text:
Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method

The Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method (DLS) is a mathematical formulation designed to calculate the target score (number of runs needed to win) for the team batting second in a limited overs cricket match interrupted by weather or other circumstances. The method was devised by two English statisticians, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, and was formerly known as the Duckworth–Lewis method (D/L). It was introduced in 1997, and adopted officially by the ICC in 1999. After the retirement of both Duckworth and Lewis, the Australian statistician Steven Stern became the custodian of the method, which was renamed to its current title in November 2014. In 2014, he refined the model to better fit modern scoring trends, especially in T20 cricket, resulting in the updated Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method. This refined method remains the standard for handling rain-affected matches in international cricket today.

The target score in cricket matches without interruptions is one more than the number of runs scored by the team that batted first. When overs are lost, setting an adjusted target for the team batting second is not as simple as reducing the run target proportionally to the loss in overs, because a team with ten wickets in hand and 25 overs to bat can play more aggressively than if they had ten wickets and a full 50 overs, for example, and can consequently achieve a higher run rate. The DLS method is an attempt to set a statistically fair target for the second team's innings, which is the same difficulty as the original target. The basic principle is that each team in a limited-overs match has two resources available with which to score runs (overs to play and wickets remaining), and the target is adjusted proportionally to the change in the combination of these two resources.

History and creation
Various different methods had been used previously to resolve rain-affected cricket matches, with the most common being the Average Run Rate method, and later, the Most Productive Overs method.

While simple in nature, these methods had intrinsic flaws and were easily exploitable:
 * The Average Run Rate method took no account of wickets lost by the team batting second, but simply reflected their scoring rate when the match was interrupted. If the team felt a rain stoppage was likely, they could attempt to force the scoring rate with no regard for the corresponding highly likely loss of wickets, meaning any comparison with the team batting first would be flawed.
 * The Most Productive Overs method not only took no account of wickets lost by the team batting second, but also effectively penalised the team batting second for good bowling by ignoring their best overs in setting the revised target.
 * Both of these methods also produced revised targets that frequently altered the balance of the match, and they took no account of the match situation at the time of the interruption.

The D/L method was devised by two British statisticians, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, as a result of the outcome of the semi-final in the 1992 World Cup between England and South Africa, where the Most Productive Overs method was used. When rain stopped play for 12 minutes, South Africa needed 22 runs from 13 balls, but when play resumed, the revised target left South Africa needing 21 runs from one ball, a reduction of only one run compared to a reduction of two overs, and a virtually impossible target given that the maximum score from one ball is generally six runs. Duckworth said, "I recall hearing Christopher Martin-Jenkins on radio saying 'surely someone, somewhere could come up with something better' and I soon realised that it was a mathematical problem that required a mathematical solution." The D/L method avoids this flaw: in this match, the revised D/L target of 236 would have left South Africa needing four to tie or five to win from the final ball.

The D/L method was first used in international cricket on 1 January 1997 in the second match of the Zimbabwe versus England ODI series, which Zimbabwe won by seven runs. The D/L method was formally adopted by the ICC in 1999 as the standard method of calculating target scores in rain-shortened one-day matches.

Calculation summary
The essence of the D/L method is 'resources'. Each team is taken to have two 'resources' to use to score as many runs as possible: the number of overs they have to receive; and the number of wickets they have in hand. At any point in any innings, a team's ability to score more runs depends on the combination of these two resources they have left. Looking at historical scores, there is a very close correspondence between the availability of these resources and a team's final score, a correspondence which D/L exploits.

The D/L method converts all possible combinations of overs (or, more accurately, balls) and wickets left into a combined resources remaining percentage figure (with 50 overs and 10 wickets = 100%), and these are all stored in a published table or computer. The target score for the team batting second ('Team 2') can be adjusted up or down from the total the team batting first ('Team 1') achieved using these resource percentages, to reflect the loss of resources to one or both teams when a match is shortened one or more times.

In the version of D/L most commonly in use in international and first-class matches (the 'Professional Edition'), the target for Team 2 is adjusted simply in proportion to the two teams' resources, i.e.

 * $$\text{Team 2's par score }=\text{ Team 1's score} \times \frac{\text{Team 2's resources}}{\text{Team 1's resources}}.$$

If, as usually occurs, this 'par score' is a non-integer number of runs, then Team 2's target to win is this number rounded up to the next integer, and the score to tie (also called the par score), is this number rounded down to the preceding integer. If Team 2 reaches or passes the target score, then they have won the match. If the match ends when Team 2 has exactly met (but not passed) the par score then the match is a tie. If Team 2 fail to reach the par score then they have lost.

For example, if a rain delay means that Team 2 only has 90% of resources available, and Team 1 scored 254 with 100% of resources available, then 254 × 90% / 100% = 228.6, so Team 2's target is 229, and the score to tie is 228. The actual resource values used in the Professional Edition are not publicly available, so a computer which has this software loaded must be used.

If it is a 50-over match and Team 1 completed its innings uninterrupted, then they had 100% resource available to them, so the formula simplifies to:

 * $$\text{Team 2's par score }=\text{ Team 1's score} \times \text{Team 2's resources}. $$

Summary of impact on Team 2's target

 * If there is a delay before the first innings starts, so that the numbers of overs in the two innings are reduced but still the same as each other, then D/L makes no change to the target score, because both sides are aware of the total number of overs and wickets throughout their innings, thus they will have the same resources available.
 * Team 2's target score is first calculated once Team 1's innings has finished.
 * If there were interruption(s) during Team 1's innings, or Team 1's innings was cut short, so the numbers of overs in the two innings are reduced (but still the same as each other), then D/L will adjust Team 2's target score as described above. The adjustment to Team 2's target after interruptions in Team 1's innings is often an increase, implying that Team 2 has more resource available than Team 1 had. Although both teams have 10 wickets and the same (reduced) number of overs available, an increase is fair as, for some of their innings, Team 1 thought they would have more overs available than they actually ended up having. If Team 1 had known that their innings was going to be shorter, they would have batted less conservatively, and scored more runs (at the expense of more wickets). They saved some wicket resource to use up in the overs that ended up being cancelled, which Team 2 does not need to do, therefore Team 2 does have more resource to use in the same number of overs. Therefore, increasing Team 2's target score compensates Team 1 for the denial of some of the overs they thought they would get to bat. The increased target is what D/L thinks Team 1 would have scored in the overs it ended up having, if it had known throughout that the innings would be only as long as it was.
 * For example, if Team 1 batted for 20 overs before rain came, thinking they would have 50 overs in total, but at the re-start there was only time for Team 2 to bat for 20 overs, it would clearly be unfair to give Team 2 the target that Team 1 achieved, as Team 1 would have batted less conservatively and scored more runs, if they had known they would only have the 20 overs.

 * If there are interruption(s) to Team 2's innings, either before it starts, during, or it is cut short, then D/L will reduce Team 2's target score from the initial target set at the end of Team 1's innings, in proportion to the reduction in Team 2's resources. If there are multiple interruptions in the second innings, the target will be adjusted downwards each time.
 * If there are interruptions which both increase and decrease the target score, then the net effect on the target could be either an increase or decrease, depending on which interruptions were bigger.

Mathematical theory
The original D/L model started by assuming that the number of runs that can still be scored (called $$Z$$), for a given number of overs remaining (called $$u$$) and wickets lost (called $$w$$), takes the following exponential decay relationship:

 * $$Z(u,w) = Z_0(w)\left({1 - e^{-b(w)u} } \right),$$

where the constant $$Z_0$$ is the asymptotic average total score in unlimited overs (under one-day rules), and $$b$$ is the exponential decay constant. Both vary with $$w$$ (only). The values of these two parameters for each $$w$$ from 0 to 9 were estimated from scores from 'hundreds of one-day internationals' and 'extensive research and experimentation', though were not disclosed due to 'commercial confidentiality'.

Finding the value of $$Z$$ for a particular combination of $$u$$ and $$w$$ (by putting in $$u$$ and the values of these constants for the particular $$w$$), and dividing this by the score achievable at the start of the innings, i.e. finding
 * $$P(u,w) = \frac{Z(u,w)}{Z(u=50,w=0)},\,$$

gives the proportion of the combined run scoring resources of the innings remaining when $$u$$ overs are left and $$w$$ wickets are down. These proportions can be plotted in a graph, as shown right, or shown in a single table, as shown below.

This became the Standard Edition. When it was introduced, it was necessary that D/L could be implemented with a single table of resource percentages, as it could not be guaranteed that computers would be present. Therefore, this single formula was used giving average resources. This method relies on the assumption that average performance is proportional to the mean, irrespective of the actual score. This was good enough in 95 per cent of matches, but in the 5 per cent of matches with very high scores, the simple approach started to break down. To overcome the problem, an upgraded formula was proposed with an additional parameter whose value depends on the Team 1 innings. This became the Professional Edition.

Increased target
In the 4th India–England ODI in the 2008 series, the first innings was interrupted by rain on two occasions, reducing the match to 22 overs each. India (batting first) made 166/4. The D/L method increased England's target to 198 from 22 overs. As England knew they had only 22 overs, the expectation is that they could score more runs from those overs than India had from their (interrupted) innings. England made 178/8 from 22 overs, and so the match was listed as "India won by 19 runs (D/L method)".

During the 5th ODI between India and South Africa in January 2011, rain halted play twice during the first innings. The match was reduced to 46 overs each. South Africa scored 250/9. The D/L method increased India's target to 268. As the number of overs was reduced during South Africa's innings, this method takes into account what South Africa were likely to have scored if they had known throughout their innings that it would only be 46 overs long. The match was listed as "South Africa won by 33 runs (D/L method)".

Decreased target
On 3 December 2014, Sri Lanka played England and batted first, but play was interrupted when Sri Lanka had scored 6/1 from 2 overs. At the restart, both innings were reduced to 35 overs, and Sri Lanka finished on 242/8. D/L reduced England's target to 236 from 35 overs. Although Sri Lanka had less resource remaining after the interruption than England would have for their whole innings (about 7% less), they had used up 8% of their resource (2 overs and 1 wicket) before the interruption, so the total resource used by Sri Lanka was still slightly more than England had available, hence the slightly decreased target for England.

Stoppage in second innings
A simple example of the D/L method being applied was the 1st ODI between India and Pakistan in their 2006 ODI series. India batted first, and were all out for 328. Pakistan, batting second, were 311/7 when bad light stopped play after the 47th over. Pakistan's target, had the match continued, was 18 runs in 18 balls, with three wickets in hand. Considering the overall scoring rate throughout the match, this is a target most teams would be favoured to achieve. And indeed, application of the D/L method resulted in a retrospective target score of 305 (or par score of 304) at the end of the 47th over, with the result therefore officially listed as "Pakistan won by 7 runs (D/L Method)".

The D/L method was used in the group stage match between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe at the T20 World Cup in 2010. Sri Lanka scored 173/7 in 20 overs batting first, and in reply Zimbabwe were 4/0 from 1 over when rain interrupted play. At the restart Zimbabwe's target was reduced to 108 from 12 overs, but rain stopped the match when they had scored 29/1 from 5 overs. The retrospective D/L target from 5 overs was a further reduction to 44, or a par score of 43, and hence Sri Lanka won the match by 14 runs.

The DLS method was also used after the rain disruption in the 2023 Indian Premier League final, when Chennai Super Kings had scored 4/0 (0.3 overs) and the Gujarat Titans just scored 214/4 (20 overs). The target was reduced at 171 runs from 15 overs from earlier target of 215 runs from 20 overs for Chennai Super Kings. Chennai Super Kings won by 5 wickets by the DLS method. This was achieved by reaching 171/5 from 15 overs.

An example of a D/L tied match was the ODI between England and India on 11 September 2011. This match was frequently interrupted by rain in the final overs, and a ball-by-ball calculation of the Duckworth–Lewis 'par' score played a key role in tactical decisions during those overs. At one point, India were leading under D/L during one rain delay, and would have won if play had not resumed. At a second rain interval, England, who had scored some quick runs (knowing they needed to get ahead in D/L terms) would correspondingly have won if play had not resumed. Play was finally called off with just 7 balls of the match remaining and England's score equal to the Duckworth–Lewis 'par' score, therefore resulting in a tie.

This example does show how crucial (and difficult) the decisions of the umpires can be, in assessing when rain is heavy enough to justify ceasing play. If the umpires of that match had halted play one ball earlier, England would have been ahead on D/L, and so would have won the match. Equally, if play had stopped one ball later, India could have won the match with a dot ball – indicating how finely-tuned D/L calculations can be in such situations.

Stoppages in both innings
During the 2012/13 KFC Big Bash League, D/L was used in the 2nd semi-final played between the Melbourne Stars and the Perth Scorchers. After rain delayed the start of the match, it interrupted Melbourne's innings when they had scored 159/1 off 15.2 overs, and both innings were reduced by 2 overs to 18, and Melbourne finished on 183/2. After a further rain delay reduced Perth's innings to 17 overs, Perth returned to the field to face 13 overs, with a revised target of 139. Perth won the game by 8 wickets with a boundary off the final ball.

Use and updates
The published table that underpins the D/L method is regularly updated, using source data from more recent matches; this is done on 1 July annually.

For 50-over matches decided by D/L, each team must face at least 20 overs for the result to be valid, and for Twenty20 games decided by D/L, each side must face at least five overs, unless one or both teams are bowled out and/or the second team reaches its target in fewer overs.

If the conditions prevent a match from reaching this minimum length, it is declared a no result.

1996–2003 – Single version
Until 2003, a single version of D/L was in use. This used a single published reference table of total resource percentages remaining for all possible combinations of overs and wickets, and some simple mathematical calculations, and was relatively transparent and straightforward to implement.

However, a flaw in how it handled very high first innings scores (350+) became apparent from the 1999 Cricket World Cup match in Bristol between India and Kenya. Tony Lewis noticed that there was an inherent weakness in the formula that would give a noticeable advantage to the side chasing a total in excess of 350. A correction was built into the formula and the software, but was not fully adopted until 2004. One-day matches were achieving significantly higher scores than in previous decades, affecting the historical relationship between resources and runs. The second version uses more sophisticated statistical modelling, but does not use a single table of resource percentages. Instead, the percentages also vary with score, so a computer is required. Therefore, it loses some of the previous advantages of transparency and simplicity.

In 2002 the resource percentages were revised, following an extensive analysis of limited overs matches, and there was a change to the G50 for ODIs. (G50 is the average score expected from the team batting first in an uninterrupted 50 overs-per-innings match.) G50 was changed to 235 for ODIs. These changes came into effect on 1 September 2002. As of 2014, these resource percentages are the ones still in use in the Standard Edition, though G50 has subsequently changed.

The tables show how the percentages were in 1999 and 2001, and what they were changed to in 2002. Mostly they were reduced.

2004 – Adoption of second version
The original version was named the Standard Edition, and the new version was named the Professional Edition. Tony Lewis said, "We were then [at the time of the 2003 World Cup Final] using what is now known as the Standard Edition. ... Australia got 359 and that showed up the flaws and straight away the next edition was introduced which handled high scores much better. The par score for India is likely to be much higher now."

Duckworth and Lewis wrote, "When the side batting first score at or below the average for top level cricket ..., the results of applying the Professional Edition are generally similar to those from the Standard Edition. For higher scoring matches, the results start to diverge and the difference increases the higher the first innings total. In effect there is now a different table of resource percentages for every total score in the Team 1 innings." The Professional Edition has been in use in all international one-day cricket matches since early 2004. This edition also removed the use of the G50 constant when dealing with interruptions in the first innings.

The decision on which edition should be used is for the cricket authority which runs the particular competition. The ICC Playing Handbook requires the use of the Professional Edition for internationals. This also applies to most countries' national competitions. At lower levels of the game, where use of a computer cannot always be guaranteed, the Standard Edition is used.

2009 - Twenty20 updates
In June 2009, it was reported that the D/L method would be reviewed for the Twenty20 format after its appropriateness was questioned in the quickest version of the game. Lewis was quoted admitting that "Certainly, people have suggested that we need to look very carefully and see whether in fact the numbers in our formula are totally appropriate for the Twenty20 game."

2015 – Becomes DLS
For the 2015 World Cup, the ICC implemented the Duckworth–Lewis–Stern formula, which included work by the new custodian of the method, Professor Steven Stern, from the Department of Statistics at Queensland University of Technology. These changes recognised that teams need to start out with a higher scoring rate when chasing high targets rather than keep wickets in hand.

Target score calculations
Using the notation of the ICC Playing Handbook, the team that bats first is called Team 1, their final score is called S, the total resources available to Team 1 for their innings is called R1, the team that bats second is called Team 2, and the total resources available to Team 2 for their innings is called R2.

Step 1. Find the batting resources available to each team
After each reduction in overs, the new total batting resources available to the two teams are found, using figures for the total amount of batting resources remaining for any combination of overs and wickets. While the process for converting these resources remaining figures into total resource available figures is the same in the two Editions, this can be done manually in the Standard Edition, as the resource remaining figures are published in a reference table. However, the resource remaining figures used in the Professional Edition are not publicly available, so a computer must be used which has the software loaded.

 * If a team loses resource at the start of an innings (left hand image below), then this is simple. For example, if the first 20 overs of an innings are lost, then 30 overs and 10 wickets are remaining, which is 75.1% in the Standard Edition, so this is the resource available.
 * If a team loses resource at the end of its innings (centre image below), then the resource that was available to that team is found by taking the resources it had at the start, and subtracting the resources remaining at the point the innings was ended. For example, if a team starts with 50 overs and 10 wickets (100% of its resources), but its innings is ended with 20 overs and 8 wickets remaining (52.4% of its resources), then the resources it actually used is 100% − 52.4% = 47.6%.
 * If a team loses resource in the middle of its innings (right hand image below), then the resource that was available to that team is found by taking the resources it had at the start, and subtracting the resources remaining at the point the innings was interrupted (to give the resources used in the first period of the innings), then adding on the resource remaining at the restart. For example, if a team starts with 50 overs and 10 wickets (100% of its resources), but is interrupted when it still has 40 overs and 8 wickets remaining (77.8% of its resources), and restarted when it has 20 overs and 8 wickets remaining (52.4% of its resources), then the resources it actually used is 100% − 77.8% + 52.4% = 74.6%. Another way of looking at this is to say it lost the resources available between 40 overs and 8 wickets (77.8%) and 20 overs and 8 wickets (52.4%), i.e. 77.8% − 52.4% = 25.4%, so its total resource available was 100% − 25.4% = 74.6%.

These are just the different ways of having one interruption. With multiple interruptions possible, it may seem like finding the total resource percentage requires a different calculation for each different scenario. However, the formula is actually the same each time − it's just that different scenarios, with more or less interruptions and restarts, need to use more or less of the same formula. The total resources available to a team are given by:

which can alternatively be written as:

Each time there's an interruption or a restart after an interruption, the resource remaining percentages at those times (obtained from a reference table for the Standard Edition, or from a computer for the Professional Edition) can be entered into the formula, with the rest left blank. Note that a delay at the start of an innings counts as the 1st interruption.

Step 2. Convert the two teams' batting resources into Team 2's target score
Standard Edition

 * If R2 < R1, reduce Team 2's target score in proportion to the reduction in total resources, i.e. S × R2/R1.
 * If R2 = R1, no adjustment to Team 2's target score is needed.
 * If R2 > R1, increase Team 2's target score by the extra runs that could be expected to be scored on average with the extra total resource, i.e. S + G50 × (R2 – R1)/100, where G50 is the average 50-over total. Team 2's target score is not simply increased in proportion to the increase in total resources, i.e. S × R2/R1, as this 'could lead to some unrealistically high targets if Team 1 had achieved an early high rate of scoring [in the powerplay overs] and rain caused a drastic reduction in the overs for the match.' Instead, D/L Standard Edition requires average performance for Team 2's additional resource over Team 1.

G50

G50 is the average score expected from the team batting first in an uninterrupted 50 overs-per-innings match. This will vary with the level of competition and over time. The annual ICC Playing Handbook gives the values of G50 to be used each year when the D/L Standard Edition is applied:

Duckworth and Lewis wrote:"We accept that the value of G50, perhaps, should be different for each country, or even for each ground, and there is no reason why any cricket authority may not choose the value it believes to be the most appropriate. In fact it would be possible for the two captains to agree a value of G50 before the start of each match, taking account of all relevant factors. However, we do not believe that something that is only invoked if rain interferes with the game should impose itself on every game in this way. In any case, it should be realised that the value of G50 usually has very little effect on the revised target. If 250 were used, for instance, instead of 235, it is unlikely that the target would be more than two or three runs different."

Professional Edition

 * If R2 < R1, reduce Team 2's target score in proportion to the reduction in total resources, i.e. S × R2/R1.
 * If R2 = R1, no adjustment to Team 2's target score is needed.
 * If R2 > R1, increase Team 2's target score in proportion to the increase in total resources, i.e. S × R2/R1. The problem of early high scoring rates potentially producing anomalously high targets has been overcome in the Professional Edition, which is essentially 'a different table of resource percentages for every total score in the Team 1 innings.' Therefore, Team 2's target score can be simply increased in proportion to the increase in total resources when R2 > R1, and there is no G50.

Example Standard Edition Target score calculations
As the resource percentages used in the Professional Edition are not publicly available, it is difficult to give examples of the D/L calculation for the Professional Edition. Therefore, examples are given from when the Standard Edition was widely used, which was up to early 2004.

Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings delayed (resources lost at start of innings)
On 18 May 2003, Lancashire played Hampshire in the 2003 ECB National League. Rain before play reduced the match to 30 overs each. Lancashire batted first and scored 231–4 from their 30 overs. Before Hampshire began their innings, it was further reduced to 28 overs.

Hampshire's target was therefore 221 to win (in 28 overs), or 220 to tie. They were all out for 150, giving Lancashire victory by 220 − 150 = 70 runs.

If Hampshire's target had been set by the Average Run Rate method (simply in proportion to the reduction in overs), their par score would have been 231 x 28/30 = 215.6, giving 216 to win or 215 to tie. While this would have kept the required run rate the same as Lancashire achieved (7.7 runs per over), this would have given an unfair advantage to Hampshire as it's easier to achieve and maintain a run rate for a shorter period. Increasing Hampshire's target from 216 overcomes this flaw.

As Lancashire's innings was interrupted once (before it started), and then restarted, their resource can be found from the general formula above as follows (Hampshire's is similar): Total resources = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart = 100% − 100% + 75.1% = 75.1%.

Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings cut short (resources lost at end of innings)
On 3 March 2003, Sri Lanka played South Africa in World Cup Pool B. Sri Lanka batted first and scored 268–9 from their 50 overs. Chasing a target of 269, South Africa had reached 229–6 from 45 overs when play was abandoned.

Therefore, South Africa's retrospective target from their 45 overs was 230 runs to win, or 229 to tie. In the event, as they had scored exactly 229, the match was declared a tie.

South Africa scored no runs off the very last ball. If play had been abandoned without that ball having been bowled, the resource available to South Africa at the abandonment would have been 14.7%, giving them a par score of 228.6, and hence victory.

As South Africa's innings was interrupted once (and not restarted), their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption = 100% − 14.3% = 85.7%.

Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings interrupted (resources lost in middle of innings)
On 16 February 2003, New South Wales played South Australia in the ING Cup. New South Wales batted first and scored 273 all out (from 49.4 overs). Chasing a target of 274, rain interrupted play when South Australia had reached 70–2 from 19 overs, and at the restart their innings was reduced to 36 overs (i.e. 17 remaining).

South Australia's new target was therefore 214 to win (in 36 overs), or 213 to tie. In the event, they were all out for 174, so New South Wales won by 213 − 174 = 39 runs.

As South Australia's innings was interrupted once and restarted once, their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart = 100% − 68.6% + 46.7% = 78.1%.

Increased target: Team 1's innings cut short (resources lost at end of innings); Team 2's innings completed
On 25 January 2001, West Indies played Zimbabwe. West Indies batted first and had reached 235–6 from 47 overs (of a scheduled 50) when rain halted play for two hours. At the restart, both innings were reduced to 47 overs, i.e. West Indies' innings was closed immediately, and Zimbabwe began their innings.

Zimbabwe's target was therefore 253 to win (in 47 overs), or 252 to tie. It is fair that their target was increased, even though they had the same number of overs to bat as West Indies, as West Indies would have batted more aggressively in their last few overs, and scored more runs, if they had known that their innings would be cut short at 47 overs. Zimbabwe were all out for 175, giving West Indies victory by 252 − 175 = 77 runs.

These resource percentages are the ones which were in use back in 2001, before the 2002 revision, and so do not match the currently used percentages for the Standard Edition, which are slightly different. Also, the formula for Zimbabwe's par score comes from the Standard Edition of D/L, which was used at the time. Currently the Professional Edition is used, which has a different formula when R2>R1. The formula required Zimbabwe to match West Indies' performance with their overlapping 89.8% of resource (i.e. score 235 runs), and achieve average performance with their extra 97.4% − 89.8% = 7.6% of resource (i.e. score 7.6% of G50 (225 at the time) = 17.1 runs).

As West Indies' innings was interrupted once (and not restarted), their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption = 100% − 10.2% = 89.8%.

Increased target: Multiple interruptions in Team 1's innings (resources lost in middle of innings); Team 2's innings completed
On 20 February 2003, Australia played Netherlands in the 2003 Cricket World Cup Pool A. Rain before play reduced the match to 47 overs each, and Australia batted first.
 * Rain stopped play when they had reached 109–2 from 25 overs (i.e. 22 remaining). At the restart both innings were reduced to 44 overs (i.e. 19 remaining for Australia)
 * Rain stopped play again when Australia had reached 123–2 from 28 overs (i.e. 16 remaining), and at the restart both innings were reduced further to 36 overs (i.e. 8 remaining for Australia)
 * Australia finished on 170–2 from their 36 overs

The Netherlands' target was therefore 198 to win (in 36 overs), or 197 to tie. It is fair that their target was increased, even though they had the same number of overs to bat as Australia, as Australia would have batted less conservatively in their first 28 overs, and scored more runs at the expense of more wickets, if they had known that their innings would only be 36 overs long. Increasing the Netherlands' target score neutralises the injustice done to Australia when they were denied some of the overs to bat they thought they would get. The Netherlands were all out for 122, giving Australia victory by 197 − 122 = 75 runs.

This formula for Netherlands' par score comes from the Standard Edition of D/L, which was used at the time. Currently the Professional Edition is used, which has a different formula when R2>R1. The formula required Netherlands to match Australia's performance with their overlapping 72.6% of resource (i.e. score 170 runs), and achieve average performance with their extra 84.1% − 72.6% = 11.5% of resource (i.e. score 11.5% of G50 (235 at the time) = 27.025 runs).

After the match there were reports in the media that Australia had batted conservatively in their final 8 overs after the final restart, to avoid losing wickets rather than maximising their numbers of runs, in belief that this would further increase the Netherlands' par score. However, if this is true, this belief was mistaken, in the same way that conserving wickets rather than maximising runs in the final 8 overs of a full 50-over innings would be a mistake. At that point the amount of resource available to each team was fixed (as long as there were no further rain interruptions), so the only undetermined number in the formula for Netherlands' par score was Australia's final score, so they should have tried to maximise this.

As Australia's innings was interrupted three times (once before it started) and restarted three times, their resource is given by the general formula above as follows:

Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart − Resources remaining at 2nd interruption + Resources remaining at 2nd restart − Resources remaining at 3rd interruption + Resources remaining at 3rd restart = 100% − 100% + 97.1% − 55.8% + 50.5% − 44.7% + 25.5% = 72.6%.

Strategy for team 1
During Team 1's innings, the target score calculations (as described above), have not yet been made.

The objective of the team batting first is to maximise the target score which will be calculated for the team batting second, which (in the Professional Edition) will be determined by the formula:

$$\text{Team 2's par score }=\text{ Team 1's score} \times \frac{\text{Team 2's resources}}{\text{Team 1's resources}}.$$

For these three terms:
 * Team 1's score: Team 1 will always increase Team 2's target by increasing their own score.
 * At the start of Team 2's innings, Team 2's resources will be 10 wickets and the number of overs available, and Team 1 cannot affect this.
 * Team 1's resources are given by:

If there will not be any future interruptions to Team 1's innings, then the amount of resource available to them is now fixed (whether there have been interruptions so far or not), so the only thing Team 1 can do to increase Team 2's target is increase their own score, ignoring how many wickets they lose (as in a normal unaffected match).

However, if there will be future interruptions to Team 1's innings, then an alternative strategy to scoring more runs is minimising the amount of resource they use before the coming interruption (i.e. preserving wickets). While the best overall strategy is obviously to both score more runs and preserve resources, if a choice has to be made between the two, sometimes preserving wickets at the expense of scoring runs ('conservative' batting) is a more effective way of increasing Team 2's target, and sometimes the reverse ('aggressive' batting) is true.

For example, suppose Team 1 has been batting without interruptions, but thinks the innings will be cut short at 40 overs, i.e. with 10 overs left. (Then Team 2 will have 40 overs to bat, so Team 2's resource will be 89.3%.) Team 1 thinks by batting conservatively it can reach 200–6, or by batting aggressively it can reach 220–8:

Therefore, in this case, the conservative strategy achieves a higher target for Team 2.

However, suppose instead that the difference between the two strategies is scoring 200–2 or 220–4:

In this case, the aggressive strategy is better.

Therefore, the best batting strategy for Team 1 ahead of a coming interruption is not always the same, but varies with the facts of the match situation to date (runs scored, wickets lost, overs used, and whether there have been interruptions), and also with the opinions about what will happen with each strategy (how many further runs will be scored, further wickets will be lost, and further overs will be used? How likely are the coming interruptions, when will they happen, and how long will they last – will Team 1's innings be restarted?).

This example shows just two possible batting strategies, but in reality there could be a range of others, e.g. 'neutral', 'semi-aggressive', 'super-aggressive', or timewasting to minimise the amount of resource used by slowing the over rate. Finding which strategy is the best can only be found by inputting the facts and one's opinions into the calculations and seeing what emerges.

Of course, a chosen strategy may backfire. For example, if Team 1 chooses to bat conservatively, Team 2 may see this and decide to attack (rather than focus on saving runs), and Team 1 may both fail to score many more runs and lose wickets.

If there have already been interruptions to Team 1's innings, the calculation of total resource they use will be more complicated than this example.

Strategy for team 2
During Team 1's innings, Team 2's objective is to minimise the target score they will be set. This is achieved by minimising Team 1's score, or (as above), if there will be future interruptions to Team 1's innings, alternatively by maximising the resource used by Team 1 (i.e. wickets lost or overs bowled) before that happens. Team 2 can vary their bowling strategy (between conservative and aggressive) to try to achieve either of these objectives, so this means doing the same calculations as above, inputting their opinions of future runs conceded, wickets taken and overs bowled in each bowling strategy, to see which one is best.

Also, Team 2 can encourage Team 1 to bat particularly conservatively or aggressively (e.g. through field settings).

During team 2's innings
A target (from a given number of overs) is set for Team 2 at the start of its innings. If there will not be any future interruptions, then both sides can play to a finish in the normal way. However, if there are likely to be interruptions to Team 2's innings, then Team 2 will aim to keep itself ahead of the D/L par score, and Team 1 will aim to keep them behind it. This is because, if a match is abandoned before the given number of overs is complete, Team 2 is declared the winner if they're ahead of the par score, and Team 1 is declared the winner if Team 2 are behind the par score. A tie is declared if Team 2 are exactly on the par score. (This is provided a minimum number of overs has been bowled in Team 2's innings.)

The par score increases with every ball bowled and every wicket lost, as the amount of resource used increases. As an example, in the 2003 Cricket World Cup Final Australia batted first and scored 359 from 50 overs. As Australia completed their 50 overs, their total resources used R1=100%, so India's par score throughout their innings was: 359 x R2/100%, where R2 is the amount of resource used to that point. As shown in the first line of the table below, after 9 overs India were 57-1, and 41 overs and 9 wickets remaining equates to 85.3% of resources, so 100% − 85.3% = 14.7% had been used. India's par score after 9 overs was therefore 359 x 14.7%/100% = 52.773, which is rounded down to 52.

During the six balls of the 10th over India scored 0, 0, 0, 1 (from a no ball), loss of wicket, 0. At the start of the over India were ahead of the par score, but the loss of the wicket caused their par score to jump from 55 to 79, which put them behind the par score.

Other uses
There are uses of the D/L method other than finding the current official final target score for the team batting second in a match that has already been reduced by the weather.

Ball-by-ball par score

During the second team's innings, the number of runs a chasing side would expect to have scored on average with this number of overs used and wickets lost, if they were going to successfully match the first team's score, called the D/L par score, may be shown on a computer printout, the scoreboard and/or TV alongside the actual score, and updated after every ball. This can happen in matches which look like they're about to be shortened by the weather, and so D/L is about to be brought into play, or even in matches completely unaffected by the weather. This is:

 * To help spectators and players understand whether the chasing side are doing better or worse than they would need to do on average to reach the target score
 * The score the batting team's score would be compared to determine which side had won, if the match had to be abandoned right then. It is the par score which is displayed, i.e. the score to tie. The target, to win, score is one run more than this. South Africa exited the 2003 World Cup after a tie with Sri Lanka by mistakenly believing the par score on the printout was the target score

Net run rate calculation
It has been suggested that when a side batting second successfully completes the run chase, the D/L method could be used to predict how many runs they would have scored with a full innings (i.e. 50 overs in a One Day International), and use this prediction in the net run rate calculation.

This suggestion is in response to the criticisms of NRR that it does not take into account wickets lost, and that it unfairly penalises teams which bat second and win, as those innings are shorter and therefore have less weight in the NRR calculation than other innings which go the full distance.

Criticism
The D/L method has been criticised on the grounds that wickets are a much more heavily weighted resource than overs, leading to the suggestion that if teams are chasing large targets and there is the prospect of rain, a winning strategy could be to not lose wickets and score at what would seem to be a "losing" rate (e.g. if the required rate was 6.1, it could be enough to score at 4.75 an over for the first 20–25 overs). The 2015 update to DLS recognised this flaw, and changed the rate at which teams needed to score at the start of the second innings in response to a large first innings.

Another criticism is that the D/L method does not account for changes in proportion of the innings for which field restrictions are in place compared to a completed match.

More recent efforts have used ball-by-ball ODI databases of actually completed matches to evaluate the accuracy of the method. Those efforts have concluded that the DLS par score can have accuracies as low as 50 to 60% at predicting the eventual winner of the match when the team batting second bats between 20 and 24 overs and loses between 0 and 2 wickets.

More common informal criticism from cricket fans and journalists of the D/L method is that it is unduly complex and can be misunderstood. For example, in a one-day match against England on 20 March 2009, the West Indies coach (John Dyson) called his players in for bad light, believing that his team would win by one run under the D/L method, but not realising that the loss of a wicket with the last ball had altered the Duckworth–Lewis score. In fact Javagal Srinath, the match referee, confirmed that the West Indies were two runs short of their target, giving the victory to England.

Concerns have also been raised as to its suitability for Twenty20 matches, where a high scoring over can drastically alter the situation of the game, and variability of the run-rate is higher over matches with a shorter number of overs.

Cultural influence
The Duckworth Lewis Method is the name of a pop group, formed by Neil Hannon of The Divine Comedy and Thomas Walsh of Pugwash. Their first release was an eponymous album, which features cricket-themed songs.

title: Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method


text:
Accelerator effect

The accelerator effect in economics is a positive effect on private fixed investment of the growth of the market economy (measured e.g. by a change in gross domestic product). Rising GDP (an economic boom or prosperity) implies that businesses in general see rising profits, increased sales and cash flow, and greater use of existing capacity. This usually implies that profit expectations and business confidence rise, encouraging businesses to build more factories and other buildings and to install more machinery. (This expenditure is called fixed investment.) This may lead to further growth of the economy through the stimulation of consumer incomes and purchases, i.e., via the multiplier effect.

In essence, the accelerator effect proposes that investment levels are contingent on the pace of change in GDP rather than its absolute level. In simpler terms, it is the acceleration or deceleration of economic growth that shapes businesses' choices regarding investments.

The accelerator effect operates in reverse as well: when the GDP declines (entering a recession), it negatively impacts business profits, sales, cash flow, capacity utilization, and expectations. Consequently, these factors discourage businesses from making fixed investments, which further intensifies the recession due to the multiplier effect.

The accelerator effect fits the behavior of an economy best when either the economy is moving away from full employment or when it is already below that level of production. This is because high levels of aggregate demand hit against the limits set by the existing labour force, the existing stock of capital goods, the availability of natural resources, and the technical ability of an economy to convert inputs into products.

History
The accelerator theory concept was mainly given by Thomas Nixon Carver and Albert Aftalion before Keynesian economics came into force, but it came into public knowledge more and more as Keynesian theory began to dominate the field of economics. John Maynard Keynes first introduced the idea in his seminal work "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money," published in 1936. Keynes recognized that changes in investment are not solely driven by interest rates but are also influenced by the level of demand for goods and services.

In the 1940s, American economist Alvin Hansen further developed the accelerator principle. He extended Keynes's ideas and introduced the concept of the "principle of acceleration." Hansen emphasized the role of the accelerator effect in business cycles, showing that fluctuations in investment are a significant driver of economic fluctuations. He proposed that investment decisions are not just influenced by current income or demand levels but are also sensitive to changes in the rate of income growth.

Over time, economists have further refined and expanded upon the accelerator effect in various ways. Some have incorporated additional factors such as technological change, expectations, and financial constraints to enhance the accuracy of investment predictions. However, the accelerator effect has also faced criticism. Some people argued against it because it was thought to remove all the possibility of the demand control through the price control mechanism.

Multiplier effect vs. acceleration effect
The acceleration effect is the phenomenon that a variable moves toward its desired value faster and faster with respect to time. Usually, the variable is the capital stock. In Keynesian models, fixed capital is not in consideration, so the accelerator coefficient becomes the reciprocal of the multiplier and the capital decision degenerates to investment decision. In more general theory, where the capital decision determines the desired level of capital stock (which includes fixed capital and working capital), and the investment decision determines the change of capital stock in a sequences of periods, the acceleration effect emerges as only the current period gap affects the current investment, so do the previous gaps. The Aftalion-Clark accelerator v has such a form $$I_{t}=\mu v\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\mu\right)^{i}\left(Y_{t-i}-Y_{t-i-1}\right)$$, while the Keynesian multiplier m has such a form $$Y_{t}=mI_{t}=\frac{1}{1-MPC}I_{t}$$ where MPC is the marginal propensity to consume. The idea of the accelerator has been very well explained by Hayek.

Business cycles vs. acceleration effect
As the acceleration effect dictates that the increase of income accelerates capital accumulation, and the decrease of income accelerates capital depletion (in a simple model), this might cause the system to become unstable or cyclical, and hence many kinds of business cycle models are of this kind (the multiplier-accelerator cycle models).

Accelerator models
The accelerator effect is shown in the simple accelerator model. This model assumes that the stock of capital goods (K) is proportional to the level of production (Y):

 * K = k×Y

This implies that if k (the capital-output ratio) is constant, an increase in Y requires an increase in K. That is, net investment, In equals:

 * In = k×ΔY

Suppose that k = 2 (usually, k is assumed to be in (0,1)). This equation implies that if Y rises by 10, then net investment will equal 10×2 = 20, as suggested by the accelerator effect. If Y then rises by only 5, the equation implies that the level of investment will be 5×2 = 10. This means that the simple accelerator model implies that fixed investment will fall if the growth of production slows. An actual fall in production is not needed to cause investment to fall. However, such a fall in output will result if slowing growth of production causes investment to fall, since that reduces aggregate demand. Thus, the simple accelerator model implies an endogenous explanation of the business-cycle downturn, the transition to a recession.

Modern economists have described the accelerator effect in terms of the more sophisticated flexible accelerator model of investment. Businesses are described as engaging in net investment in fixed capital goods in order to close the gap between the desired stock of capital goods (Kd) and the existing stock of capital goods left over from the past (K−1):

 * $$I_{n} = x(K^{d} - K_{-1})$$

where x is a coefficient representing the speed of adjustment (1 ≥ x ≥ 0).

 * $$I_{t}=\mu v\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\mu\right)^{i}\left(Y_{t-i}-Y_{t-i-1}\right)$$

The desired stock of capital goods is determined by such variables as the expected profit rate, the expected level of output, the interest rate (the cost of finance), and technology. Because the expected level of output plays a role, this model exhibits behavior described by the accelerator effect but less extreme than that of the simple accelerator. Because the existing capital stock grows over time due to past net investment, a slowing of the growth of output (GDP) can cause the gap between the desired K and the existing K to narrow, close, or even become negative, causing current net investment to fall.

Obviously, ceteris paribus, an actual fall in output depresses the desired stock of capital goods and thus net investment. Similarly, a rise in output causes a rise in investment. Finally, if the desired capital stock is less than the actual stock, then net investment may be depressed for a long time.

In the neoclassical accelerator model of Jorgenson, the desired capital stock is derived from the aggregate production function assuming profit maximization and perfect competition. In Jorgenson's original model (1963), there is no acceleration effect, since the investment is instantaneous, so the capital stock can jump.

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

title: Accelerator effect


text:
Talk:Gomez (band)

Page Revision
Wearing my other hat as Capitalistroadster, I revised this page earlier. I created entries for each of the albums based on the track listing here and added more details about Gomez's career to May 2004.

Seaeagle04 23:41, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Album/ Singles Box
Because Gomez are acheving chart positions in the US, i have made a box for their albums and singles including dates and chart positions

Duck6 14:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism
I'm not too sure about the citation format used for Wikipedia, but I didn't see a reference list, even then the following section was taken word for word from the All Music Guide without specifying that it is a quotation.

"Bring It On, was released a month later. The album received excellent critical response from       both sides of the Atlantic, with Spin Magazine calling it a "damn beautiful album". Sales of the album in the United Kingdom were bolstered when Bring It On won the 1998 Mercury Music Prize for best "album, beating out favorites such as Massive Attack's Mezzanine and the Verve's Urban Hymns."

I would just go and delete it, but I don't feel like rewriting the article, as I'm at work and really shouldn't be Wiking random bands -R

Oh yeah, the Allmusic address is http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:qcfxlfdegcqe~T1

Bias
I know this isn't the only band write-up on Wiki by a longshot which is written by the band / devoted fans, but it doesn't seem to me to give an honest reflection of who the band are / what their success is. I really liked their first two albums, but they seemed to change direction and got a lot less success with the third album onwards and I think they've really dropped off most people's musical radars, at least in the UK. Should the article relfect this? (Jim901 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

^Not unless you can back that up with something other than your own opinion? Shaybear♥

It's certainly a very poor entry. They started with a big splash but I came to this page in a "whatever happened to..." frame of mind. But there's no sense of any story here; it's little more than a list of facts. Patrick Neylan (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The surname
Think we should add a disambiguation page for the surname? All SMiles 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad; we already have one. All SMiles 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Page headlines
The majority of this page falls under the heading "career success". I really think that needs changing or supplementing. You can't just have every new piece of information (such as the announcement of a new album) going into one section.

I suggest that "career success" lists only the very high points of their career whilst there are new sections like "latest work" or "recent activity". To cover the general waffle about every album, let's have a headline like "releases and reception" (or something decent!). --SmartShark (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gomez contributed a cover of Sun King for Mojo's Abbey Road CD October 2009

I Think there should be some section for their current status as a band (plans for any albums etc.) just not sure how to go about that February 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.193.42 (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Canceled Tour Dates
Posted on the official web site 7/14/11, the north American summer tour is cancelled due to Ben's struggle with "vocal loss". This development, together with the 2 weeks of "absolute voice rest" may be an important one in the band's progress. 74.37.238.149 (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gomez (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217064123/http://www.gomeztheband.com:80/news/ to http://www.gomeztheband.com/news/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gomez (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080416063044/http://msnpresents.msn.com:80/Gomez/artist.aspx?mkt=en-gb/ to http://msnpresents.msn.com/Gomez/artist.aspx?mkt=en-gb/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Gomez (band). 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.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=37
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102210118/http://australian-charts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=Gomez to http://australian-charts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=Gomez
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306113545/http://charts.org.nz/search.asp?search=Gomez&cat=a to http://charts.org.nz/search.asp?search=Gomez&cat=a
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104153805/http://norwegiancharts.com/search.asp?search=Gomez&cat=a to http://norwegiancharts.com/search.asp?search=Gomez&cat=a

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gomez (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522111134/http://craccum.co.nz/?p=1494 to http://craccum.co.nz/?p=1494
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705115311/http://www.pearljam.com/news/gomez-opening-pearl-jam-europe to http://www.pearljam.com/news/gomez-opening-pearl-jam-europe

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) 14:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gomez (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516064737/http://laist.com/2009/05/11/operation_aloha_an_experiment_in_ro.php to http://laist.com/2009/05/11/operation_aloha_an_experiment_in_ro.php

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) 08:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gomez (band)


text:
User talk:AnandaLima

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any general questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Questions for topics covered by existing articles are generally to be asked in the corresponding talk pages. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

I am glad anyone got interested in contribution to Samba articles.

It the talk pages, it is customary to add new text at the bottom of the page.

There is a convenient trick to sign your messages in the talk page, by typing 4 tildas: ~. They will automatically convert into your signature with the time stamp, like this: Mikkalai 23:42, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Mikkalai :-) still learning AnandaLima 00:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Olá Amanda, nem sei se sabe falar português mas o link que adicionou é de mau gosto para uma pessoa que pretende tirar um doutoramento em linguistica.

mas colocar um link nacionalista e comprovadamente irrealista com frases do tipo "Brazilian Language" e o uso do verbo com português vernáculo, não é algo sério:

Eu canto Você canta Ele canta A gente canta Vocês cantam Eles cantam

caso não saiba quer o "a gente" e o "você" são usados em Portugal de onde até são originários.

Aqui discutem-se factos e não corações. Por último, queria dar-lhe as boas vindas. --Pedro 01:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Oi Pedro,

Em adiantado, desculpe-me pelas palavras em ingles here and there e pela mensagem bastante longa.

Primeiramente,obrigada pelas boas-vindas. :-).

Segundo, gostaria de te dizer que nao me considero uma pessoal muito nacionalista para nada (acho que o Brazil tem suas coisas e suas coisas ruins, mas eu pessoalmente decidi nao viver la e ja estou fora a uns 5 anos e nao tenho planos de morar. Considero a Australia o meu "lar").

Terceiro, gostaria de lembrar um dito (que nao tenho a minima idea se e do Brasil ou de Portugal) que diz: "gosto nao se discute" :-). Enquanto voce achou a link de mal gosto, eu nao achei a link 'de mal gosto' para alguem que vai fazer doutorado em linguistica. Estudando linguistica, vi varios exemplos de casos em que uma 'lingua X' e mais parecida com uma 'lingua Y' que um outro dialeto da 'lingua X' (nao estou dizendo que e caso com Portugues!), ou seja, o termo 'language' pode ser definido por varios criterios diferentes, muitas vezes politicos (ligados a fornteiras, identidades etc.) ou linguisticos. Entao o termo 'Brazilian language' nao me abalou muito, pois o termo pode significar varias coisas diferentes. Como o meu interesse em linguistica e muito mais formal, nao me abalaria muito se alguem dissesse Brazilian 'language', 'dialect' or 'variety', pois meu interesse e menos social... mas como eu ja disse, gosto nao se discute e eu respeito sua decisao de apagar a link. Eu tinha gostado das partes de fonologia e syntaxe que ao meu ver, nunca tendo estado em Portugal, pareciam estar bem (eu nunca estudei EP formalmente, sendo que me concentrei em outras linguas). Ao meu ver, nao e de mal gosto colocar a link no site, pois eu achava que o espirito da Wikipedia era poder contribuir com o melhor da sua knowledge, aceitando que se algo estiver incorreto alguem vai corrigir. Isto e, nao sou expert em EP, mas eu achava que a wikipedia nao era limitada aos experts, contando que os nao-experts aceitem correcoes... por isso e que eu nao escrevi uma publicacao em EP, mas coloquei na Wikipedia. Aceito sua correcao, mas nao acho que seja exatamente 'de mal gosto' eu colocar um site que eu achei interesante(inocente, sim... de mal gosto nao)... mas claro, voce pode achar de mal gosto (gosto nao se discute :-).

Nao estou certa do seu ponto referindo ao uso do vernacular. Se for o caso que voce acha um problema a descricao do vernacular no site, isso e uma 'standard practice' na linguistica, onde o vernacular e muitas vezes o centro do interesse. Mas claro que se a comparacao foi entre o vernacular do Brasil e o dialeto formal de Portugal, a comparacao e 'misleading'. Isso me leva a uma pergunta (nao um ponto que eu quero fazer, mas uma curiosidade): sei que voces usam 'voce' e 'a gente' tambem, mas voces usam 'tu' e 'nos' tambem? A minha impressao (nao profissional, so de amigos que tenho de Portugal) era que o uso de 'tu' em BP e menos frequente. Mesmo quando o 'tu' e usado em BP e quase sempre com a cojugacao de 'voce' (3 pessoa). Eu tenho a sensacao de as vezes ouvir 'tens' de um amigo Portugues, enquanto eu nunca ouviria isso de um amigo brasileiro... mas claro que posso estar errada, isso e so uma impressao.

Bom, acho que ja deu, ne :-).

Obrigada pelas boas vindas e o direito de resposta.

AnandaLima 07:50, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Olá Amanda, sim o "A gente" é muito usado por aqui para designar "nós". o Você depende do dialecto, é uma característica de Lisboa, e também do Brasil, no entanto está a se espalhar por Portugal e a substituir o vós (principalmente). Mas no Brasil também se usa o português correcto com "tu", e impressionantemente o uso de "vós" correcto, no nordeste, que aqui já poucos sabem fazer, por isso adoptamos o "vocês" também. Mas falamos tudo, sim. No Brasil também de fala tudo. Mas... a palavra "tu" no Brasil ficou de tal forma de conotado de Português que eles chegam a pensar que quem diz tu tem sotaque português, o que acontece na zona de Santa Catarina no Brasil. "tu" em Portugal é usado para falar com amigos, com outros é rude dirigir-se como tu. Em muitas zonas do Brasil, usa-se sempre a forma cordial (que virou normal), o você, o que infelizmente também está a acontecer por aqui (o que não gosto muito).

Sim, o uso vernacular da língua tem o seu interesse, mas isso é como você diz "Misleading" porque varia imenso dentro do Brasil. Não achei aquele site bom porque é bem nacionalista, e, de facto, é como você diz, compara português formal (escrito) de Portugal com português vernáculo do Brasil, desculpe do comentário de ser má linguísta, mesmo não conhecendo o português europeu, você verificou isso logo. Ouça os dialectos Portugueses (infelizmente contem poucos do Brasil) em Portuguese language.

Chega a ser ridículo que a pessoa que o escreveu, nem nunca tenha ouvido um português a falar, ex: "objecto" escrevemos assim, porque escreve-se assim, mas dizemos "obejétu"; no Brasil é "obijétu" (som que também existe em Portugal). Mas já é generalizar muito. Nem em Portugal nem no Brasil nem em qualquer lado se fala da mesma forma, e o brasileiro só pode ser considerado variedade, o que é mais ou menos unanime hoje em dia.

Sim, a wikipedia é um sitio livre, mas temos que ser o mais coerentes possível. O artigo Brazilian Portuguese tive que o reescrever todo, porque o autor original fez um comentário (muito inocente, pois ele dizia que era falso) que foi considerado POV (ponto de vista) pelos outros wikis, dizendo que os franceses consideravam o Brasileiro como língua. Em Portugal gostamos de referir ao que se fala no Brasil de "Brasileiro", e aqui tem conotação de sotaque, naquele artigo tem conotação de língua. E; uma língua não é assim como se possa pensar. O Espanhol pode conter muitas semelhanças com o português, mas é suficientemente diferente em muita coisa. E não é no uso errado da língua, nem no uso de "vocês" e "a gente". Há línguas que vieram a existir do Português, são línguas creolas, que é uma área interessante, veja Portuguese Creole isto porque a sua gramática não provém do português. É muito complicado que o que se fale no Brasil seja algum dia considerado língua, talvez daqui a 1000 anos, não é uma situação semelhante ao do Latim Vulgar em relação ao Português, mas o nacionalista daquele site deu essa ideia.

Já estou a extender muito, mas gosto de discutir este tipo de coisas. Obrigado pela sua simpatia. E, não sou expert. -Pedro 10:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC) ---

o termo lingua de facto às vezes tem conotação política acontece também no Português, mas em relação ao Galego, veja Galician e Portuguese-Galician que de facto já se separou do que se fala em Portugal há vários séculos, sofre(u) de influência do Espanhol, mas linguisticamente é dificil retratar como língua separada, por isso as universidades galegas, a maioria, considera o galego como dialecto do Português, ou o considera Português-galego, mas não as autoridades espanholas.--Pedro 10:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Usercategorization
You were listed on the Wikipedians/Brazil page as living in or being associated with Brazil. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Brazil for instructions. Rmky87 06:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese and Spanish
Olá! I have addressed your concerns at Talk:Spanish Language. Rothorpe 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:AnandaLima


text:
Kallikantzaros

The kallikantzaros (καλικάντζαρος; караконджул; караконџула; karakoncolos; or kallikantzaroi in plural) is a malevolent creature in Southeast European and Anatolian folklore. Stories about the kallikantzaros or its equivalents can typically be found in Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia, and Cyprus. Kallikantzaroi are believed to dwell underground but come to the surface during the twelve days of Christmas, from 25 December to 6 January (from the winter solstice for a fortnight, during which time the sun ceases its seasonal movement).

Etymology
The term kallikantzaros is speculated to be derived from the Greek kalos-kentauros ("beautiful centaur"), although this theory has been met with many objections. A second theory proposes that the word comes from Turkish kara-kondjolos "werewolf, vampire", from kara "black" and koncolos "bloodsucker, werewolf".

Greek folklore
It is believed that kallikantzaroi stay underground, sawing the trunk of the tree that holds the Earth, so that it will collapse, along with the Earth. However, according to folklore, when the final part of the trunk is about to be sawed, Christmas dawns and kallikantzaroi are able to come to the surface. They forget the tree and come to bring trouble to mortals.

Finally, on the Epiphany (6 January), the sun starts moving again, and they must return underground to continue their sawing. They see that during their absence the world tree has healed itself, so they must start working all over again. This is believed to occur annually.

Appearance

There is no standard description of the appearance of kallikantzaroi; there are regional variations as to how their appearance is described. Some Greek illustrators have imagined them with some animal parts, such as hairy bodies, horse legs, or boar tusks. Sometimes they are enormous, at other times diminutive. Other groups see them as small humans with a horrible odor. They are predominantly male, often with protruding sexual characteristics. Many Greeks have imagined them as tall, black and hairy, with burning red eyes, goats' or donkeys' ears, monkeys' arms, tongues that hang out and heads that are huge. Nonetheless, the most common belief is that they are small, black creatures, humanoid apart from their long black tails, and said to resemble little black devils. They are also mostly blind, speak with a lisp and love to eat frogs, worms, and other small creatures.

Lore
Kallikantzaroi are believed to be creatures of the night. According to folklore, there were many ways people could protect themselves during the days when the kallikantzaroi were loose. One such method was to leave a colander on their doorstep to trick the visiting kallikantzaros. It was believed that since it could not count above two – three was believed to be a holy number, and by pronouncing it, the kallikantzaros would supposedly kill itself – the kallikantzaros would sit at the doorstep all night, counting each hole of the colander, until the sun rose and it was forced to hide. It is an annual tradition in some cultures to throw “loukoumades” (a donut-like dessert filled with syrup) and sausages on your roof, and sing a specific song. It is believed that once this is done, the kallikantzaroi will eat these and leave, returning to their work underground.

Another supposed method of protection from kallikantzaroi was to leave the fire burning in the fireplace, all night, so that they could not enter through it. In some areas, people would burn the Yule log for the duration of the twelve days. In other areas, people would throw foul-smelling shoes into the fire, as the stench was believed to repel the kallikantzaroi, forcing them to stay away. Additional ways to keep them away included marking one's door with a black cross on Christmas Eve and burning incense.

According to legend, any child born during the twelve days of Christmas was in danger of transforming into a kallikantzaros during each Christmas season, starting with adulthood. It was believed that the antidote to prevent this transformation was to bind the baby in tresses of garlic or straw, or to singe the child's toenails. According to another legend, anyone born on a Saturday could see and talk with the kallikantzaroi.

One particularity that set the kallikantzaroi apart from other goblins or creatures in folklore was that they were said to appear on Earth for only twelve days each year. Their short duration on Earth, as well as the fact that they were not considered purely malevolent creatures but rather impish and stupid, led to a number of theories about their creation. One such theory connects them to the masquerades of the ancient Roman winter festival of Bacchanalia, and earlier the Greek Dionysia. During the drunken, orgiastic parts of the festivals, people wearing masks, hidden under costumes in bestial shapes yet still appearing humanoid, may have made an exceptional impression on the minds of simple folk who were intoxicated.

In Greek, the term kallikantzaros is also used to describe a number of other short, ugly and usually mischievous beings in folklore. When not used for the aforementioned creatures, it seems to express the collective sense for the Irish word leprechaun and the English words gnome and goblin.

Serbian folklore
In Serbian Christmas traditions, the Twelve Days of Christmas were previously called the "unbaptized days" and were considered a time when demonic forces of all kinds were believed to be more active and dangerous than usual. People were cautious not to attract their attention, and did not go out late at night. The latter precaution was especially because of the mythical demons called karakondžula (караконџула; also karakondža / караконџа, karakandža / караканџа or karapandža / карапанџа), imagined as heavy, squat, and ugly creatures. According to tradition, when a karakondžula found someone outdoors during the night of an unbaptized day, it would jump on the person's back and demand to be carried wherever it wanted. This torture would end only when roosters announced the dawn; at that moment the creature would release its victim and run away.

The karakondžula is also known to punish and torment people who commit adultery. Adulterers were known to sneak out of their homes while their significant other would sleep, and then visit the person they were cheating with, or prostitutes, or brothels. The karakondžula would sit and wait on the top of the doorframe of the front door to the house and jump on the back of the adulterers and lash them with a stick or scratch or dig its sharp nails in the person back and neck and force them to run through nearby forests all night. Similarity to other accounts the karakondžula would flee by the sight of first dawn.

This can be seen as a warning to would be adulterers to think carefully about their intentions, desires and understand the consequences that they would incur if they were to fulfill such actions. In this version of the myth the karakondžula would come back every night and remain on the door lintel until the adulterers confess their sins to their significant other

Bulgarian folklore
The Bulgarian name of the demon is karakondjul (also romanized karakondjol, karakondzul/karakondžul; караконджул) or karakondjo (караконджо). They may be conceived of variously: as being human-like except for having a hairy body, a tail, and a large head with horns on it, or a one-eyed being standing on a single leg, or a horse-headed man. It is considered a shape-shifter which may appear as a dog, a man, a sheep, or a calf. It is reputed to dwell in caves, or rivers, or abandoned water mill, and come out at night.

A Bulgarian custom called kukeri (or koukeri) is performed to scare away the evil creature and avoid contact with it.

Albanian folklore
In Albanian folklore Kukuth (kukudhi) and Karkanxholji (Karkançoli, related to Greek καλλικάντσαρος) are undead corpses, who go around in January, laden with chains and effusing a deadly breath. Known also among Calabrian Albanians. According to another version, the Karkançual is vested with iron clothes, which is why chainmail armor is known as këmish karkançoli in Albanian.

title: Kallikantzaros


text:
Talk:Luther Martin

Untitled
The article has him graduating from college before he was born. I'd guess 1746 was a typo from 1766. As for the unsigned comment below, it wouldn't surprise me if Metuchen, then unincorporated, was considered part of Brunswick, as much of what's now Middlesex county was. Dvd Avins (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Luther Martin was born in Brunswick, New Jersey in 1748.

source for burial info
Can anyone provide a source for the burial site being "an unmarked grave in St. John's churchyard"? Find-A-Grave lists him as being buried in Trinity Churchyard. There have been several St. John's churches in New York City, and one of them (St. John's Chapel) was, according to Wiki, in the Episcopal parish of Trinity Church. But this church was torn down in 1918. Elsquared (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Source of DOB change?
this change said it's according to "family records", but didn't provide any reference. Most of database on Internet says 1748.--fireattack (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Henry Adams characterizes Luther Martin
This might be a bit much for the "Legal Career" section of the article, but is worth noting anyway:

The bar of Maryland felt a curious mixture of pride and shame in owning that his genius and vices were equally remarkable. Rough and coarse in manner and expression, verbose, often ungrammatical, commonly more or less drunk, passionate, vituperative, gross, he still had a mastery of legal principles and a memory that overbalanced his faults, an audacity and humor that conquered ill-will. In the practice of his profession he had learned to curb his passions until his ample knowledge had time to give the utmost weight to his assaults. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Information on legal background missing
No mention is made of Martin's background as a lawyer until later in the article. He attended Princeton and graduated in 1766 with honors, but the first we learn of his legal background is in the Legal Career section which concerns the 1800s. I'm busy at the moment and will make a note to research and document this when I can wrap up some other WP matters. Allreet (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Luther Martin


text:
St Olave's Church, Hart Street

St Olave's Church, Hart Street, is a Church of England church in the City of London, located on the corner of Hart Street and Seething Lane near Fenchurch Street railway station.

John Betjeman described St Olave's as "a country church in the world of Seething Lane." The church is one of the smallest in the city and is one of only a handful of medieval City churches that escaped the Great Fire of London in 1666. In addition to being a local parish church, St Olave's is the Ward Church of the Tower Ward of the City of London.

History
The church is first recorded in the 13th century as St Olave-towards-the-Tower, a stone building replacing the earlier (presumably wooden) construction. It is dedicated to the patron saint of Norway, King Olaf II of Norway, who fought alongside the Anglo-Saxon King Æthelred the Unready against the Danes in the Battle of London Bridge in 1014. He was canonised after his death and the church of St Olave's was built apparently on the site of the battle. The Norwegian connection was reinforced during the Second World War when King Haakon VII of Norway worshipped there while in exile.

Saint Olave's was rebuilt in the 13th century and then again in the 15th century. The present building dates from around 1450. According to John Stow's Survey of London (1603), a major benefactor of the church in the late 15th century was wool merchant Richard Cely Sr. (d. 1482), who held the advowson on the church (inherited by his son, Richard Cely Jr.). On his death, Cely bequeathed money for making the steeple and an altar in the church. The merchant mark of the Cely family was carved in two of the corbels in the nave (and were extant until the bombing of World War II). No memorial to the Celys now remains in the church.

Saint Olave's survived the Great Fire of London with the help of Sir William Penn, the father of the more famous William Penn who founded Pennsylvania, and his men from the nearby Naval yards. He had ordered the men to blow up the houses surrounding the church to create a fire break. The flames came within 100 yards or so of the building, but then the wind changed direction, saving the church and a number of other churches on the eastern side of the city.

The church was a favourite of the diarist Samuel Pepys, whose house and Royal Navy office were both on Seething Lane. A regular worshipper, he referred to St. Olave's in his diary affectionately as "our own church" In 1660, he had a gallery built on the south wall of the church and added an outside stairway from the Royal Navy Offices so that he could go to church without getting soaked by the rain. The gallery is now gone but a memorial to Pepys marks the location of the stairway's door. In 1669, when his beloved wife Elisabeth died from fever, Pepys had a marble bust of her made by John Bushnell and installed on the north wall of the sanctuary so that he would be able to see her from his pew at the services. In 1703, he was buried next to his wife in the nave. In his 1861 work, The Uncommercial Traveller, Charles Dickens described the 17th century gateway of Saint Olave's churchyard, which has skulls and crossbones carved in its tympanum, as being "one of my best beloved churchyards, I call the churchyard of Saint Ghastly Grim" and recounts once visiting it after midnight during a thunderstorm to see the skulls "having the air of a public execution".

However, the church was gutted by German bombs in 1941 during the London Blitz, and was restored in 1954, with King Haakon returning to preside over the rededication ceremony, during which he laid a stone from Trondheim Cathedral in front of the sanctuary.

Between 1948 and 1954, when the restored St Olave's was reopened, a prefabricated church stood on the site of All Hallows Staining. This was known as St Olave Mark Lane. The tower of All Hallows Staining was used as the chancel of the temporary church.

The church was designated a Grade I listed building on 4 January 1950. St Olave's has retained long and historic links with Trinity House and the Clothworkers' Company.

Architecture
St Olave's has a modest exterior in the Perpendicular Gothic style. with a somewhat squat square tower of stone and brick, the latter added in 1732. It is famous for the macabre 1658 entrance arch to the churchyard, which is decorated with grinning skulls. The novelist Charles Dickens was so taken with this that he included the church in his book of sketches The Uncommercial Traveller, renaming it "St Ghastly Grim".

The interior of St Olave's only partially survived the wartime bombing; much of it dates from the restoration of the 1950s. It is nearly square, with three bays separated by columns of Purbeck limestone supporting pointed arches. The roof is a simple oak structure with bosses. Most of the church fittings are modern, but there are some significant survivals, such as the monument to Elizabeth Pepys and the pulpit, said to be the work of Grinling Gibbons. Following the destruction of the organ in the Blitz, the John Compton Organ Company built a new instrument in the West Gallery, fronted by a large wooden grille; this organ, and the Rectory behind, is ingeniously structured between church and tower.

In the tower, there was a memorial with an American connection. It honors Monkhouse Davison and Abraham Newman, the grocers of Fenchurch Street who shipped crates of tea to Boston in late 1773. These crates were seized and thrown into the waters during the Boston Tea Party, one of the causes of the American War of Independence.

Perhaps the oddest "person" said to be buried here is the "Pantomime character" Mother Goose. Her burial was recorded by the parish registers on 14 September 1586. A plaque on the outside commemorates this event. The churchyard is also said to contain the grave of one Mary Ramsay, popularly believed to be the woman who brought the Plague to London in 1665. The parish registers have the record of her burial, which was on 24 July 1665. Thereafter, in the same year, the victims of the Great Plague were marked with a 'p' after their names in the registers.

Bells
On the east side of St Olave's, there is a stained glass window depicting Queen Elizabeth I standing with two tall bells at her feet. She held a thanksgiving service at St Olave's on Trinity Sunday, 15 May 1554, while she was still Princess Elizabeth, to celebrate her release from the Tower of London. She had originally given bell-ropes of silk to the All Hallows Staining Church because its bells had rung the loudest of all London bells on the day of her freedom, but, when All Hallows Staining was merged with St. Olave's in 1870, the bell-ropes went with it.

On 11 May 1941, an incendiary bomb was dropped by the Luftwaffe on the tower of the church. The tower, along with the baptistry and other buildings, was burned out and the furnishings and monuments destroyed. The heat was so great that even the peal of the eight bells were melted "back into bell metal". In the early 1950s, the bell metal was recast into new bells by the same foundry that created the original bells – the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, in 1662 and 1694. The new bells were then hung in the rebuilt tower.

There are currently nine bells at St Olave's Hart Street consisting of one Sanctus bell and a ring of eight bells hung for full circle ringing, with the tenor of the eight weighing 11–3–23. The bells are usually rung for practices, which take place on Thursday evenings between 7:00 pm and 8:30 pm during term time, and for Sunday service between 12:20 pm and 13:00 pm every Sunday. The bells are currently rung by the University of London Society of Change Ringers (ULSCR) who have a healthy band consisting of past and present members of London Universities, along with other regular supporters.

Organ
An organ was built by Samuel Green and finished in 1781. Organists include Mary Hudson, William Shrubsole, and John Turene – all appointed 21 December 1781.

The 1781 organ was destroyed in the Blitz in 1941. After the war, a new organ was built behind a wooden grille in the west gallery by the John Compton Organ Company in 1954. It was built on the extension principle with six ranks. in 1957 three additional ranks were added. It now has 43 stops controlled from a drawstop console in the west gallery.

Peter Turner
Peter Turner was a notable physician in the 16th early 17th century and adherent of Paracelsus, was buried in the church along with his father William Turner, also a famed physician and naturalist. When he died in 1614, a memorial bust was crafted and placed in the south-east corner of the church. When the church was gutted during the Blitz, the bust went missing. It was not seen until April 2010 when it reappeared at a UK art auction. When it was recognised, the sale was frozen and negotiations took place via The Art Loss Register to return the bust to the church. It was finally returned to its original location within St Olave's in 2011 after an absence of more than 70 years.

Notable people associated with the church

 * Queen Elizabeth I of England: held a thanksgiving service here in 1554 on the day of her release from the nearby Tower of London
 * An Inuit man, the first Inuk to come to England when he was captured during Martin Frobisher's first voyage in search of the Northwest Passage in 1576, was buried here in late October the same year. An Inuit child, captured during Frobisher's second expedition the following year and known as Nutaaq, was also buried here in late November 1577.
 * Sir Philip Sidney, the poet: had his daughter Elizabeth christened in this church in 1585
 * Sir Francis Walsingham, Queen Elizabeth I's spymaster: lived across the street from this church, and his house was mentioned several times by the church's records as the place for baptisms, marriages and funerals
 * John Lumley, 1st Baron Lumley, collector of artworks and books: "The Lord Lumlie died here at his howse on 11 Aprill, 1609" but his body was brought to Cheam, Surrey for burial
 * Anthony Bacon: diplomat and intellectual, brother of Francis Bacon, was buried at this church, 1601
 * Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, grandson of Sir Francis Walsingham and English Civil War general: baptised at the house of Sir Francis's widow and noted in the parish registers of this church, 1590
 * Ann, Lady Fanshawe, memoirist: wrote in her memoirs, "I was born in St. Olaves, Hart Street, London, in a house that my father took of the Lord Dingwall . . . " on 25 March 1625 and baptised on 7 April 1625 at this church as Ann Harrison
 * Samuel Pepys, diarist: buried at this church, 1703 next to his wife, Elisabeth Pepys, who predeceased him
 * King Haakon VII of Norway: worshipped here, 1940–1945

title: St Olave's Church, Hart Street


text:
Talk:Bobcat (disambiguation)

True or false: there is a good advantage of having this the way it is over using Bobcat for the animal and having other links moved to Bobcat (disambiguation). 66.245.6.21 23:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I vote for moving links to a disambiguation page. --69.5.156.155 08:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Bobcat as in Bob Dylan fanatic, is that worth adding? 131.111.161.185 (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bobcat
Hi 167.73.214.65 (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bobcat (disambiguation)


text:
East Camden

East Camden may refer to:
 * East Camden, Arkansas, a city in Arkansas
 * East Camden, New Jersey, a neighborhood
 * East Camden, South Carolina, an unincorporated community and census-designated place in South Carolina

title: East Camden


text:
East Dublin

East Dublin may refer to:

 * The U.S. city of East Dublin, Georgia
 * The eastern part of Dublin, Ireland
 * A nickname of Liverpool, England

title: East Dublin