duplication of track between the city and Oakleigh. The current station was constructed in 1914 to provide improved and additional facilities to what had become an increasingly busy and important location on the train network. The station rebuild was part of level crossing removal works that removed all level crossings, rebuilt all stations, and quadruplicated the corridor between South Yarra and Caulfield by 1914. Later in 1922, the line was electrified using 1500 V DC overhead wires with three position signalling also introduced.

The station has mostly stayed the same since 1914, with only minor upgrades taking place. In 1972, the island platform (Platforms 2 and 3) was extended at both ends. In 1993, major re-signalling works occurred between Toorak and Caulfield stations. The station underwent minor upgrades with the installation of one new shelter on Platform 1 in the 2010s. In 2021, resignalling works occurred to upgrade the corridor to high capacity signalling as part of the Metro Tunnel project.

Platforms and services
Hawksburn has two side platforms and one island platform with four faces. The station is currently served by the Frankston line—a service on the metropolitan rail network. The Frankston line runs from Frankston station south east of Melbourne, joining the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines at Caulfield station before continuing onto the Werribee or Williamstown lines via Flinders Street station. Despite the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines operating through the station, these services no longer stop at the station due to low station patronage, instead running express through the station.

Platform 1:
 * all stations services to Flinders Street, Werribee and Williamstown

Platform 2:
 * all stations services to Frankston

Platform 3:
 * No services stop at this platform. Cranbourne and Pakenham line services run express through this station.

Platform 4:
 * No services stop at this platform. Cranbourne and Pakenham line services run express through this station.

Transport links
Rare amongst Melbourne train stations, Hawksburn station has no other transport connections. There are other transport connections on Malvern and Toorak roads, however, these are over 200 metres (656 ft) away from the station. Hawksburn station does however have train replacement bus stops located adjacent to the station.

title: Hawksburn railway station


text:
Status group

The German sociologist Max Weber formulated a three-component theory of stratification that defines a status group (also status class and status estate) as a group of people within a society who can be differentiated by non-economic qualities such as honour, prestige, ethnicity, race, and religion. The German terms are Stand (status group) and Stände (status groups)

To date, sociologists study the matter of “status incongruence” — both in post-industrial societies, and in pre-industrial societies. Status groups emerge from "the house of honor", and that such status-honor stands in contrast with:
 * social class, based on economically determined relationship in the house of the marketplace
 * political party, based on affiliations in the political domain, or the house of power

Status groups, social classes, and political parties are the constituent concepts of the three-component theory of stratification. Discussion of the relationships among status groups, social class, and political parties occurs in Weber's essay "Class, Status, Party", written before the First World War (1914–18); the first translation into English, by Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, was published in the 1940s. Dagmar Waters and colleagues produced a newer English translation of the essay, titled “The Distribution of Power within the Community: Classes, Stände, Parties” (2010), published in the “Journal of Classical Sociology”; the title of the new English-language translation includes the German word “Stände” (status groups) in place of the English term.

Status groups feature in the varieties of social stratification addressed in popular literature and in the academic literature, such as categorization of people by race, ethnic group, racial caste, professional groups, community groups, nationalities, etc. These contrast with relationships rooted in economic relations, which Weber calls "class".

Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu discusses cultural capital and symbolic capital. Like Weber, he comments on how non-monetary means are used to confer and deny status to individuals and groups.

title: Status group


text:
North Bačka District

The North Bačka District (Севернобачки округ, ; Észak-bácskai körzet) is one of seven administrative districts of the autonomous province of Vojvodina, Serbia. It lies in the Bačka geographical region. According to the 2022 census results, it has a population of 160,163 inhabitants. The administrative center of the district is the city of Subotica.

Administrative history
In the 9th century, the area was ruled by the Bulgarian-Slavic duke Salan. From the 11th to the 16th century, during the administration of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, the area was divided between the Bodrogiensis County, Bacsensis County, Csongradiensis County, and Cumania region. From 1526 to 1527, the area was ruled by the independent Serb ruler, emperor Jovan Nenad, while during Ottoman administration (16th-17th century), it was part of the Sanjak of Segedin.

During Habsburg administration (18th century), the area was divided between the Military Frontier and the Batsch County. The Batsch County was joined with the Bodrog County into the single Batsch-Bodrog County in the 18th century. Since the abolishment of the Theiß-Marosch section of the Military Frontier in 1751, part of that territory was also included into the Batsch-Bodrog County. In the 1850s, the area was part of the Sombor District, and after 1860, it was again included into Batsch-Bodrog County.

During the royal Serb-Croat-Slovene (Yugoslav) administration (1918-1941), the area was part of the Novi Sad County (1918-1922), Bačka Oblast (1922-1929), and Danube Banovina (1929-1941).

During the Hungarian-German Axis occupation (1941-1944), the area was included into Bács-Bodrog County. From 1944, the area was part of the autonomous Yugoslav Vojvodina (which was part of the new socialist Yugoslav Serbia from 1945). The present-day districts of Serbia (including the North Bačka District) were defined by the Government of Serbia's Enactment of 29 January 1992.

Municipalities
The North Bačka District comprises three municipalities and 45 local communities. The municipalities are:
 * Subotica (Hungarian: Szabadka)
 * Bačka Topola (Hungarian: Topolya)
 * Mali Iđoš (Hungarian: Kishegyes)

Demographics
According to the last official censuses done in 2011 and 2022, the North Bačka District had 186,906 and 160,163 inhabitants respectively.

Ethnic groups
The population of the district is ethnically mixed.

Languages
Languages spoken in the district (2022 census):
 * Serbian — 86,005 (53.69%)
 * Hungarian — 56,398 (35.21%)
 * Croatian — 4,010 (2.50%)
 * Other

(*) The total number of speakers of South Slavic languages (Serbian and Croatian) that live in the district is 90,015 (56.20%).

Religion
Religion (2002 census):
 * Roman Catholic = 117,456 (58.69%)
 * Orthodox = 55,028 (27.50%)
 * Protestant = 9,844 (4.92%)
 * Other

Municipalities and local communities
As of 2002, two municipalities have a Hungarian ethnic majority: Bačka Topola (58.94%) and Mali Iđoš (55.92%), while one municipality (Subotica) is ethnically mixed. The population of Subotica is composed of: Hungarians (38.47%), Serbs (24.14%), Croats (11.24%), Bunjevci (10.95%), Yugoslavs (5.76%), Montenegrins (1.25%), and others.

As for local communities, 20 have a Hungarian majority, 15 have a Serb majority, seven have Croatian/Bunjevci majority, one has a Montenegrin majority and two are ethnically mixed, with a Hungarian relative majority.

Culture
Subotica is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious center; in addition to the major Roman Catholic and Serbian Orthodox communities, there are nearly thirty other small-sized religious communities in the town. The most remarkable religious buildings are Subotica Synagogue, Cathedral of Saint Teresa of Avila from 1797, a Franciscan Monastery from 1736, and St Dimitrije Serbian Orthodox Church in Aleksandrovo neighborhood from 1818.

Economy
In accordance with its very rich resources, the region's food processing industry is well developed. The best examples are "29 November" meat industry, "Pionir" food factory and "Fidelinka" bread and flour products factory. Subotica ranks among the leading communities in Serbia when it comes to crop yields (maize, wheat and sunflower).

title: North Bačka District


text:
Category:Role-playing games

A role-playing game (RPG) is a type of game in which players assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. This includes traditional, live-action (LARP) and computer-assisted (CARP) role-playing games. For their electronic counterparts, see role-playing video games. __NOGALLERY__

title: Category:Role-playing games


text:
Talk:Coven

New Section: Coven Offices and Titles
There should be a subsection titled, Offices and Titles. With at least Witch King/Queen, High Priest/ess, Maiden, Fetch, Scribe/Secretary, Bard, Archivist, Man at Arms, Purswarden/treasurer, etc. 192.30.184.240 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology
— Assignment last updated by MoonFlower.l (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Coven