text:
Talk:Julia Margaret Cameron

Untitled
I noticed some discrepancy from source to source on the marriave and "move to england" dates. Without spending *too* much time on this, I updated the page with what looked like the most credible of the sources I was looking at. Alchemist0405

I've seen some original prints by Julia Margaret Cameron. They are far from perfect : dust and hair on the plate, I think this is objective not POV. Ericd 00:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * You'd still have to source it, e.g. "according to X, Cameron's prints were QUOTE far from perfect, with dust and hair on the plate UNQUOTE". Otherwise we only have your word for it, and we can't cite User:Ericd as a source, firstly because you could be anyone, and secondly because it would be original research. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I added her birthplace and parentage info. Also, the section on her "illustrations" needs to be clarified, since it seems, at times, that the article is talking about actual drawings, and not narrative photographs. -- AKeen 18:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced info
This paragraph keeps appearing from time to time. If someone could actually find the source for this it can be included:

"Unfortunately Julia produced her own prints and was unkempt in apperance. Producing her own prints stained her fingers making them look dirty. With a least one vistor had the fear of god put in them when Julia seeing a new subject over- enthusiastically approached them. Julia must have appeared as a beggar from her looks than the "Lady of the House"."

-AKeen 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

== New file : ==

thumb Recently the file : (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Luminist
Would it be informative to add mention of David Rocklin's novel "The Luminist" which is based on Cameron's time in Ceylon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.91.204 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Source for allegorical photos
Hello. I'm curious to know what book if any can be used as a source for Cameron's allegorical work. Her (at least) four amazing pictures of Alice Liddell are evidently in this group. (Please drop a note on my talk page if there is ever a reply to this note.) -SusanLesch (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ceylon is not in India
The section entitled Later Life several times refers to Cameron as being in India, statements apparently based on the belief that Ceylon was part of India. It was not, is not, never has been. The government of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was always quite separate from India's. I have therefore changed the text in this section to remove mention of India, replacing it with Ceylon. Do I have to cite sources for this fact? I have referred to the subjects of her pictures as Ceylonese in order to avoid assuming that they were Sinhalese or Tamil (they were likely the former, but I have no way of proving or sourcing that statement). Penelope Coleman (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Penelope Coleman

 * Seems reasonable. Thanks for the useful edit! Naturenet | Talk 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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/20090710102136/http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/cameron/artanna.shtml to http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/cameron/artanna.shtml

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) 03:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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/20100211181039/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/features/photo_focus/cameron/related/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/features/photo_focus/cameron/related/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised url substituted --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  03:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Margaret Cameron. 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/20160811225311/http://mimt.jp/cameron/eng/midokoro.html to http://mimt.jp/cameron/eng/midokoro.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised url substituted --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  03:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

recent edits
So I just became a wikipedia editor a few days ago as part of an Art + Feminism event and didn't realize that it wasn't cool to edit entries that I had a personal interest in. Ie. I wrote a biography of Julia Margaret Cameron in 2003 so a few days ago I went in and made some updates, including (among other changes) adding some more recent exhibits of her work, taking out references to her being an "unattractive" woman, and adding my own published biography to the reference section. So I guess I'm just flagging this for someone else to check my work because I didn't mean to run afoul of the rules. If I did, please instruct, revert, or whatever. Thanks/apologies!Vcolsen (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)vcolsen
 * Victoria, I am sure you are a welcome addition here. In fact content expertise is a good thing, as long as one does not shamelessly self-promote one's own work! However I have been citing your work around here for some time. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  01:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I put the reference to your work in a more standard format. Thanks for reminding me of your work. However you did delete a lot of material, and there may be some discussion about that. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Looking through the deletions I've reverted a couple of them (albeit with some rewriting) as I think they matter. Firstly, I disagree with changing "out of focus" to "soft focus" as they are not the same thing, and ISTM that it is precisely because Cameron (and many Pictorialists) used out of focus technique as a proxy for soft focus that they were derided as incompetent. (By implication that means the other bits that talk of "soft focus" really need clarifying as it is significant to understanding how she was received.) Secondly I restored the Gernsheim stuff (except the bit crediting him with single-handely popularising her, as I think that was just his vanity, her work had already been published by Stieglitz in Camera Work in 1913 for instance). But he did make the crucial observation that being a great photographer is not the same thing as being an influential photographer, as their contemporaries may either not appreciate their work or simply not have heard of them (he puts Hill & Adamson in the same category BTW). I amended the Cunningham quote to reinforce this, since it shows that even a great fan of Cameron only became aware of her in retrospect - Cameron is popular now because her close-cropped style became fashionable from around the mid-20th century, but her influence skipped a few of generations of photographers in between, basically she was a 100 years ahead of her time! Samatarou (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

'Out-of-focus' or 'selective focus'?
Samatarou is right to draw the distinction between soft focus and out of focus, but neither term describes her technique effectively; much of Cameron's work uses selective focus. This is especially evident from the summer of 1865 when she started using a larger camera, with 15x12 inch glass plates producing images such as The return after three days of that year and then early in 1866 switching to a larger format still for Summer Days (a big group including May Prinsep, Freddy Gould, Lizzie Koewen, Mary Ryan), dated 1866-1870. Even contact printed, the depth of field with such a format is but a razor's edge and requires much more precise operation than is credited to Cameron by most commentators (most of whom have not tried it for themselves). Focus has to be placed 'here' or 'there' but can't be 'all-over'. Both The Return and Summer Days are sharp, but very selectively, and in examples like Prayer and Praise (1865) the forward tilt of the camera produces sharpness at several, very strategic, points in depth; lips, nose and one closed eye of the Christ child in the foreground and just the eyes of 'Mary' and 'Joseph' in the background at top of frame. That image reveals a highly sophisticated use of focus we see rarely repeated by her peers. It might even have been achieved by titling the lens panel...if her camera was designed that way. We don't know because a difficulty preventing deeper analysis of her technique is that none of Cameron’s cameras survive and the only lens to come down to us is her first, a 'Jamin', made in Paris a Petzval type made specifically for 'soft-focus' portraiture with a severe curvature of field and used for the earlier glass plates approximately 12 x 10 inch (31 x 25.4 cm). It is between usually very sharp areas of focus that the 'roundness of form' that Cameron loved is given expression. The article needs added a knowledgeable section on the technique of this hugely important artist which she quite evidently warrants and which I hope comes out of this peer review...the term 'soft focus' does her an injustice. Jamesmcardle(talk) 05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , from what I recall, this part of her technique was referred to as "soft focus" or "out of focus" much more often than "selective focus" in the reliable sources I've used. That said, you make a good point that the type of focus that she uses might more precisely be described as "selective" and that this distinction may be useful for readers. Her technique overall may deserve more coverage; it is addressed in the article, but it is scattered across several sections. I will have these concerns in mind during the peer review and will look for how this is handled by reliable sources. Thanks for your comments. Qono (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why contemporary sources describe Cameron's focus as 'out-of-focus', and some later ones 'soft focus'; the term ‘selective focus’ was not in use in Cameron’s time; the earliest mention of the phrase that I can find is 1911, well after her death, in Volume 5, Page 530 of
 * Here are some reliable sources that use the term in relation to Cameron's technique which may be useful in the peer review and in creating a specific section in the article (underlinings are mine):
 * “During the 1860s, Julia Margaret Cameron's images helped to establish the issue of selective focus as a criterion of peerless practice. The making of “out-of-focus" images was considered an expressive remedy that shifted the artificial, machine-focus of a camera toward a more natural vision. Cameron considered focusing to be a fluid process during which she would stop when something looked beautiful to her eye.”

 * “Had she been dissatisfied with the indeterminate, selective focus ; that she settled upon, she could certainly have modified her equipment or sought an alter native method of working, but her choice was very consciously made.” In the same text there is a discussion of the standard sliding-box camera that Cameron used, the size of her early glass plates (approximately twelve by ten inches) and the qualities of focus of the fixed aperture (f3.6) French-made Jamin lens of Petzval construction of approximately twelve inch focal length, only the centre portion of which was sharp.

 * “Her portraits are not presented the way our eye sees. The selective focus allows Cameron to direct the viewer’s eye where she wants emphasis, and also reminds us that we are not looking at “real life.” This is a constructed performance. The shallow focus along with the spots, scratches, marks, chemical stains, and other “imperfections” of the print make a viewer unable to look “through” the performance to see only [the sitter].” “Mary Mother [1867] displays Cameron’s characteristic selective focus, a technique that was controversial at the time. The image directs your gaze to linger on the light on her forehead, her profile, her right eye. In order to command such control of the viewer’s gaze, Cameron used techniques that were the opposite of how commercial portrait photographers of the time worked, which was to let in as much light as possible from all directions to reduce the amount of time subjects would have to remain still. So much light, according to Colin Ford, “flattened the sitters’ features and in effect ‘smoothed out’ their characters” (46). One can imagine that a paying customer who wanted a likeness of herself would be reluctant to be still for the amount of time it took [and] the paying customer would not have been interested in an image like the one above. Mary Mother is a performance, not a likeness. Flat light is “photographic”; it merely records what is in front of the lens.”

 * Susan Kismaric briefly describes a Cameron work with the term ‘selective focus’ on p.73 of

 * “Because her work was intended to achieve pictorial effect, Mrs. Cameron naturally adapted the photographic technology of her day to that end. Sharp focus was less useful to her than differential, or selective, focus because she sought spiritual meaning rather than particular information from her subjects. Her model was the same as that of Watts : Titian. Cameron's friend Sir Henry Taylor (fols. 4v, 5r, 9r, 25r, 29v) described Titian's method in one of his plays, St. Clement's Eve (1862)” Jamesmcardle(talk) 11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did Cameron herself say anything about using selective focus (however described)? The most noted proponent of selective focus is surely Emerson who built a philosophy of photography on the principle. It would be interesting to know if Cameron, whose work predated his by about 20 years, anticipated his ideas. Samatarou (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe she did, in her talk of 'screwing on' the lens, but lacked the language. Various interpretations of that expression have been made, but not often by those who have actually used large format at full aperture. Her choice of making 'life-size' portraits (as she truthfully described them), when few others would dare, means she was making 1:1 close-ups, and any photographer knows what that means for extremes of shallow focus. So her talk of focussing ('screwing on') the lens till she reaches a satisfactory point is analogous to the action of focussing a microscope on a 3D specimen as the sharpness glides over its contours. She gets one eye in focus, but not the other, picks out the contour of the cheek, the line of the nose; significant, emblematic elements of the human visage are isolated. Her imagery, her oft-mentioned focus, is by definition 'selective' - there's no other word for it. Very few of her pictures are 'out-of-focus' everywhere (only when she prints through the back of the plate), but all (even those, in the negative) are sharp somewhere, even when her long-suffering subject dares to breath during her interminable exposure times Jamesmcardle(talk) 06:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the infobox use the original photograph of Cameron or a version modified by a Wikipedia editor?
Should the image of Julia Margaret Cameron used in the infobox be or a modified version that has been altered by a Wikipedia editor who has cropped the original, removed spots, increased contrast, and modified the color? Qono (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: The photograph is not by Cameron. People seem to be in a lot of confusion about this. Adam Cuerden''' (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

'''NOTE about WP:CANVASSING (Canvassing/Campaigning): Adam Cuerden made these following posts about the RfC immediately after their vote/comments at 22:31, 27 March 2021. This happened after Pincrete's !vote when the straight vote count was 9 for Original and 4 for Restoration. Judge the diffs for yourself.'''
 * at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red
 * at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates
 * at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom
 * at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup
 * at User_talk:Adam_Cuerden Some1 (talk)

FURTHER NOTE about WP:CANVASSING (Canvassing/Campaigning): Qono, who started this RfC, made the following posts about the RfC immediately after opening it.
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

As a result, the first few comments are overwhelmingly in support of the "Original". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also relevant User_talk:Cwmhiraeth and User_talk:Qono. Of the six diffs you listed (to users: CharlotteM85, Michael Goodyear, Milliabb, AKeen, Vcolsen, SusanLesch), only two have actually voted (Michael Goodyear and Akeen). And the notifications from Quono don't seem problematic or non-neutral; those users seem to have been chosen because they were "someone who has contributed substantially to this article" according to their talk page messages. This falls under Canvassing.
 * The five comments from Adam Cuerden though were obviously non-neutral: . A minute after Adam Cuerden's comment in the RfC at 22:31, 27 March 2021, they made those five Canvassings between 22:32 - 22:56, 27 March 2021. Then 11 "Restoration" votes came pouring in between 22:40, 27 March 2021 and 00:30, 28 March 2021. As of 13:00, 28 March 2021, there are 16 "Restoration" votes which came after those Adam Cuerden notifications. Some1 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Original. The alteration by Wikipedia editors of an original work of art as digitized and published by reliable, authoritative sources is a type of original research. These restorations can be valuable, but in the context of the visual arts it is best to use a reproduction (or restoration) as presented by a museum or other authoritative source, not a special version created by a Wikipedia editor. In this context, an editor retouching an artwork might be like an editor "fixing" what they perceive as grammar mistakes when quoting a poem that uses creative phrasing or formatting. It's an unencylopedic intervention. We should leave the difficult business of modifying creative works while retaining the artist's original intent to professionals publishing their work in authoritative sources. Qono (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is the perfect article for this discussion, as Cameron herself was criticized for her unretouched prints and use of soft focus. The article quotes a particularly scathing criticism of her work from The Photographic News: "Smudged, torn, dirty, undefined, and in some cases almost unreadable, there is hardly one of them that ought not to have been washed off the plate as soon as it appeared". Though this discussion is meant to focus on the infobox image of Cameron, which is by her son, one might ask: what level or type of retouching of Cameron's photographs would be acceptable? Qono (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a bit of a red herring, given the photo isn't by her. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original - I agree with Qono's points above. The purpose of images on an artist's page is to show the artist's work as it appears, and I believe that using the original is the only way to do this. - AKeen (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The photograph isn't by her. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original - we are obliged to be authentic, not artistic. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  23:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original Opinions on whether which version is more "visually appealing" or "superior" are subjective; the modified version is not superior IMHO. Not every old portrait or photograph has to be modified to be darker and black-and-white-ish. Any editor could choose an old artwork or photograph on Wikipedia and modify it to their own liking, but that's not the original artwork as intended by the author. The fact that Cameron preferred "softly focused and unrefined images" might indicate that she prefers the original version. And if people are reading the caption Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron, readers expect to see the original portrait by her son, not some modified version from a Wikipedia editor . The status quo is the original version and if consensus is to use the restored version, then the caption needs to explicitly state that it's a restored version as to not mislead readers. Some1 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC) expanding on my !vote, Some1 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The photo isn't by Cameron. Qono misframed the issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how "Qono misframed the issue"? Anyway, the caption states Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron. If we are using the Restoration version, then the caption needs to clearly indicate that it's a Restoration or readers will be misled into thinking that the Adam Cuerden Restoration version is the original "1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron" . Some1 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original is more authentic.--Droid I am (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration - superior quality, visually appealing, and it doesn't cause the subject to be misrepresented. The restored photograph met the criteria for a featured picture, and what is described as WP:OR, is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive...typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. MOS recommends that we use the best quality images available, and the restoration is by far superior quality. I believe the restoration is what our readers would expect to see, when you compare the two photos side by side. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration - as per Isaidnoway. The fact that she favoured creating "softly focused and unrefined images" is irrelevant to the desire of our readers to see depicted the best available image of her. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original per QonoSea Ane (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration - I think the claims of "modifying a creative work" are exaggerated. Colour-correcting a photograph in a way that probably better resembles its initial state is not "modifying a creative work". Nor is cropping it, which happens on every Wikipedia page that has photographs. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original - I don't think the issue with the restoration is an issue of original research, but I think for a historical portrait we should value authenticity over what some editors subjectively view to be visual enhancements of the image. I'm not even convinced the darker, restored photo is more visually appealing, but I don't think that's what's important here. Volteer1 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original for both historic reasons, and because the "new and improved" is actually very dark on some devices, so not really an improvement across the board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original per above. ~ HAL  333  16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration - for reasons detailed by Isaidnoway. The article is about a person, not an artistic work or body of work. The 'authenticity' arguments have no weight in this context - since we are not obliged to represent the person in a manner that reflects their style, rather simply the clearest likeness of the subject. Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration: Seriously, the photo ISN'T EVEN BY CAMERON. All the talk about her decisions in her own photos are completely irrelevant, and a distraction. But, hey, what do I know, I only have 536 featured pictures over my career which began in 2008 or so. Clearly I know nothing about what I'm doing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration: We have and make improved versions of photos all the time for the purposes of having improved images for articles. Also, this work isn't even by her, so most of the above "Original" votes should be discarded as not making a valid argument regarding the subject's creative works. Silver  seren C 22:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors are free to prefer the Original artwork by her son (as the caption states Julia Margaret Cameron in an 1870 portrait by her son, Henry Herschel Hay Cameron) over the restoration. Not everyone thinks the restoration is better. Some1 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course they are free to have that preference, but several did not give it as their rationale. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration: Restored photos are accepted during featured article reviews: for example File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg, also restored by Adam, is the lead image on Carl Nielsen. An institution is concerned with providing accurate images of what is in its collection, which is completely different from providing the best possible representation of the subject of an image for a Wikipedia article, so restricting ourselves to the institution's image is not appropriate. --Mirokado (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration. This is an article about Cameron, not about the effects of photographic processes and time on photo reproduction quality. It is more important to clearly portray Cameron than to show what someone else's photo of her now looks like as a physical object. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration. The point of this image is not to demonstrate her style or her son’s style; it’s to identify her. The restoration does a superior job at that. This really is standard practice. Compare this original photo of Lucy Diggs Slowe with the restored version The New York Times ran. There’s a conversation to be had about where the boundaries lay, but of as Isaidnoway points out, we already have a body of guidance, and appropriately, it’s considerably more nuanced than straight up-or-down on photo editing—as with editing text, I’d point out. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * restoration - if we start suggesting that we shouldn't use the fixed up image, then we should just chuck the whole featured pictures process in the bin. Not only are these types of touch ups normal, we are attempting to show the subject of the image, not what the image itself looked like. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration as per many of the good points above, the photograph is not her work, and it has been restored to better illustrate her as the subject of that image. Smirkybec (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration - per User:PraiseVivec the restoration is more likely to reflect the *original* photo than the beat-up, so-called "original", but that's not even a major consideration. In this context, we simply want the best image which is obviously the restoration. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration How is this even a question? Restored images aren't some new edits to originals; good restorers clear up faults that come from e.g. weathering. The RfC opener seems to misunderstand image restoration, and by making mention both that the subject was at the center of restoration controversy, and that the restoration was by a WP editor specifically (as if that holds less value than an outside restoration), is clearly trying to sway votes, seemingly unaware that many images on Commons have been touched-up to be clearer and of higher quality and this is one of the best. Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration per David Eppstein, mostly. I was pinged here, yes, but it's how I'd !vote regardless. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration I agree with the rational of Kingsif, Smirkybec, and Smallbones. The infobox image should include the highest resolution and quality image of the subject that is possible (freely licensed). This restoration is not an inaccurate portrayal of Cameron. TJMSmith (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration: as others have stated, the question in the section header is simply a false premise as neither option is "the original photograph". One is the physical photograph 150 years into its natural degradation, and another is a close approximation of what the original looked like. The purpose of the image is to reflect the subject, so the restoration is better on that count. If authenticity with respect to the son's art is the aim then, as neither is a physical photo but a digital image, then again the restoration is better. No "original research" has taken place as the only changes are uncontroversial within the field. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration, per the arguments above. There is only one certain thing on wikipedia, which is that if you do a lot of work, someone will come along and dump on you. I note the bleat about canvassing: this is an RfC, which should seek as wide an input as possible, rather than being a dark alley for beating someone up amongst friends. There is a world of difference between being made aware of an RfC and canvassing; the argument that "the vote was going my way before the fact of this RfC became widely known" is as pathetic as it is unpersuasive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration I agree with most of the people that are saying here as it's better to have a clearer picture that was something like how it was originally meat to be taken and not been weathered up via up some time. If we are removing these restoration than why do we have the Featured Picture section is beyond me. HawkAussie (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration: The purpose of the infobox photo is to show what she looked like, not to illustrate her son's technique, and this is better achieved by the restored image. Pam  D  06:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration: shows the subject of the article much more clearly. Unless we are required distribute paper copies of the original for complete authenticity? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration: To use the original is to assume every user has the same browser size and clarity, or the same operating system. We should make these images the best quality possible for all users to access.  — Maile  (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration as per the many sensible comments above. The photo is being used to illustrate an article about the photo's subject, not the photographer's work. Better image clarity benefits all users visiting the article. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration: I can't see why restoration is not considered helpful. We should strive for the best possible versions of historic images.--Ipigott (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration. Cautious restoration like this upon digitizing is standard at historical photo archives, which I've worked at and done it myself. It's a Featured Picture for a reason. The restoration was done well. You can always argue it could be done better still, but there is no problem with using a restored photograph per se. While I agree that it is preferable to use a restoration done by a professional, that should not be the standard. We're a free content encyclopedia by volunteers and the starting point is that content is created by us volunteers for free. I do not agree that there is a WP:OR problem here. This is equivalent to a volunteer writing a Wikipedia article based on professional sources (i.e. how 99% of content is made) vs. a professional writing a Wikipedia article based on such sources (welcomed, but in practice rare and not the backbone of our encyclopedia). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration says it best: this is about what Cameron looked like, not about the artistic merits of the original document. (Were it about the latter I would still vote "restoration", but my rationale would be more nuanced - frankly in this instance I don't even see why it should be a question in the first place.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original as it is presumably closer in fidelity to the original photo. But let's bear in mind that both the Met's and Adam Cuerden's photo are both digital interpretations of the original. Jpeg did not even exist as a format until 1992, according to our article. I would be very curious to see with mine own eyes what the original looks like. I have a mind to email the curator there and ask if their print is actually, that yellowed, how they scanned it, is it a print or a negative and so on.--- Possibly (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked up the Met's photo curatorial department and was about to email them to tell them about this thread, but didn't as I was not sure if it would be canvassing. Anyway, here it is. Email format is supposed to be first.last@metmuseum.org --- Possibly (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Restoration. The purpose of the image at the top of the page is to provide a clear image to the reader. Touching up images to make them clearer makes Wikipedia a better and more welcoming encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art museum. Thriley (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoration The improvements do not alter the photo in a way that would mislead the reader. The photo accurately reflects who the person was, it just looks better than the original. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Julia Margaret Cameron


text: Category:Rowers

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

title: Category:Rowers


text:
Savings bank

A savings bank is a financial institution that is not run on a profit-maximizing basis, and whose original or primary purpose is collecting deposits on savings accounts that are invested on a low-risk basis and receive interest. Savings banks have mostly existed as a separate category in Europe.

Savings banks originated in late-18th Europe as a development of the Enlightenment, and became a Europe-wide phenomenon in the first half of the 19th century. The trajectories of savings bank systems then diverged across European nations, variously leading to the formation of integrated banking groups, cohesive national networks, conversion into cooperative banking or commercial banking entities, and/or piecemeal consolidation with other credit institutions. In most countries, the surviving savings banks have private-sector status and no longer operate under a distinctive legislative framework; significant exceptions include Germany and Luxembourg, where savings banks are public-sector entities.

Naming
In many European languages, savings banks are referred to by a word that differentiates them from banks (caisse, Kasse, cassa, касса, caja) and denotes their more restricted scope of activity, sometimes translated as "fund". That word has no direct equivalent in English; its etymology is identical with that of cash and it originally referred to a cash box, then a cash register.

Overview
The origin of savings banks lies in liberal and philanthropic aspirations that motivated their promoters to create non-profit establishments aimed at promoting a culture of thrift and financial prudence among the lower classes, and using savings and the logic of compound interest as an incentive to think beyond short-term living horizons. In France, savings banks projects started to emerge in the 1750s and multiplied during the French Revolution but with no lasting success. Liberal luminaries including Adam Smith, Thomas Robert Malthus and Jean-Baptiste Say took interest in the economic and social role of savings.

The oldest lasting savings bank is widely recognized to have been the Ersparungsclasse der Allgemeinen Versorgungsanstalt established in Hamburg in 1778, followed by other endeavors in Germany and Switzerland in the late 18th century. Savings banks mushroomed in the early 19th century, with landmark establishments in Göttingen (1801, first municipal savings bank), Ruthwell, Scotland (1810, first in the United Kingdom), Boston (1816, first in the United States), Paris (1818, first in France), and Vienna (1819, first in the Austrian Empire). Even so, origin stories of the savings bank concept were long disputed. In 1914, the New Student's Reference Work said of the origins of savings banks: "France claims the credit of being the mother of savings banks, basing this claim on a savings bank said to have been established in 1765 in the town of Brumath, but it is of record that the savings bank idea was suggested in England as early as 1697. There was a savings bank in Hamburg, Germany, in 1778 and in Berne, Switzerland, in 1787. The first English savings bank was established in 1799, and postal savings banks were started in England in 1861."

The original function of savings banks to service consumers was limited to savings, not borrowing, a foundational difference with cooperative banking which started developing a bit later during the 19th century. Savings banks were typically heavily regulated and supervised by local or national governments, and restricted to invest only in government debt or other instruments deemed of low financial risk. Over time, however, these distinctions have tended to erode, and over the 20th century the regulatory framework and business model of savings banks has largely converged with those of commercial banks, albeit with significant variations across jurisdictions.

Starting in 1861 with the establishment of the British Post Office Savings Bank, savings banks were increasingly subject to competition from postal savings systems which similarly collected retail savings and invested them in safe government securities, albeit with variations across countries; some of the postal banks have themselves been called "savings banks", e.g. the Rijkspostspaarbank in the Netherlands (est. 1881), the Caisse Nationale d'Épargne in France (est. 1882), the Austrian Postsparkasse and Hungarian Postal Savings Bank in Austria-Hungary (est. 1882 and 1886 respectively), the People's Own Savings Bank in Zimbabwe (est. 1904, renamed in 1999), the Government Savings Bank in Thailand (est. 1913), the Caisse d'Épargne de Madagascar (est. 1918), and the National Savings Bank in Sri Lanka (est. 1971), and the Postal Savings Bank of China (est. 2007).

After a long period of relative stability, including through two world wars and the European banking crisis of 1931 during which they were comparatively less affected than commercial banks, the savings banks came under increasing competitive pressure during the interest rate turmoil of the 1970s and underwent significant transformation and restructuring in many jurisdictions during the last quarter of the 20th century. By the early 21st century, savings banks were most significant in Germany and Spain, and to a lesser extent in Austria.

In Communist banking systems during the 20th century, monopolistic national retail banking networks were often labeled as savings banks. The label survives in the names of several significant Central and Eastern European commercial banks such as DSK Bank in Bulgaria, Česká spořitelna in Czechia, OTP Bank in Hungary, PKO Bank Polski in Poland, Sberbank in Russia, Slovenská sporiteľňa in Slovakia, and Oschadbank in Ukraine. Other non-European banks (other than postal savings systems or their successors) similarly named include the Botswana Savings Bank and Savings and Social Development Bank in Sudan.

By country
By chronological order of inception (not including postal savings systems):
 * Germany: while the Ersparungskasse der Allgemeinen Versorgungsanstalt, est. 1778 in Hamburg, was a philanthropic endeavor, the dominant model for German savings banks has been sponsorship by local government, starting in Göttingen in 1801. In the early 20th century, savings banks created regional clearing entities, later known as Landesbanks, soon followed by the national Deutsche Girozentrale (est. 1918). The German savings banks sector is currently operating as a group with some centralized functions but decentralized organization, the Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe which relies on a group-wide institutional protection scheme.
 * Switzerland: an early savings bank (Dienstenkasse) was established in Bern in 1787. The oldest one still extant is Sparkasse Schwyz (est. 1812). As of 2022, there were 59 Swiss regional and savings banks forming a decentralized network.
 * United Kingdom: the Ruthwell Savings Bank (est. 1810) is often referred to as the first British savings bank, with competing claims about the Tottenham Female Benefit Club and Children's Bank (est. 1798 by philanthropist Priscilla Wakefield) and the Edinburgh Bank for Savings (est. 1814). In the 1970s and 1980s, surviving British savings banks consolidated into the Trustee Savings Bank, which merged with Lloyds Bank in 1995, was again spun off as TSB Bank in 2013, and was acquired by Spain's Banco Sabadell in 2015.
 * Denmark: Holsteinsborg Saving Bank was established in 1810 in Skælskør. The Danish savings banks established a common national entity, the Fællesbanken for Danmarks Sparekasser, in 1949. Their number declined from over 500 in the 1930s to a bit above 100 by the late 1980s. In 1986-1991, Fællesbanken was dismantled and its components acquired respectively by Hafnia Insurance, Sydbank and Sparekassen Bikuben, the latter a major savings bank that was eventually merged into Danske Bank in 2000. The other major savings bank, Sparekassen SDS, merged in 1990 into what in 2000 became Nordea. The remaining savings banks in 1993 joined other smaller Danish commercial and cooperative banks to form a single association of Local Banks, Savings Banks and Cooperative Banks in Denmark, or Lokale Pengeinstitutter.
 * Ireland: the first Irish trustee savings bank was founded in Waterford in 1816. By 1992, the trustee savings banks of Waterford and others in Cork, Dublin, Monaghan and Limerick had consolidated into TSB Bank, which was acquired in 2001 by Irish Life and Permanent and rebranded Permanent TSB.
 * United States: mutual savings banks started with the Provident Institution for Savings in the Town of Boston (est. 1816), and were heavily concentrated in the Northeastern United States. They were decimated at the start of the savings and loan crisis in the early 1980s, and more mutual savings banks failed later in the 1980s and 1990s while other converted to joint-stock status. As of 2024, the oldest surviving mutual savings bank is Liberty Bank, established 1825 as Middletown Savings Bank. Federal savings banks are savings banks chartered at the federal level.
 * Netherlands: the first Dutch savings bank (Spaarbank)) was established in 1817 in Workum; 1848 saw the creation of the Amsterdam Municipal Savings Bank. In 1907, the savings banks started to operate as a national network (Spaarbankbond). In 1979-1983 the largest Dutch savings banks merged to form VSB Group which in the 1990s became a founding component of Fortis Group, itself dismantled in 2008 with the Dutch operations absorbed into ABN AMRO. Other savings banks merged into SNS Bank (for Samenwerkende Nederlandse Spaarbanken, lit. 'Dutch savings banks working together'), later nationalized and renamed De Volksbank in 2017.
 * France: following the Caisse d'Épargne de Paris (est. 1818), non-profit private-sector savings banks were created in numerous French towns and cities, and started developing a national organization of their own in the 1980s and 1990s. By legislation of 1999, the Groupe Caisse d'Épargne was converted into a cooperative banking group, which in 2009 merged with another cooperative group, Groupe Banque Populaire, to form Groupe BPCE.
 * Austria: following the 1819 establishment of Erste Bank in Vienna, Austrian savings banks have developed first as philanthropic associations and later as local government-sponsored entities. The 1980s and 1990s saw multiple rounds of reform and the departure from the network of the largest savings bank, Vienna's Zentralsparkasse, which eventually became part of UniCredit. As a result of these changes, the Sparkassengruppe Österreich operates largely as a single commercial banking group (and is supervised as such under European Banking Supervision), with Erste Group Bank as its central entity.
 * Slovenia: the Kranjska hranilnica (Krainische Sparkasse, lit. 'Carniola Savings Bank') was established in 1820 and remained for some time the only financial institution in what is now Slovenia. The Ljubljana Municipal Savings Bank was established in 1889.
 * Sweden: the first Swedish savings bank was established in 1820 in Gothenburg. During the Sweden financial crisis 1990–1994, a number of them merged in 1992 to form a commercial banking group that has been branded Swedbank since 2006. Dozens of other savings banks survive, such as Westra Wermlands Sparbank in Värmland County (est. 1856).
 * Italy: starting with Cassa di Risparmio di Venezia (est. 1822), a number of savings banks (Cassa di Risparmio) were established in the Italian parts of the Austrian Empire, followed by establishments in other Italian polities and after the unification of Italy. Italian savings banks never coalesced in a national network or group. In 1990, the legislation known as legge Amato led to their conversion into joint-stock companies, with independent banking foundations as shareholders. This triggered significant consolidation in the 1990s and 2000s into larger commercial banking groups. For example, the savings banks of Rimini (est. 1840), La Spezia (1842), Parma (1859), and Piacenza (1860) have become part of Crédit Agricole Italia; those of Venice and Padua (1822), Milan (1823), Florence (1829), Prato (1830), Gorizia and Pistoia (1831), Spoleto (1836), Bologna (1837), Forlì (1839), Ascoli Piceno (1842), Civitavecchia (1847), Cuneo and Viterbo (1855), Foligno (1857), Calabria (1861), and Cassa di Risparmio di Puglia (1949) have become part of Intesa Sanpaolo; those of Pisa (1834), Lucca (1835), Livorno (1836), and Alessandria (1838), have become part of Banco BPM; those of Ferrara (1838), Genoa (1846), and L'Aquila (1859) have become part of BPER Banca; and those of Verona (1825), Turin (1827), Rome (1836), Trieste (1842), Modena (1846), Reggio Emilia (1852), Sicily (1861), Treviso (1907), and Perugia (1908) have become part of UniCredit. As of early 2024, a few savings banks still exist as independent entities in Asti, Bolzano, Cento, Fermo, Fossano, Ravenna, Savigliano, and Volterra.
 * Norway: the savings banks in Norway started with the establishment of that of Christiania in 1822. Still run decentrally, they have coalesced into two national networks, SpareBank 1 (est. 1996) and Eika Gruppen (est. 1997). All savings banks are members of the Norwegian Savings Banks Association.
 * Finland: Turun Säästöpankki (lit. 'Turku Savings Bank') was established in 1822 in Turku. The number of Finnish savings banks reached more than four hundred in the mid-20th century, but has decreased since then to only 16. Of these, 15 participate in the decentralized Savings Bank Group (Säästöpankkiryhmä, est. 2014) while the Oma Säästöpankki (based in Seinäjoki) is run independently.
 * Czech Republic: the Česká spořitelna (Böhmische Sparkasse) was established in 1825 under the savings bank framework of the Austrian Empire. The savings banks in Czechoslovakia were consolidated in 1967 into a single State Savings Bank, then split in 1969 into a Czech and a Slovak components. In the post-Communist transition, Česká spořitelna was privatized and purchased in 2000 by Erste Group.
 * Spain: the cajas de ahorros developed from 1835 legislation that emulated the French template. The 2008–2014 Spanish financial crisis triggered massive restructuring and consolidation, by which many savings banks were liquidated, purchased by commercial banks, or consolidated into four savings banks groups: CaixaBank, IberCaja, Kutxabank, and Unicaja.
 * Hungary: the First National Savings Bank of Pest established in 1839-1840, was converted in 1844 into a joint-stock company. From then, Hungarian entities named "savings bank" were essentially indistinguishable from commercial banks. In 1949, the Communist authorities established the National Savings Bank (Országos Takarék Pénztár), later known as OTP Bank.
 * Russia: in 1842, the Imperial government established savings banks in Saint Petersburg and Moscow. Like all Russian banks, savings banks disappeared under war communism in the first few years of the Russian Revolution. They were re-established in 1922-1923 as the State Labor Savings Banks System of the USSR. In 1991, the Russian network of the Soviet Savings Banks System was reorganized as Sberbank.
 * Slovakia: the Pressburger Spar-Casse was established in 1842 in today's Bratislava, followed by other savings bank foundations in what is now Slovakia throughout the 1840s. Today's Slovenská sporiteľňa, like its Czech equivalent, results from the 1969 division of the State Savings Bank of Czechoslovakia. It was also purchased by Erste Group in 2001.
 * Croatia: as in Hungary (with which Croatia was tied politically until World War I), "savings banks" were largely undistinguishable from commercial banks until the general destruction of the Croatian banking sector following World War II. These included the First Croatian Savings Bank (est. 1846) and City Savings Bank of Zagreb (est. 1913).
 * Belgium: the Caisse Générale d'Épargne et de Retraite was created in two stages in 1850 and 1865 as a national savings institution. In the 1990s it was privatized and became part of Fortis Group, since 2008 itself part of BNP Paribas.
 * New Zealand: The first trustee savings bank was the New Plymouth Savings Bank (est. 1850), later branded TSB. Savings banks as a legal category disappeared in 1987, being replaced with so-called registered banks.
 * Luxembourg: the Caisse d'Épargne de l'État, also known as Spuerkeess, was established in 1856.
 * Chile: the Caja de Ahorros de Empleados Públicos de Chile was established in 1858 for the specific benefit of government employees.
 * Brazil: the Caixa Economica e Monte de Socorro (Savings Bank and Mount of Piety) was established in 1861, and merged with other public institutions in 1967 to form Caixa Econômica Federal.
 * Japan: the Tokyo Savings Bank was established in 1880. The first national savings banks legislation was enacted in 1893, and by 1906 there were 486 savings banks in the country. Despite their inspiration by foreign models, Japanese savings banks had a more commercial or even speculative orientation, which led to widespread financial fragility among them. In 1921-1922, a long-delayed regulatory tightening led to all savings banks closing or merging into ordinary banks between then and the late 1940s, after which savings banks ceased to exist in Japan as a separate category. Several of the last remaining savings banks merged in May 1945 to form Japan Savings Bank Inc. (株式会社日本貯蓄銀行), which in 1948 renamed itself Kyowa Bank and eventually became part of Resona Holdings as the result of successive mergers and restructurings from 1991 to 2003.
 * Portugal: the Caixa Económica Portuguesa (lit. 'Portuguese Savings Bank') was established as a nationwide entity in 1880, and merged in 1885 with Caixa Geral de Depósitos.
 * Romania: the Casa de Depuneri și Consemnațiuni (est. 1864) was renamed Casa de Depuneri, Consemnațiuni și Economie (lit. 'Deposits, Consignments and Savings Bank') in 1880 and in 1881 established a subsidiary named the Savings Bank (Casa de Economie). It has remained state-owned and been branded CEC Bank since 2008.
 * San Marino: the Cassa di Risparmio della Repubblica di San Marino was established in 1882.
 * Panama: the Caja de Ahorro en Panamá was established in 1934 as a national public bank.
 * Poland: the General Savings Bank (Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności) was established in 1950 on the basis of the former postal saving system, since then known as PKO Bank Polski.
 * Peru: the Cajas Municipales de Ahorro y Crédito (lit. 'municipal savings and credit banks') are microfinance institutions that have developed as municipally-owned public enterprises since 1982.
 * Bulgaria: the State Savings Bank (Държавна спестовна каса / DSK, est. 1951) has become DSK Bank, eventually purchased by Hungary's OTP Bank in 2003.
 * Ukraine: the State Specialized Commercial Savings Bank of Ukraine was established in 1991 from the former Savings Bank of the USSR, and converted in 1999 into a state-owned joint-stock bank, the State Savings Bank of Ukraine (Державний ощадний банк України), also known as Oschadbank.
 * Albania: the Savings Bank of Albania (Banka e Kursimeve e Shqipërisë) was established in 1992 and purchased in 2004 by Raiffeisen Bank International.
 * Botswana: the Botswana Savings Bank was established in 1992 as a national public development bank.
 * Sudan: the Savings and Social Development Bank, a microfinance institution, was established in 1995 in Khartoum.
 * North Macedonia: savings banks, such as Opportunities Savings Bank (est. 1996) and Fulm Savings Banks (est. 1999), are licensed microfinance institutions.

Representation
The World Savings Banks Institute (WSBI), was created in 1924 in Milan, relocated in 1949 in Amsterdam and again in 1969 in Geneva and in 1994 in Brussels. Since then, the WSBI and the European Savings Banks Group (est. 1963) have operated as a single entity, representing savings banks on a European and global basis and serves as a forum to compare savings banks practices. Most of its non-European members are cooperative banks, public banks, or postal savings systems rather than savings banks in the original European sense.

title: Savings bank


text:
Talk:Latitude and longitude

On 29 July 2004, this article was nominated for deletion. The consensus decision was to keep. See Votes for deletion/Latitude and Longitude for a record of the discussion. Rossami 00:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Latitude and longitude


text:
Star Trek (1971 video game)

Star Trek is a text-based strategy video game based on the Star Trek television series (1966–69) and originally released in 1971. In the game, the player commands the USS Enterprise on a mission to hunt down and destroy an invading fleet of Klingon warships. The player travels through the 64 quadrants of the galaxy to attack enemy ships with phasers and photon torpedoes in turn-based battles and refuel at starbases. The goal is to eliminate all enemies within a random time limit.

Mike Mayfield wrote the game in the BASIC programming language for the SDS Sigma 7 mainframe computer with the goal of creating a game like Spacewar! (1962) that could be played with a teleprinter instead of a graphical display. He then rewrote it for the HP 2000C minicomputer in 1972, and it was included in Hewlett-Packard's public domain software catalog the following year. It was picked up from there by David H. Ahl, who ported it with Mary Cole to BASIC-PLUS and published the source code in the Digital Equipment Corporation Edu newsletter. It was republished with other computer games in his best-selling 101 BASIC Computer Games book. Bob Leedom then expanded the game in 1974 into Super Star Trek.

Ahl left DEC and started Creative Computing magazine in 1974. He began porting the games from 101 to Microsoft BASIC, with the exception of Star Trek, where he ported Leedom's version rather than Mayfield's original. The result was released in 1978 under the new name BASIC Computer Games, just as the first microcomputers able to run the game were coming to market. BASIC Computer Games went on to become the first million-selling computer book, and versions of the game were available for almost all personal computers of the era. Additionally, dozens of variants and expansions were made for a variety of other systems, based either on Leedom's or the original Mayfield versions.

Gameplay
Star Trek is a text-based strategy video game based on the Star Trek television series in which the player, controlling the USS Enterprise starship, flies through the galaxy and hunts down Klingon warships within a time limit. The game starts with a short text description of the mission before allowing the player to enter commands. Each game starts with a different number of Klingons, friendly starbases, and stars spread throughout the galaxy. The galaxy is depicted as an 8-by-8 grid of "quadrants". Each quadrant is further divided into an 8-by-8 grid of "sectors". The number of stars, Klingons, and starbases in any one quadrant is set at the start of the game, but their exact position changes each time the player enters that quadrant.

The player can view a text-based map of the current quadrant by issuing the short-range scan command. Stars, Klingon ships, starbases, and the Enterprise itself are shown as text-based figures in a square grid; the Enterprise, for example, is represented with. The player can also use the long-range scan to print out a map of the quadrants lying directly around the Enterprise, with a list of the number of stars, Klingons, and starbases in each quadrant. The player moves between and within quadrants with the warp drive.

Klingon ships can be attacked with either phasers or photon torpedoes. Phasers do not have to be aimed, but their power and therefore damage amount falls off with distance, and the player must select how much power to put into each shot. Torpedoes do not suffer this drop in power and will destroy a Klingon ship with a single hit, but have to be aimed using polar coordinates. Later versions of the game expanded on this combat system by adding features such as Klingon ships moving after each shot if not destroyed, enemy attacks damaging systems such as scanners or shields, stars absorbing torpedoes that hit them, and a calculator to help in determining the proper angle to fire the torpedoes. Combat is turn-based, and Klingon ships will fire back at the player in their turn.

Movement, combat, and shields all drain the energy supply of the Enterprise, which can be restored by flying to a starbase. In some versions of the game, there are additional options for emergency situations, such as calling for help from a starbase, using the experimental Death Ray, loading raw dilithium crystals into the warp drive, or abandoning ship. Movement commands take up time depending on how far the player is moving. The game ends when the Enterprise is destroyed, all Klingons are destroyed, or the time limit runs out. A score in the form of a ranking is presented at the end of the game based on energy usage, damage taken and inflicted, and any remaining time.

Star Trek
In 1971, Mike Mayfield, then in his final year of high school, frequented a computer lab at the University of California, Irvine while teaching himself how to program. The lab operated both a SDS Sigma 7 and a DEC PDP-10 mainframe computer. The PDP-10 hosted a copy of Spacewar!, a multiplayer space combat video game developed in 1962 in the early history of video games. Mayfield had gained illicit access to the Sigma 7 at the lab and wanted to create his own version of the game for the system. Spacewar! required a vector graphics display, however, and the Sigma 7 only had access to a non-graphical Teletype Model 33 ASR teleprinter.

Mayfield decided to create a game in the vein of Spacewar! that could be played on a teleprinter and brainstormed several ideas with his friends. As none of the group had much experience with computers, most of the ideas were unfeasible, but one concept he liked and thought was possible was a game based on Star Trek, then in syndication on television. The concept included the game printing a map of the galaxy and a map of the local star system, and phaser weapons whose attack power declined over distance. Mayfield began to program the game, creating a punched tape of the game at the end of each programming session and loading it back into the computer the next day. He worked on the game through the rest of the school year and into the summer after graduating.

Later that summer, Mayfield purchased an HP-35 calculator and often visited the local Hewlett-Packard sales office. The staff there offered to let him use the HP 2000C minicomputer at the office if he would create a version of his Star Trek game for it; as the version of the BASIC programming language on the computer was different from the Sigma 7, he elected to abandon the Sigma 7 version and rewrite the program from scratch. He completed it on October 20, 1972, and the game was added to the HP public domain Contributed Program library of software as STTR1 in February 1973, with Mayfield attributing the game to Centerline Engineering, a company he was considering starting. It was also published in the People's Computer Company newsletter, and republished in their collection book, What to Do After You Hit Return (1975).

David H. Ahl was an employee in the education department of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). He had begun the Edu newsletter where user-submitted games became a major draw. He and fellow employee Mary Cole ported STTR1 to DEC's BASIC-PLUS in the summer of 1973, with some additions, and he published this version in the newsletter. Ahl attributed the game to "Mike Mayfield of Centerline Engineering and/or Custom Data". In late 1973, Ahl collected many of the game submissions in the book 101 BASIC Computer Games, containing descriptions and the source code for many early mainframe games. 101 BASIC Computer Games was a landmark title in computer games programming, and was a best-selling title with more than 10,000 copies sold — more copies than there were computers in existence at the time. As such, the BASIC ports of mainframe computer games included in the book were often more long-lived than their original versions or other mainframe computer games. He included Star Trek in the book as SPACWR, i.e. Space War.

Super Star Trek
In early 1974, Bob Leedom saw Ahl's version of the game in 101 BASIC Computer Games while working with a Data General Nova 800 minicomputer at Westinghouse Electric Corporation and, having never seen a Star Trek game before, started porting it to the system. After he got the game running, he began to expand it with suggestions from his friends. He changed the user interface, replacing the original game's numeric codes with three-letter commands and adding status reports from show characters and names for the galaxy quadrants, and overhauled the gameplay, adding moving Klingon ships, navigation and fire control options, and an expanded library computer. Once it was completed, he wrote a letter to the People's Computer Company newsletter describing the game.

Ahl, who by then had left DEC to start Creative Computing magazine, saw Leedom's description in the newsletter and contacted him to publish the game in his magazine. Ahl ported it to Microsoft BASIC and published the source code of the game as Super Star Trek to distinguish it from the original Star Trek game, calling it "by far the best" version. He later included it under that name in the 1976 anthology The Best of Creative Computing as well as the 1978 edition of 101 BASIC Computer Games, retitled BASIC Computer Games. He added a note that he had permission from the rights holders to use the show's name in the title alongside a longer note written by Leedom explaining why the galaxy had 64 quadrants even though the term suggested there should only be four. BASIC Computer Games was the first million-selling computer book, giving Leedom's version a much wider audience than Mayfield and Ahl's original versions.

Reception and legacy
Star Trek, especially the Super Star Trek version, was immensely popular for the era. By 1975 it had spread to mainframes across the United States, and Ahl stated in 1978 in BASIC Computer Games that it was difficult to find a computer installation that did not contain a version of Star Trek. By 1980, Star Trek was described by Mark Herro in The Dragon magazine as "one of the most popular (if not the most popular) computer games around", with "literally scores of different versions of this game floating around". At least one published work of fiction that year mentioned the game, the short story "Another Game of Spacewar", published in an anthology by Creative Computing. A 2013 overview of the game and its myriad versions in The Register by Tony Smith concluded that "like most games of the period it was fun to play once or twice, but it lacked staying power." Regardless, for the players of the time period when it was released, it was "a shiny new gateway to 'strange new worlds'".

The widespread popularity of the game, especially Super Star Trek, along with the availability of the source code, led to numerous ports of both versions of the game for mainframe and microcomputers. Alternate versions of the game were also produced, based on Star Trek, Super Star Trek, or both. David Matuszek and Paul Reynolds wrote an expanded Fortran version of the original game as UT Super Star Trek; Eric Allman ported this version to the C programming language to become BSD Trek, which is still included in the Debian classic Unix games package. BYTE published a BASIC version by David Price in March 1977 that used the original command system based on numbers. In 1983 BYTE columnist Jerry Pournelle claimed to have written "the world's most complex Star Trek game" in CBASIC. A shareware version for MS-DOS, EGATrek, was released in the late 1980s that replaced the original text-based screens with basic graphics that implemented a multi-paned display. In 2017, PC Gamer ranked EGATrek among the best Star Trek games. Multiple commercial versions of the game were released in addition to the free ports. Apple Inc. released a version for the Apple II+ called Apple Trek in 1979, and Atari, Inc. released a version for the Atari 2600 as Stellar Track in 1980. The TRS-80 had at least three separate commercially available Star Trek games, including Trek-80 by Processor Technology (later retitled Invasion Force) which added more interactivity and a number of new options incorporated from the unrelated Trek73, a second Trek-80 by Judges Guild, and Startrek 3.5 from Adventure International. Acornsoft released a version titled Galaxy for their computer systems, and Tandy Computers released Space Trek for theirs. Yet another version was written in BASICA for the IBM Personal Computer in 1982, Video Trek 88; written by Windmill Software, it used numbers for most commands, like the earlier BYTE version. Apex Software released TI-Trek for the TI-99/4A in 1983, which incorporates speech if the speech synthesizer is present. 1984's Star Fleet I: The War Begins by Interstel was a variant released commercially for several computer systems. This game was successful enough to spawn a series.

Numerous hobby projects have continued to port the original game versions and enhanced variants to other languages and systems through to today. Additionally, some commercial games have been inspired by Star Trek, such as Star Raiders (1980), which was initially designed as a real time, 3D version of the game. As late as 1994, the collective Star Trek variants were still popular enough that Computer Gaming World claimed that the otherwise unrelated Stellar Explorer's gameplay was directly based on it, and that "anyone who remembers the old Trek games[...] will know exactly what this game is all about".

title: Star Trek (1971 video game)


text:
SS Sir Walter Scott

SS Sir Walter Scott is a small steamship that has provided pleasure cruises and a ferry service on Loch Katrine in the scenic Trossachs of Scotland for more than a century, and is the only surviving screw steamer in regular passenger service in Scotland. She is named after the writer Walter Scott, who set his 1810 poem Lady of the Lake, and his 1818 novel Rob Roy around Loch Katrine.

In 1859 Loch Katrine became Glasgow's main water supply, connected by aqueducts and tunnels to the city more than 30 mi away through a hilly landscape. The Trossachs became very popular in the Victorian era, and there were early steamship services on the loch. The Loch is surrounded by wooded mountains, and has romantic historical connections including the birthplace of the outlaw Rob Roy MacGregor. Queen Victoria had a holiday house built overlooking the loch.

William Denny and Brothers built Sir Walter Scott as a "knock-down" ship; that is, the steamer was assembled with bolts and nuts at Denny's shipyard at Dumbarton on the River Leven in 1899, launched and undertook performance trials in the Firth of Clyde, including recording her speed on the measured mile. She was then dismantled and the numbered pieces were transported by barge up Loch Lomond and overland by horse-drawn cart to Stronachlachar pier on Loch Katrine where the steamer was reassembled with permanent rivets and, in 1900, relaunched. The original cost was £4,269, which included a delivery charge of £2,028.

Sir Walter Scott measures 115 gross register tons, is 110 ft long and has a 19 ft beam. She is powered by the original three-cylinder triple-expansion steam engine made by Matthew Paul & Company, Dumbarton, and has two locomotive-type boilers which until the end of 2007 were fired by solid fuel fed into the firebox by a stoker. At a time when most steamers changed to oil-fired boilers, Sir Walter Scott kept using solid fuel to meet the requirement of ensuring that Glasgow's water supply was not polluted, changing from coal to coke to reduce air pollution. In a refit at the end of the 2007 season the boilers were altered to run on biofuel. During this refit, the superstructure was rebuilt and a forward deck cabin was added. Some consider the modified superstructure an abomination, destroying the classic lines of this Victorian era steamer. The vessel has a crew of five.

Sir Walter Scott sails from Trossachs pier at the east end of the loch, 7 mi northwest of Callander and runs a ferry service 8 mi west along the loch to Stronachlachar pier. She runs in the morning at 10:30, taking walkers and cyclists who return by land. She then takes those embarking at the pier and those doing the round trip back to Trossachs pier. In the afternoon she also does one or more shorter scenic cruises. Between January and March the ship is taken up on a slipway for maintenance work. A second boat, Lady of the Lake, runs return trips to Stonachlachar in the summer months and also runs between January and March on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays.

title: SS Sir Walter Scott


text:
Talk:Morbidity rate

On 29 July 2004, this article was nominated for deletion. The consensus was to keep the article. See Votes for deletion/Morbidity rate for a record of the discussion. Rossami 00:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Morbidity rate