text:
Talk:OpenTTD

Legal status
It should be noted that the legality of OpenTTD is questionable, since its code is written based on a disassembly of the original Transport Tycoon Deluxe executable. --Jiifurusu 19:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * then I presume that the legality of samba, for example, is questionable also. Is that so? I would be interested in your source stating that the game has been ported using a disassembly of the TTD binaries. Tue Nov 8 11:27:25 CET 2005
 * Ask the original coder, Ludvig Strigeus - it was. --Kiand 10:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * He appears to be quite active on Wikipedia as Ludde23. -- Darklock (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That person isn't him. Chirea Mircea (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Shortly before the first version of OpenTTD was made public, two people were also working on a rewrite of TT, named TTSD (Transport Tycoon Superdeluxe) and later on TTU (Transport Ultimate, but the second T was left in the abbreviation as a reference to TTD), supposedly without any disassembling of the original executable. However, when OpenTTD was released, it appears the two developers lost their motivation and decided to work on a different - undisclosed (as far as I am aware) - project. The source code was never released (it was meant to be released under the GPL when it was finished) because they said they might decide to finish it later on. However, nothing more of them has been heard ever since (which was somewhere in late April 2004: Related TT-Forums thread) I just thought it was worth mentioning. I was in fact contemplating on writing something about it in the actual article, but I am not quite sure if it's related enough. And it certainly wouldn't be worth it's own wikipedia article. - GoneWacko 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was the category changed from "Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels" to "Computer game mods"? OpenTTD definately is not a mod, it's a remake of the original and even though it requires the original data files, a seperate game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.116.201 (talk) 16:57, 22 January, 2005 (UTC)

 * Because the other category was deleted via WP:CfD. Kiand 18:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If this game doesn't fit that category, and it doesn't, as it is not a mod in any shape or form, should we remove it from that category? Born Acorn 16:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It was an automated move because the category before was deleted. It can be argued that it is a mod, since it modifies the gameplay only, while depending on the graphics of the "actual game", although it usually is the other way around.

 * You can not call it a remake or a separate game as long as it does not have its own graphics, those are mutually exclusive. The best example I could think of was FreeCraft, which started as a reverse-engineered game engine but then added their own graphics and levels. Only then was Blizzard entitled to send a cease & desist letter because it evolved to a separate game and thus a competitor to WarCraft II, while infringing on the trademark. Maybe the OpenTTD project should change the name too when they have the new graphics completed. Now FreeCraft has been started anew as Stratagus with many changes to the gameplay for their own game Battle of Survival and it is called a free game engine. OpenTTD is currently the same, just a game engine. Please do not buy that "clone" shit that the project has been spouting. -- Darklock (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is simply if theres disassembled code in the finished product or not. If disassembly has been used simply to gain knowledge on how OpenTTD works and then a reimplementation of it was made, theres no problem and at least the U.S. courts have maintained the legality of this process- see: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html and the relevant parts of the rulings on this issue on http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise25.html

though many projects go for the clean room design and never do anything to the reverse-engineered program but simply implement specifications and those are written often even by a different group of people, and those simply observe that programs behaviour and touch it it in any way, just in case...

However, if its simply a translation of the disassembly, and not an implementation of specifications (i.e. engineering) obtained from studying the disassembly (!!) and this was stated to be the case here by some OpenTTD developers!!!, that is if the offered source code contains such, this is a derivative work, just like a translated book is. While it is fair use to use disassembly and such intermediary source code, both legal sources are unanimous on that, in the process of the reverse engineering, if a single line of code of such origin is still in OpenTTD, its a blatant violation of copyright, and illegal at least in 162 countries of the world (that is at least in all countries that signed the Berne Convention, which includes all members of the WTO). the ruling on Sega v. Accolade case says ''Our conclusion does not, of course, insulate Accolade from a claim of copyright infringement with respect to its finished products. Sega has reserved the right to raise such a claim, and it may do so on remand.'' - and the verdict on ATARI v. NINTENDO http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1015.htm is against ATARI though it upholds disassembly as intermediary step in the reverse engineering process as fair use, due to suspicion that some of their code was just the disassembled Nintendo code: "The district court assumed that reverse engineering (intermediate copying) was copyright infringement. Atari Games v. Nintendo of Am., Nos. 88-4805, 89-0027, 89-0824, slip op. at 11-13 [18 USPQ2d 1935] (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 1991). This court disagrees. Atari did not violate Nintendo’s copyright by deprocessing computer chips in Atari’s rightful possession. Atari could lawfully de process Nintendo’s 10NES chips to learn their unprotected ideas and processes. This fair use did not give Atari more than the right to understand the 10NES program and to distinguish the protected from the unprotected elements of the 10NES program. Any copying beyond that necessary to understand the 10NES program was infringement."

Also, the Debian-legal mailing list, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/threads.html, in 3 separate threads, under the assumption that OpenTTD was developed from specifications on the internal workings of that game, and that it has been fleshed out from that obtained from that disassembly, also had a lot of debate over another case, http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9656426.html Micro Star v. FormGen and the very fact that it simply was a Transport Tycoon, exactly like Microprose's, made to be Microproses Transport Tycoon wtc. This in itself is derivative work, and is by this virtue alone infringing, essentially on this entire planet. After getting the idea about its origin, a poster that defended OpenTTD to that point says ''Now, if they really are using large (or indeed medium-size) swatches of decompiled code, that is *certainly* copyright infringement and "ripping off". If this is true they should probably be warned by anyone who cares about the project (which is not me), and certainly Debian shouldn't distribute it.... I know nothing about the code, and if it features decompiled code from a copyrighted source, clearly it is infringing, of course.''

here's the description of the action that was upheld as fair use, from Seattle University School of Law http://www.law.seattleu.edu/fachome/chonm/Cases/sega.html: ''4/ Accolade used a two- step process to render its video games compatible with the Genesis console. First, it "reverse engineered" Sega's video game programs in order to discover the requirements for compatibility with the Genesis console. As part of the reverse engineering process, Accolade transformed the machine- readable object code contained in commercially available copies of Sega's game cartridges into human- readable source code using a process called "disassembly" or "decompilation".[1] Accolade purchased a Genesis console and three Sega game cartridges, wired a decompiler into the console circuitry, and generated printouts of the resulting source code. Accolade engineers studied and annotated the printouts in order to identify areas of commonality among the three game programs. They then loaded the disassembled code back into a computer, and experimented to discover the interface specifications for the Genesis console by modifying the programs and studying the results. At the end of the reverse engineering process, Accolade created a development manual that incorporated the information it had discovered about the requirements for a Genesis- compatible game. According to the Accolade employees who created the manual, the manual contained only functional descriptions of the interface requirements and did not include any of Sega's code.''

''5/ In the second stage, Accolade created its own games for the Genesis. According to Accolade, at this stage it did not copy Sega's programs, but relied only on the information concerning interface specifications for the Genesis that was contained in its development manual. Accolade maintains that with the exception of the interface specifications, none of the code in its own games is derived in any way from its examination of Sega's code. In 1990, Accolade released "Ishido", a game which it had originally developed and released for use with the Macintosh and IBM personal computer systems, for use with the Genesis console.''

If this is the nature of its comming to be, then the 'legal status' section needs to be significantly more specific than 'some juristictions' because this is invariant in practically the entire world. In any case, that section is completely unsourced. Only an accusation that this happened to ReactOS resulted in maintainers doing a complete audit of the entire codebase to check it out. And btw, since the opposite was erroneously claimed on the forums of OpenTTD, US law actually has more freedom for reverse engineering, not less, than European law, so being based in Europe is of no help here. The concept of fair use itself is specific to US law (though similar provisions for review or education purpose short qoutes of course exist).

--Aryah 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the above relates to the article about OpenTTD. bruce89 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the Legal status section is misleading because of the above, in that 'under some jurisdictions' includes essentially the entire world. --Aryah 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to correct and source the section in question. --Aryah 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I had to remove entire "legal section", as paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are obvious original research by Aryah (no original research is allowed in Wikipedia!), paragraph 5 (the original one) was entirely unsourced, and paragraph 4 is out of place after removal of the other paragraphs.
 * What this article needs, is short (1-2 sentences) mention of possible illegality, and 1-2 external links on the subject. Note, that those links should not be to any online discussion forums or blogs (as they are untrusted sources per Wikipedia guidelines).
 * Futurix 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I considered I must avoid original research, so have sourced all conclusions I made - there's no way that's original research. I have tried to source to very general explanations of what reverse engineering really means - is this explanation what's seen as original research? well, cut the introductory explanation,not the sourced conclusions then! I presented only conclusions that were also made on debian-legal (granted second paragraph referred to the forum discussion on OpenTTD forums about the supposed 'reverse engineering' and why it wasn't really that, but where else could I find specific discussion of it in the case of OpenTTD? I also gave the legal explanation of this issue so if not using that forum, then simply the statement that that law means OpenTTD is illegal would be unsourced, and how could someone dispute that seeing the law in question - and this is referred to on a more brutal way on debian-list too), and debian-legal being a list or not, it is clearly a very influential voice about day-to-day legal practices on the free software world. Google for debian-legal excluding debian.org domain gives 64 100 hits !!! They are used in other articles on wikipedia, like GNU_Free_Documentation_License, Debian Free Software Guidelines, Common_Development_and_Distribution_License , IBM Public License and are mentioned on a few more articles. In fact, I cant think of a more influential voice on free software legal .Try removing refferences to debian-legal on those likely more widely edited articles before purging the reference from this article. So I absolutely dispute the exclusion of that source. The only (other) forum link was simply to a discussion where OpenTTD developers voiced for themselves how OpenTTD came to existence - how is this in question? They clearly wont advertise about this issue, and this is pretty much the only place one could hope to hear on it 'from the horses mouth'. I also don't understand why the fact OpenTTD was excluded from Debian and their legal experts explicitly saying OpenTTD is an obvious copyright infringement can go unmentioned. This also clearly demonstrates that nothing was extrapolated in that section outside of what was concluded by legal experts at debian, so I see no reason this be considered original research. In fact for any discussion of legality to be made before an actual case against them is filed and trialled will not be any less 'original research' than this, and it would be ridiculous to demand publications in newspapers on the issue for an obscure project like OpenTTD unless this happens; this is too high a bar to fulfil for any discussion of the issue, and all it could point to is perhaps questionable notability of this project to be even included in the Wikipedia.

The original, far far worse legal paragraph with no sources at all and filled with weasel words persisted for a very long time, so I insist this paragraph be included, possibly reworked. Lacking constructive suggestions how this should be worded, Ill revert to my original section, and will include debian-legal sourced paragraph immediately. --Aryah 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You clearly don't understand no original research thing. As you stated, you've made some conclusions in here - and that's the original research! The legal links you've provided say nothing specifically about OpenTTD - the connection between content of legal documents and origins of OpenTTD is done by you and therefore is the original research and not permitted here.
 * There is also secondary issue of blogs/forums/mailing lists not being trusted sources by Wikipedia guidelines - so at least three of your links could not be used.
 * Futurix 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You are correct, it is original research, if forum sources are not used (if used, those discussion did make those conclusions and linked those legal pages, so it would not be - therefore those are not two problems with that paragraph, but a single problem with it - because use of those sources would make it not original research) - editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. and later This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. So definitely, to make any conclusion however obvious from the general legal information regarding this product specifically, Id have to find a reputable published information specifically about OpenTTD's legality in those respects. How the hell I am to do this? theres no article about this game at all referenced anywhere here, let alone about its legal aspects. --Aryah 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * If you can't find anything on the topic - then you are not supposed to include it in Wikipedia. Futurix 13:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, currently the only source used in this article is OpenTTD wiki?? hows that different from using a forum or a blog? Thats also self-published information, and wikis are mentioned in the same paragraph as blogs, forums in the guideline [WP:RS]. And there's on reference to any publicity on this game - so how does it justify any notability? Also its not true that such sources are never to be used. .--Aryah 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * OpenTTD wiki is part of official website, and presents product information. It is more trusted in that regard (actually, current article has only one reference to it).
 * As for notability - it is clearly notable, and frankly your accusations start look like a personal vendetta of a kind. Futurix 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about it till a few days ago. So I both dont see how its 'clearly notable' nor how I could have any motivation for a personal vendetta. My point was that if criteria for inclusion of any information about it should satisfy such criteria, then first all article should satisfy such criteria, and nor did it do so historically, nor does most of it do so now - the fact that OpenTTD wiki is the only cited source of this article and like you say is used on one place simply demonstrate its lack of sources. My point with notability is that only if this game is notable then I would have any chances of even finding information of its legality outside of a discussion of their forum and debian-legal. My problem with its notability is simply lack of good sources, and all aspects of this article demonstrate that lack. --Aryah 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as being part of the official website, you are referring to this policy?: Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is: relevant to the self-publisher's notability;  not contentious not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject; The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

So this doesn't solve the notability problem, and also, this seems inapplicable on the forum discussion and posts of people who are OpenTTD developers there - which I used to explain the origin of the game. --Aryah 09:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability policy says - topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. - so could you please provide multiple non-trivial published works, with sources independent of OpenTTD itself, that references OpenTTD? Does this exist? If it did, then Id have some chances of finding some mention of its legal status there. Note, I really dont wish to remove this article, quite the contrary. I simply wish to find some sources for it and the legal controversy. --Aryah 08:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Since you started the discussion, the onus is on you to prove what you want to prove. SourceForge statistics alone is a proof enough (see below). Futurix 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, regarding notability, the 'top ten most active projects on sourceforge' claim shows to be simply not true - it has activity percent of 97,26%, while even the top 1,000thnd project is over 99,438%. (topmost it 100%). The top list doesn't go further down. It is currently the top 251th project by num of downloads, but thats hardly especially impressive. --Aryah 09:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It is usually in top 10 at the time of the new releases (and the last release was several months ago). Futurix 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

you mean, weekly top 10 the week a new release is out? thats again hardly impressive. Unconfirmed too. If you wish to include it, source it. try archive.org. The actual onus of proof in wikipedia is on the one whe wishes to add something to it.--Aryah 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC) I dont see sourceforge statistics as a wiki criteria on notability, nor proof that theres any impressive sourceforge statistics. The onus with notability is simply on the article - lacking it its a candidate for AfD, whoever is to find such references to satisfy formal criteria....--Aryah 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Aren't you a little too trigger-happy? SourceForge download stats: . Futurix 01:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A little more on notability criteria:

Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

 * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews 2 except for the following:
 * o Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. 1
 * o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment, price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites.

If some software doesn't meet or isn't known to meet the above criteria, the following criteria can be used to estimate if the software is notable:

 * 1. The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor.
 * 2. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution. Statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest help to estimate the usage of particular packages in a particular distribution.

This would seem to exclude sourceforge stat as a measure anyway, and would require actual review, in multiple sources...--Aryah 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I found this.
 * Also it appears that OpenTTD is included with Gentoo, and Mandriva and Conectiva. Futurix 01:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * And can you please use indentation for replying? Otherwise it is difficult to read your messages. Futurix 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just checked, the previous 'legal status' section existed since November 2004, for more than 2 years. It was there, completely unsourced. Yet when specific sources were added, forum giving the conclusions or not, still source rather than no source, it was removed in one day?? --Aryah 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I would have removed previous one, if I saw it. You pointed my attention to it. Futurix 01:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible Chris Sawyer owns the rights to Transport Tycoon and only the name belongs to Atari, as he's hinted this on some letters that were scanned onto the TT-Forums. Atari have refused to even acknowledge Transport Tycoon. Born Acorn 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that would solve the notability issue, narrowly (the independence of the maintainers could be disputed, and both the article and the newspaper should be examined, I just dont find that likely checkable/disputable)- indeed the inclusions could be mentioned in the article too, counterbalancing the explicit exclusion. I dont see how the sourceforge link you give translated into making this among top projects by activity though, I dont see that in the plot. Its a good trend but not really a sourcing of the claim in question. Well, worst-case scenario for my argument; notability can at least be argued for, but its low profile enough to make finding sourcing of legal contraversy difficult at best.... well, if it has a rising curve of popularity as it would seem, hope it breaks into some more 'rounded' coverage with time... --Aryah 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The real reasons Openttd is still around 1) Chris Sawyer owns Transport Tycoon Deluxe code not a corporation and he has not asserted his copyrights against openttd project 2) Openttd has not tried to sell its product(hence no profits to claim) and does not use any of the trademarks that would diminish the value of Chris Sawyers properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voss749 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Icon instead of screenshot
I notice that the screenshot has been replaced with OpenTTD's icon. Other games have a screenshot in that place, so I think this should be reconsidered. bruce89 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most other game articles use a boxshot, and in the case of Transport Tycoon, the game's logo. Since OpenTTD has no boxshot, the logo that would be displayed on one if it existed is the next best thing. Screenshots can always be interlaced with the article. Born Acorn 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

game time
As someone disputed that the game takes 25h in realtime for 100year of gametime, I just ran 0.5.3 for about an hour and I got 4 game years while that. So the current gametime/realtime ratio mentioned in the article seems to me to be correct. -- JanCK (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this assumes that you never enabled the "fast" speed. Andareed (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Release date
When was the game first released to the public? --Mika1h (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Off the record, 6th March, 2004. That wiki page includes a link to the forum post that first introduced OpenTTD to the world at large.  Unfortunately, there's nothing there that can be cited as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Brian Ronald, posting from 88.212.182.52 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Platforms
is it really necessary to list all these platforms here? 124.168.132.10 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

why not? It is all information that the people might like to know lordmwa (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read that there is a Windows Mobile port of Transport Tycoon Deluxe which is compatible with OpenTTD. I haven't had the oppertunity to test it, but i could try and install it on my HD2 running stock Windows Mobile 6.5. Eventhough it may not be official, i think it could add some value to the article. 88.159.82.132 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the early return, but the remainder of my prod removal comment was that it might fail at AfD, but I'll be damned if it goes without a fight.Booklegger (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very noble, but could you add citations to allow the article to meet notability so it does not get deleted? --tgheretford (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was 0500, I looked, but without much success. Trying again in the light of day.69.134.195.223 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources?
Can anyone find some reliable third party sources to meet the concerns of the prod added by an editor, before it is dragged to articles for deletion? I'm struggling to find anything myself, and at the moment, I can see why the concerns of this article not meeting notablility are valid, particularly as when I contribute, I tend to always make sure there is at least one citation for everything I add. --tgheretford (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe CVE or any of the institutes it links to in the advisitories can be seen as reliable sources. One can also find similar pages referencing OpenTTD like: us-cert.gov. Google's Scholar search can also be used to find reliable sources. Full Circle Magazine is an independent magazine, though I'm not sure whether it's "notable". OpenTTD being in large distributions like Debian/Ubuntu might also make it notable. OpenTTD has also been on one of the DVDs of Linux Format, according to the website "UK's best-selling Linux magazine". I hope any of these are useable to prove notability. 130.89.55.67 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Two good sources unearthed during the AfD: Marasmusine (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ubintu Full Circle Magazine, Issue 9: Jan 25 2008, pages 20-21 (http://fullcirclemagazine.org/download-manager.php?id=55)
 * TUX Magazine, June 2006, pages 44-46 (mirror: http://www.aurovillenetwork.in/download_center/books/tux_magazine/tux014.pdf)

OpenTTD is on XFire if that's any merit. XFire Weaselboy246 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Side notes about original TTD graphics and music
Version by Fish utilized extension-masked MIDIs, so if a user specifies a folder of DOS TTD, music will not be present in the resulting OpenTTD installation. Two DOS versions of TTD exist, one is identified as "German" and has a broken sprite in "toy" landscape

OpenTTD uses NSIS with "package downloader" system, which suffers from antivirus timeout bug (for example, with Kaspersky Anti-Virus) - the antivirus checking time takes longer than the NSIS download timeout.

Yura87 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Varieties of English
Apologies for the revert, User:Lord Aro. Personally I'm not fussed whether the article uses 'favorite' or 'favourite', etc. I'm far from familiar with the game but I now note that the original inspiration was designed by the Scot Chris Sawyer. Once broad consensus is obvious (what do other editors think?) then it would probably be worth placing an appropriate template on this page for future reference. --trevj (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we should stick with UK English since the developer was from UK and the game (TTD) itself used to be in UK English with British countryside terrain. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

regarding multiplayer
it isnt a new thing in openttd. it was in the original as well but openttd might have improved it. the article shouldnt suggest that multiplayer is a new element but rather that it is improved.84.208.60.156 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on OpenTTD. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20151106154403/http://vcs.openttd.org/svn/changeset/8038 to http://vcs.openttd.org/svn/changeset/8038

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Changelog in article?
Is it really neccecary to have a section that is starting to look like a changelog in the article? i propose to shorten it to only include the important bits, if at all. Solbu (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OpenTTD. 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/20120224065433/http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/103/Free_Software_Projects.pdf to http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/103/Free_Software_Projects.pdf

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) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of listing of versions numbers.
I agree with user Solbu. The various versions listing should be removed and should be summarized which only includes important bits. I'll edit it in a week, if anyone has any question please ask it here. Or better edit it. --Curiousengi (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:OpenTTD


text:
Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Jazz Album

The Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Jazz Album was an award presented at the Grammy Awards, a ceremony that was established in 1958 and originally called the Gramophone Awards, to recording artists for works (songs or albums) containing quality contemporary jazz performances. Honors in several categories are presented at the ceremony annually by The Recording Academy to "honor artistic achievement, technical proficiency and overall excellence in the recording industry, without regard to album sales or chart position".

Originally called the Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Jazz Performance, the award was first presented to the Manhattan Transfer in 1992. From 1993 to 1994 the category was known as Best Contemporary Jazz Performance (Instrumental), from 1995 to 2000 the name changed to Best Contemporary Jazz Performance, and since 2001 the name of the category has been Best Contemporary Jazz Album. Until 2001, both albums and singles were eligible for this award. According to the category description guide for the 52nd Grammy Awards, the award is presented for albums containing "at least 51% playing time of newly recorded contemporary jazz instrumental tracks". Beginning in 2001, award recipients included the producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the nominated work in addition to the recording artists.

As of 2011, Pat Metheny holds the record for the most wins in this category, with a total of six (five times with the Pat Metheny Group). Randy Brecker has received the award four times total, once along with his brother Michael as the duo known as Brecker Brothers. The group Béla Fleck and the Flecktones has received the award twice. American artists have been presented with the award more than any other nationality, though it has been presented once to Joe Zawinul, born in Austria. The group Yellowjackets holds the record for the most nominations without a win, with a total of seven. In 2012, the award was discontinued in a major overhaul of Grammy categories. From 2012, contemporary jazz recordings were shifted to the newly formed Best Jazz Instrumental Album category.

Recipients
undefined Each year is linked to the article about the Grammy Awards held that year.

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


text:
Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album

The Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album is an award presented at the Grammy Awards, a ceremony that was established in 1958 and originally called the Gramophone Awards, to recording artists for quality works (songs or albums) in the Latin jazz music genre. Honors in several categories are presented at the ceremony annually by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences of the United States to "honor artistic achievement, technical proficiency and overall excellence in the recording industry, without regard to album sales or chart position".

Originally called the Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Performance, the award was first presented to Arturo Sandoval in 1995. The name of the category was changed to Best Latin Jazz Album in 2001, the same year producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the winning work became award recipients in addition to the recording artists. According to the category description guide for the 52nd Grammy Awards, the award is presented to "vocal or instrumental albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material", with the intent to recognize the "blending" of jazz music with Argentinian, Brazilian, Iberian-American, and Latin tango music. Beginning in 1998, members of the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences (LARAS) are eligible to vote in the Latin categories including Best Latin Jazz Album.

As of 2023, Chucho Valdés has the most wins in this category, with five. Arturo O’Farrill has won four, Paquito D'Rivera has won three, and two-time recipients include Sandoval, Eliane Elias, Charlie Haden, and Eddie Palmieri (once as a collaboration called The Brian Lynch/Eddie Palmieri Project). Since its inception, the award has been presented to musicians or groups originating from Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and the United States. The Bobby Sanabria Multiverse Big Band holds the record for the most nominations without a win in the category, with five.

The award was not presented in 2012 as part of a major overhaul of Grammy categories; Latin jazz recordings were shifted to either the Best Jazz Instrumental Album or Best Jazz Vocal Album categories. However following protests and a lawsuit made by Latin jazz musicians Bobby Sanabria, Eugene Marlow, Ben Lapidus, and Mark Levine filed by attorney Roger Maldonado, the Recording Academy reinstated the category the following year 2013 for the 55th Grammy Awards.

Recipients

undefined Each year is linked to the article about the Grammy Awards held that year.

title: Grammy Award for Best Latin Jazz Album


text:
Handle decomposition

In mathematics, a handle decomposition of an m-manifold M is a union $$\emptyset = M_{-1} \subset M_0 \subset M_1 \subset M_2 \subset \dots \subset M_{m-1} \subset M_m = M$$ where each $$M_i$$ is obtained from $$M_{i-1}$$ by the attaching of $$i$$-handles. A handle decomposition is to a manifold what a CW-decomposition is to a topological space—in many regards the purpose of a handle decomposition is to have a language analogous to CW-complexes, but adapted to the world of smooth manifolds. Thus an i-handle is the smooth analogue of an i-cell. Handle decompositions of manifolds arise naturally via Morse theory. The modification of handle structures is closely linked to Cerf theory.

Motivation
Consider the standard CW-decomposition of the n-sphere, with one zero cell and a single n-cell. From the point of view of smooth manifolds, this is a degenerate decomposition of the sphere, as there is no natural way to see the smooth structure of $$S^n$$ from the eyes of this decomposition—in particular the smooth structure near the 0-cell depends on the behavior of the characteristic map $$\chi : D^n \to S^n$$ in a neighbourhood of $$S^{n-1} \subset D^n$$.

The problem with CW-decompositions is that the attaching maps for cells do not live in the world of smooth maps between manifolds. The germinal insight to correct this defect is the tubular neighbourhood theorem. Given a point p in a manifold M, its closed tubular neighbourhood $$N_p$$ is diffeomorphic to $$D^m$$, thus we have decomposed M into the disjoint union of $$N_p$$ and $$M \setminus \operatorname{int}(N_p)$$ glued along their common boundary. The vital issue here is that the gluing map is a diffeomorphism. Similarly, take a smooth embedded arc in $$M \setminus \operatorname{int}(N_p)$$, its tubular neighbourhood is diffeomorphic to $$I \times D^{m-1}$$. This allows us to write $$M$$ as the union of three manifolds, glued along parts of their boundaries: 1) $$D^m$$ 2) $$I \times D^{m-1}$$ and 3) the complement of the open tubular neighbourhood of the arc in $$M \setminus \operatorname{int}(N_p)$$.  Notice all the gluing maps are smooth maps—in particular when we glue $$I \times D^{m-1}$$ to $$D^m$$ the equivalence relation is generated by the embedding of $$(\partial I)\times D^{m-1}$$ in $$\partial D^m$$, which is smooth by the tubular neighbourhood theorem.

Handle decompositions are an invention of Stephen Smale. In his original formulation, the process of attaching a j-handle to an m-manifold M  assumes that one has a smooth embedding of $$f : S^{j-1} \times D^{m-j} \to \partial M$$. Let $$H^j = D^j \times D^{m-j}$$. The manifold $$M \cup_f H^j$$ (in words,  M union a j-handle along f ) refers to the disjoint union of $$M$$ and $$H^j$$ with the identification of $$S^{j-1} \times D^{m-j}$$ with its image in $$\partial M$$, i.e., $$ M \cup_f H^j = \left( M \sqcup (D^j \times D^{m-j}) \right) / \sim$$ where the equivalence relation $$\sim$$ is generated by $$(p,x) \sim f(p,x)$$ for all $$(p,x) \in S^{j-1} \times D^{m-j} \subset D^j \times D^{m-j}$$.

One says a manifold N is obtained from M by attaching j-handles if the union of M with finitely many j-handles is diffeomorphic to N. The definition of a handle decomposition is then as in the introduction. Thus, a manifold has a handle decomposition with only 0-handles if it is diffeomorphic to a disjoint union of balls. A connected manifold containing handles of only two types (i.e.: 0-handles and j-handles for some fixed j) is called a handlebody.

Terminology
When forming M union a j-handle $$H^j$$ $$ M \cup_f H^j = \left( M \sqcup (D^j \times D^{m-j}) \right) / \sim$$

$$f(S^{j-1} \times \{0\}) \subset M$$ is known as the attaching sphere.

$$f$$ is sometimes called the framing of the attaching sphere, since it gives trivialization of its normal bundle.

$$\{0\}^j \times S^{m-j-1} \subset D^j \times D^{m-j} = H^j$$ is the belt sphere of the handle $$H^j$$ in $$ M \cup_f H^j$$.

A manifold obtained by attaching g k-handles to the disc $$D^m$$ is an  (m,k)-handlebody of genus g .

Cobordism presentations
A handle presentation of a cobordism consists of a cobordism W where $$\partial W = M_0 \cup M_1$$ and an ascending union $$W_{-1} \subset W_0 \subset W_1 \subset \cdots \subset W_{m+1} = W $$ where $M$ is $m$-dimensional, $W$ is m+1-dimensional, $$W_{-1}$$ is diffeomorphic to $$M_0 \times [0,1]$$ and $$W_i$$ is obtained from $$W_{i-1}$$ by the attachment of i-handles. Whereas handle decompositions are the analogue for manifolds what cell decompositions are to topological spaces, handle presentations of cobordisms are to manifolds with boundary what relative cell decompositions are for pairs of spaces.

Morse theoretic viewpoint
Given a Morse function $$f : M \to \R$$ on a compact boundaryless manifold M, such that the critical points $$\{p_1, \ldots, p_k\} \subset M$$ of f satisfy $$f(p_1) < f(p_2) < \cdots < f(p_k) $$, and provided $$t_0 < f(p_1) < t_1 < f(p_2) < \cdots < t_{k-1} < f(p_k) < t_k ,$$ then for all j, $$f^{-1}[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$$ is diffeomorphic to $$(f^{-1}(t_{j-1}) \times [0,1]) \cup H^{I(j)}$$ where I(j) is the index of the critical point $$p_{j}$$. The index I(j) refers to the dimension of the maximal subspace of the tangent space $$T_{p_j}M$$ where the Hessian is negative definite.

Provided the indices satisfy $$I(1) \leq I(2) \leq \cdots \leq I(k)$$ this is a handle decomposition of M, moreover, every manifold has such Morse functions, so they have handle decompositions. Similarly, given a cobordism $$W$$ with $$ \partial W = M_0 \cup M_1$$ and a function $$ f: W \to \R$$ which is Morse on the interior and constant on the boundary and satisfying the increasing index property, there is an induced handle presentation of the cobordism W.

When f is a Morse function on M, -f is also a Morse function. The corresponding handle decomposition / presentation is called the dual decomposition.

Some major theorems and observations

 * A Heegaard splitting of a closed, orientable 3-manifold is a decomposition of a 3-manifold into the union of two (3,1)-handlebodies along their common boundary, called the Heegaard splitting surface. Heegaard splittings arise for 3-manifolds in several natural ways: given a handle decomposition of a 3-manifold, the union of the 0 and 1-handles is a (3,1)-handlebody, and the union of the 3 and 2-handles is also a (3,1)-handlebody (from the point of view of the dual decomposition), thus a Heegaard splitting.  If the 3-manifold has a triangulation T, there is an induced Heegaard splitting where the first (3,1)-handlebody is a regular neighbourhood of the 1-skeleton $$T^1$$, and the other (3,1)-handlebody is a regular neighbourhood of the dual 1-skeleton.
 * When attaching two handles in succession $$(M \cup_f H^i) \cup_g H^j$$, it is possible to switch the order of attachment, provided $$j \leq i$$, i.e.: this manifold is diffeomorphic to a manifold of the form $$(M \cup H^j) \cup H^i$$ for suitable attaching maps.
 * The boundary of $$M \cup_f H^j$$ is diffeomorphic to $$\partial M$$ surgered along the framed sphere $$f$$. This is the primary link between surgery, handles and Morse functions.
 * As a consequence, an m-manifold M is the boundary of an m+1-manifold W if and only if M can be obtained from $$S^m$$ by surgery on a collection of framed links in $$S^m$$. For example, it's known that every 3-manifold bounds a 4-manifold (similarly oriented and spin 3-manifolds bound oriented and spin 4-manifolds respectively) due to René Thom's work on cobordism.  Thus every 3-manifold can be obtained via surgery on framed links in the 3-sphere.  In the oriented case, it's conventional to reduce this framed link to a framed embedding of a disjoint union of circles.
 * The H-cobordism theorem is proven by simplifying handle decompositions of smooth manifolds.

General references

 * A. Kosinski, Differential Manifolds Vol 138 Pure and Applied Mathematics, Academic Press (1992).
 * Robert Gompf and Andras Stipsicz, 4-Manifolds and Kirby Calculus, (1999) (Volume 20 in Graduate Studies in Mathematics), American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI ISBN 0-8218-0994-6

title: Handle decomposition


text:
Brömsebäck

Brömsebäck is a small stream in southern Sweden on the border between the provinces Småland and Blekinge. Before 1658, the river formed the border between Sweden and Denmark. The Treaty of Brömsebro (1645) was entered on an islet in the river.

title: Brömsebäck


text:
U.S. Route 119

U.S. Route 119 (US 119) is a spur of US 19. It is a north–south route (on a northeast–southwest alignment) that was an original United States highway of 1926. It is Corridor G of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) east of US 23 and KY 80 in Kentucky to Interstate 64 at Charleston, West Virginia.

Kentucky
In Kentucky, US 119 is a two- and four-lane highway running from Pineville at U.S. Route 25E to the West Virginia state line at South Williamson. It follows the Cumberland River past Harlan to near the source of the river's Poor Fork, crosses Pine Mountain south of Whitesburg, then follows a meandering course along the mountain to Jenkins, where it joins US 23 and turns north to Pikeville. Just north of Pikeville it turns east to South Williamson, where it crosses the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River into Williamson, West Virginia.

From Pikeville to US 23 (Country Music Highway) at Jenkins, it is part of ADHS Corridor F. In its concurrency from Jenkins north to Pikeville, where it heads east toward West Virginia, it is part of Corridor B. From US 23/KY 80 at Pikeville eastward towards the state line, it is part of Corridor G.

West Virginia

U.S. Route 119 enters West Virginia from Kentucky as unsigned ADHS Corridor G, a four-lane limited-access highway stretching from Williamson to Charleston. The earliest segment of Corridor G to open was in 1972 and was finished in 1997. Formerly, US 119 was a typical two-lane mountain highway. Old US 119 now comprises all or parts of US 52, WV 44, WV 10, WV 17, WV 85, WV 3, WV 94 and WV 61.

The US route becomes a mostly two-lane highway north of Charleston, having functionally been replaced by Interstate 79. Compared to its replacement, US 119 takes a rather winding course. A trip from the Charleston area to the Morgantown area (I-79/US 119 Exit #1 to I-68 Exit #1) is 147 mi via I-79 and 182 mi via US 119. The travel time is about double taking US 119, over 4 hours instead of about 2 hours.

From Charleston, US 119 heads roughly east along the Elk River to Clendenin, where it turns north for 29 mi to Spencer. At Spencer, it begins to head east with US 33 for 81.4 mi. Along the way, it passes through Glenville and Weston, where it intersects parent route US 19 and replacement I-79. From I-79 to WV 20 at Buckhannon, US 33/US 119 follow Corridor H.

At Buckhannon, US 119 again turns north — first with WV 20 then by itself as it travels to Philippi. At Philippi it joins with US 250 for 12 mi. From there, US 119 heads on its own through Grafton and towards Morgantown.

Just south of Morgantown, US 119 intersects Interstate 68's Exit #1, immediately east of its end at I-79. US 119 then enters downtown Morgantown, again meeting with US 19. It leaves town via the narrow and winding North Willey Street and congested Mileground.

Just after the Mileground, US 119 intersects with the Monongalia County Route 857 connector to I-68 Exit #7, which effectively allows through traffic to bypass Morgantown. US 119 finally turns north to enter Pennsylvania near Point Marion. The Hamilton Farm Petroglyphs are along this section. Much of this last stretch of US 119 heading towards Uniontown, Pennsylvania is already bypassed by traffic using I-68, CR 857, and PA 857 (or the tolled Mon-Fayette Expressway). While this alternate route is longer, it has a better alignment and is faster to travel.

Pennsylvania
US 119 travels through Connellsville, Greensburg, and Punxsutawney, and bypasses Uniontown and Indiana. There are numerous other boroughs and villages along its 133 mi route in the Keystone State.

The southern entrance of US 119 is at the West Virginia state line one-half mile south of Point Marion. The northern terminus is at US 219 two miles (3 km) south of DuBois, Pennsylvania.

US 119's control cities include Morgantown, West Virginia, Uniontown, Connellsville, New Stanton (for northbound traffic only), Greensburg, Blairsville, Indiana, Punxsutawney, and DuBois.

US 23 / US 123
In 1929 U.S. Route 23, which then ended at Jenkins, KY, was extended to Pineville. The following year this section was renumbered to U.S. Route 123, to allow US 23 to be extended in a different direction (towards Kingsport TN). In 1934 US 119 was extended from Morgantown WV into Kentucky, joining US 123 at Jenkins; US 123 was then renumbered to US 119.

Kentucky

Hwy 119 in Kentucky was originally a series of two-lane roads paralleling Pine Mountain that connected Pineville to Baxter (just north of Harlan) and then headed northeast through Cumberland, Whitesburg, and Pikeville en route to West Virginia.

Starting in the 1970s, there were a number of projects that widened or replaced sections of the road. In most places, the original route has been largely abandoned, instead cutting through the mountain to provide a much wider and straighter route. Small segments of the original route are still in existence as access roads to communities that predate the expansion. In Loyall the original route is known as Hwy 413, and this parallels Hwy 119 heading northeast until it reaches the community of Rosspoint. During this stretch in Baxter, Hwy 119 also briefly combines with U.S. Route 421, which then splits off and heads north across Pine Mountain. In Rosspoint, the original route of Hwy 119 is designated as Hwy 522. Hwy 522 parallels Hwy 119 all the way to Cumberland, where the final stretch of original highway is called Kingdom Come Dr. before merging with Hwy 119 just south of the Harlan County/Letcher County border.

From this point until the base of Pine Mountain (unofficially called Whitesburg Mountain), the highway is largely unchanged from its original route. On the mountain, Hwy 119 has recently been widened in a number of places in order to make it safer for trucking traffic.

Across the mountain in Whitesburg, Hwy 119 turns northeast. South of Jenkins, Hwy 119 merges with U.S. Route 23 until Pikeville, where it splits off and heads northeast to the West Virginia border.

In 2007, a 6-mile stretch of Hwy 119 northeast of Pikeville, was expanded and improved by cutting through the mountain, once again abandoning the original route which is now known as the Zebulon Hwy. and Bent Branch Rd. Past this point, Hwy 119 follows its original route until exiting Kentucky at South Williamson.

West Virginia
The routing of US 119 south of Charleston changed drastically with the opening of Corridor G from 1972 to 1997.

The original routing southeast of the capital was WV 61 to Marmet, where it took WV 94 southwest to Racine. From Racine to Danville, it followed today's WV 3 and onward to Madison. From Madison south to Logan, it followed today's WV 17.

South of Logan to Mountain View, it followed WV 44. At Mountain View, it intersected US 52 and traveled concurrently with it to the northwest, to Williamson, where it entered Kentucky.

Corridor G
Corridor G is a highway in Kentucky and West Virginia. It is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System, encompassing US 119 for its length. At the southern terminus of Corridor G at Corridor B (US 23/US 460/KY 80) near Pikeville, Kentucky, traffic can continue along Corridor B towards Pikeville and Jenkins, where one can pick up Corridor F (US 119) or proceed south on Corridor B (US 23) into Virginia. At the northern terminus at Interstate 64 in Charleston, West Virginia, one can pick up Interstate 77 and Interstate 79, along with the West Virginia Turnpike.

The Hatfield–McCoy Trails are an ATV and mountain biking network of trails throughout southwest West Virginia. Three trail heads branch off from various secondary routes accessible from Corridor G.

Kentucky
In 1974, the first segment of Corridor G was completed from KY 292 (2nd St.) at South Williamson south to KY 199 at Huddy. This was a four-lane divided highway that contained mountable medians and jersey barriers, with a mix of state route and driveway access. This is especially evident as US 119 cuts through the center of Belfry and South Williamson. Several years later, a 2.5 mi segment of four-lane US 119 along Buckley Creek opened from Corridor B/US 23/US 460/KY 80 north of Pikeville to what is now KY 1426 3.5 mi northeast of Pikeville.

In 1997, a section of US 119 was relocated on new alignment from KY 3154 (Meathouse Fork Rd.) at Canada east to KY 199 at Huddy. Two years later, a section of US 119 was relocated on new alignment from 2.5 mi east of Meta to KY 3154 at Canada. This involved extensive highwall construction at Bent Mountain and Canada Knob.

The final segment of Corridor G in Kentucky to be completed was from the KY 1426 intersection north of Pikeville east to Scott Fork 2.5 mi east of Meta. This segment required the construction of three twin steel-box girder bridges at Johns Creek (KY 194) near Bevins Branch, Winn Branch (Winn Branch Road), and Raccoon Creek (KY 1441). This also includes a modified diamond interchange at what will be old US 119 1/2-mile east of KY 1426 at Zebulon.

On June 30, 2006, the "Pinson Family Bridge" was dedicated. It crosses Raccoon Creek and KY 1441. This twin steel-box girder bridge is more than 1200 ft long and is the only example of its kind in Kentucky. The girders were chosen because of the curvature within the bridge structure; each girder is completely hollow and it features a 10 ft. clearance on the interior.

On December 6, 2006, a segment of Corridor G opened from the KY 1426 intersection north of Pikeville east to the KY 194 (Johns Creek) interchange. The last segment to open is from KY 194 north to Scott Fork. That segment was opened in March 2008.

West Virginia
The first segments of Corridor G to open was in 1972. During that year, a Mingo County segment from Myrtle and Belo (MP 13) to the Logan County line near Holden opened. Segments of this were opened originally as a "super-two" since WV 65 was being destroyed; it was critical that the old roadway be removed before the highway was expanded to four-lanes.

In 1973, a lengthy segment opened to traffic from Godby Heights south of Chapmanville (MP 13) to MP 4 in Boone County. This was followed a year later by a segment near Madison from MP 9.37 to MP 13 in Boone County. In 1975, the segment from MP 4 to MP 9.37 in Boone County was opened to traffic. At this time, the connection to Interstate 64 in Charleston also opened to traffic from Oakwood Road. This included the flyover ramp from US 119 to the Interstate 64 interchange.

In 1977, a Mingo County segment from Nolan (MP 7.45) at US 52 to Myrtle (MP 13) opened to traffic.

The next segment to open would come in 1982, when a Boone, Lincoln, and Kanawha County segment opened to traffic from Julian (MP 17) to the WV 601 interchange in South Charleston (MP 11). The segment between the WV 601 interchange to Oakwood Road in Charleston would be completed in 1986; it formerly utilized Oakhurst and Oakwood Roads.

In 1989, a segment from MP 13 to Julian (MP 17) in Boone County opened. In 1992, a new Tug Fork crossing at Williamson was completed. Formerly, Corridor G traffic from Kentucky had to cross into downtown Williamson and pick up US 119 into West Virginia.

The last segment of Corridor G in West Virginia to be completed was from the Tug Fork crossing at Williamson north to US 52 near Nolan. This nine-mile (14 km) segment was completed in 1997.

title: U.S. Route 119


text:
U.S. Route 219

U.S. Route 219 (US 219) is a spur of US 19. It runs for 535 mi from West Seneca, New York, at an interchange with Interstate 90 (I-90) to Rich Creek, Virginia, intersecting at US 460. US 219 is found (from north to south) in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia. Much of the Route in West Virginia follows the old Indian warpath known as the Seneca Trail (Great Indian Warpath).

Virginia
US 219 starts in Rich Creek at US 460, and heads northeast to the West Virginia state line. Until the early 1980s, US 219 continued southwest with US 460 from Rich Creek, re-entering West Virginia to end at US 19 in Bluefield. It now only runs 1.3 mi in Virginia, and no longer connects to its parent route US 19.

US 219 was initially added to the state highway system in the early 1920s as State Route 231. It became State Route 216 in the 1928 renumbering and State Route 124 in the 1933 renumbering, finally becoming part of the extended US 219 (along with State Route 8, now US 460, west of Rich Creek) in the late 1930s.

West Virginia
US 219 enters West Virginia in Peterstown at the split of US 219 and WV 12. US 219 then heads northeast into Union. US 219 continues through Greenbrier County running through the towns of Ronceverte, Lewisburg, where it intersects US 60, and Falling Spring. US 219 continues north into Pocahontas County and through the towns of Hillsboro and Marlinton. US 219 runs north into Randolph County and begins its dual certification with US 250. They both serve the towns of Huttonsville, Mill Creek, Beverly, and Elkins, where US 33 joins the concurrency. US 219 splits from US 33 and US 250 just north of Elkins. US 219 continues through the town of Montrose until it enters Tucker County. From here, US 219 runs through the towns of Parsons and Thomas. US 219 heads north into rural Preston County and exits West Virginia into Garrett County, Maryland.

Maryland
US 219 enters Maryland near Backbone Mountain on the West Virginia border, crosses US 50 and enters the town of Oakland. It crosses Maryland Route 135 and Maryland Route 39 in Oakland, before passing Deep Creek Lake. After traveling through Accident it intersects Interstate 68 east of Friendsville, providing access to Morgantown, West Virginia, Frostburg and Cumberland. US 219 runs concurrently with I-68 at Exit 14A and exits I-68 at Exit 22. US 219 crosses the Mason–Dixon line, the Pennsylvania border, south of Salisbury, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania
From near Grantsville, Maryland north to Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, US 219 is Corridor N of the Appalachian Development Highway System. From Meyersdale, Pennsylvania to just south of Carrolltown, Pennsylvania, US 219 is a limited-access highway. A new 11-mile limited-access segment from Meyersdale to Somerset opened to traffic in the late fall of 2018. On August 9, 2007, Pennsylvania State Transportation Secretary Allen D. Biehler unveiled four signs along US Route 219 that dedicated the route from Maryland to Cambria County, Pennsylvania as the "Flight 93 Memorial Highway". From Carrolltown US 219 runs largely as a two-lane road to DuBois, Pennsylvania, through which it runs as Brady Street, and then returns to a two-lane road after a junction with Interstate 80. US 219 runs directly through the towns of Brockway, Ridgway, and Johnsonburg before reaching Wilcox, where PA Route 321 splits and heads for the borough of Kane. US 219 continues north as a two-lane road until reaching Bradford, where it becomes a limited-access highway and remains so until reaching the New York border.

New York
US 219 enters Western New York from Pennsylvania south of the Hamlet of Limestone in the Town of Carrollton in Cattaraugus County. Proceeding northward, the highway splits into the main route and a "business route" that follows the original main route. The main route merges with Interstate 86/New York State Route 17 at Exit 23 north of Limestone and splits from I-86/NY 17 at Exit 21 in the city of Salamanca. The business route crosses the Allegheny River and the Southern Tier Expressway and joins New York State Route 417 to the City of Salamanca. Separating from NY 417, the business route rejoins with the main US 219 and turns northward through the rest of Cattaraugus County, passing through Peth, Great Valley, Ellicottville, and Ashford Hollow before crossing the Cattaraugus Creek and entering Erie County. About 4 miles south of Springville, New York, US 219 becomes a divided, limited-access highway. As such, it continues north through half of the county, terminating at exit 55 of the New York State Thruway (Interstate 90) near the west town line of West Seneca south of the City of Buffalo. Before joining the Thruway, US 219 runs parallel to it for about one mile (1.6 km). The interchange is set up as such that drivers can exit and re-enter the Thruway via US 219 without leaving the expressway.

Major intersections

 * Virginia
 * in Rich Creek

 * West Virginia
 * in Lewisburg
 * in Lewisburg
 * in Huttonsville. The highways travel concurrently to north of Elkins.
 * in Elkins. The highways travel concurrently to north of Elkins.

 * Maryland
 * in Red House
 * in Keysers Ridge. The highways travel concurrently to east-southeast of Grantsville.

 * Pennsylvania
 * south-southeast of Boswell
 * southwest of Ebensburg
 * west of Ebensburg
 * in Luthersburg. The highways travel concurrently to south-southeast of Sandy.
 * south of Sandy
 * east-northeast of Falls Creek
 * in Lantz Corners

 * New York
 * in Carrollton. The highways travel concurrently to the City of Salamanca.
 * in Orchard Park
 * in West Seneca

title: U.S. Route 219


text:
Funday Times

The Funday Times was a section of the UK Sunday Times. It was intended mainly for children, and included several comic strips, Launched in 1989, it originally featured adult cartoons like Modesty Blaise but quickly dropped them in favour of more child-friendly fare such as Asterix.

It also included reviews of various toys and songs, interviews with celebrities, including Will Smith, Gail Emms and Matt Groening, and interesting events coming up during the week.

Publication history
The Funday Times website was established on 3 September 1997, and closed down on 5 January 2007.

The last printed edition of the Funday Times was published on Sunday 12 March 2006. After that date, it was only available online. The print edition of the Funday Times ran for nearly 20 years before it was discontinued. The website mostly concentrated on features and games, although there were comic strips on the website that were originally in the printed version.

The Funday Times returned for a one-off special on 1 April 2011 to promote the Rio movie. Since then, the section has returned sporadically with themed issues to promote newly released children's films.

Strips

 * Beryl the Peril
 * Creature Feature
 * Dennis and Gnasher
 * Fans Utd.
 * The Flintstones
 * Goosebumps
 * Jarvis
 * Newton's Law
 * The Powerpuff Girls
 * Rex and Tex
 * Robot Crusoe
 * Scooby-Doo
 * Space Raoul
 * The Simpsons
 * Squirt

Editorial team
The final editorial team responsible for The Funday Times consisted of:

 * Dave Coombs – Editor.
 * Paul Wray – Deputy Editor.
 * Claire Sheldon – Funday Picture Editor.
 * Vaun Richards – Funday Graphic Designer.

Margot Wilson of TV's Hartbeat was a former editor.

title: Funday Times


text:
U.S. Route 319

U.S. Route 319 (US 319) is a spur of US 19. It runs for 303 mi from US 98 at the foot of the John Gorrie Memorial Bridge across from downtown Apalachicola, Florida to US 1/SR 4 in Wadley, Georgia, through the Panhandle of Florida and the southern portion of Georgia.

Florida
The route starts as a two-lane highway at the eastern end of US 98's bridge over the Apalachicola River near the John Gorrie Bridge in Apalachicola, Florida, and is concurrent with US 98 from its starting point. After crossing the East Bay portion of Apalachicola Bay via the John Gorrie Bridge, US 319 runs along the Gulf coast of Florida's Panhandle to Carabelle in Franklin County, and departs the coast, and its concurrency with US 98, about halfway between Carrabelle and Bald Point State Park, in a north direction through Sopchoppy in Wakulla County.

In Sopchoppy, the route angles east, briefly meets up with US 98 once more, before parting ways again and running north through Crawfordville, where it receives the FDOT maintenance designation of State Road 369, into Tallahassee in Leon County. US 319 meets SR 61 just south of Tallahassee, marking the northern end of SR 369, where it becomes a 4-lane divided highway, which turns into 6 lanes as the route meets SR 263 and forms part of the southern and eastern portion of the Capital Circle around Tallahassee. US 319 has the unsigned SR 261 designation between State Road 363/Woodville Highway and Capital Circle's eastern terminus at State Road 61/Thomasville Road. US 319/SR 61 has a complex interchange with I-10 at exit 203 before heading northeast out of the Tallahassee area. US 319 again becomes a 4-lane divided highway at its intersection with County Road 0342 about 9 mi from I-10, and runs to the state line with Georgia.

Georgia
The route bypasses Grady County and enters Thomas County co-signed with SR 35 at the intersection of SR 93 and travels northeast in the direction of Thomasville in Thomas County, where the route forms the western and northern perimeter around Thomasville. US 319 then continues northeast, passes through Coolidge, and crosses into Colquitt County, running as a bypass around the east of Moultrie. The route crosses into Tift County and intersects with I-75 just before running through Tifton.

In Ocilla, US 319/SR 35 is concurrent with SR 32, Half a mile later, US 319 turns north and is concurrent with US 129  and SR 35 reach its terminus. US 319 And US 129 head into Ben Hill County and through Fitzgerald, where it splits from US 129 and first heads east, and then north through the northwestern corner of Coffee County, where it meets up and is co-signed with US 441, and crosses the Ocmulgee River into Telfair County, Georgia at Jacksonville, Georgia and on into McRae-Helena. After briefly traversing the western corner of Wheeler County and eastern corner of Dodge County, US 319 continues north through Laurens County, crossing I-16 just before heading into and through Dublin and East Dublin, where US 441 splits off.

Continuing northeast, the route heads into Johnson County, runs through Wrightsville, and heads into southern Jefferson County, where it turns east in Bartow, before meeting its northern terminus at US 1 and SR 4 in Wadley.

US 319 from Tifton to the Florida State Line is a GRIP corridor.

National Highway System
The following portions of US 319 and SR 35 are part of the National Highway System, a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility, and defense:
 * US 319/SR 35:
 * From its southern terminus in Apalachicola to just north of the concurrency with US 82/SR 520 just east of Tifton
 * US 319 only:
 * From the southern end of the SR 32 concurrency in Ocilla to about Fitzgerald
 * The entire length of the US 441 concurrency, from south of Jacksonville to Dublin.

Florida
The entire length of US 319 in Franklin County was designated as "Blue Star Memorial Highway" by the Florida State Legislature in 1957.

The section of US 319 that is co-signed with US 98 and SR 30 in Medart in Wakulla County was designated as "Agnes Morrison Memorial Highway" by the Florida State Legislature in 1961.

From Kinhega Drive, about 9 mi north of its intersection with I-10 in Leon County, to the Georgia state line, US 319 and SR 61 were designated as "Kate Ireland Parkway" by the Florida State Legislature in 1992.

Georgia
US 319 does not make an appearance on Georgia road maps until October 1937, when the spur from the Florida state line to Thomasville is shown, co-signed with SR 3. Prior to October 1937, US 19 appears as the designation of this section of the route.

In July 1941, US 319 was extended from Thomasville, and ran through Moultrie, following what was signed as SR 35 at the time, to Cordele, co-signed with the current route taken by SR 33 from Moultrie. Since late in 1946, US 319 follows its current route.

The section of US 319 that forms the Thomasville Bypass was designated as "Will Watt Parkway" in 1996 after a prominent resident of Thomasville.

The section of US 319 that forms the east bypass around Moultrie in Colquitt County was designated as "Veterans Parkway" in 2002.

Thomasville connector
State Route 35 Connector (SR 35 Conn.) is a 1.1 mi connector route for SR 35 in the northeastern part of the Thomasville area. Its southern terminus is at US 19, US 84, SR 3, SR 38, and SR 300 in the northeastern part of Thomasville. Its northern terminus is at US 319/SR 35 northeast of the city. This highway used to be US 319 Bus./SR 35 Bus. in the city.

Thomasville business loop
State Route 35 Business (SR 35 Bus.) was a business route for SR 35 that served the downtown area of Thomasville. The route was decommissioned in 2007.

Moultrie business loop
U.S. Route 319 Business (US 319 Bus.) is a 6.8 mi business route for US 319 that travels through the central portion of Moultrie. It is concurrent with SR 33 for its entire length.

US 319 Bus. begins at an intersection with US 319/SR 35 (Veterans Parkway) and SR 33 (Pavo Road) in the south-central part of Moultrie. US 319 Bus. and SR 33 travel concurrently as South Main Street to the north-northwest and immediately curve to the north-northeast. An intersection with 32nd Avenue SE leads to Colquitt Regional Medical Center. One block later, an intersection with 31st Avenue leads to the hospital, as well. Just past an intersection with the eastern terminus of Hugh Bannister Drive, they begin a curve back to the north-northwest. Just south of an intersection with the northern terminus of Lower Meigs Road, the highways curve back to the north-northeast. An intersection with 11th Avenue leads to the Jim Buck Goff Recreation Complex. At 4th Avenue, the northbound lanes of US 319 and SR 33 turn right and travel to the east, while the southbound lanes stay on South Main Street. South Main Street remains a two-way street until 2nd Avenue SE. One block later, they turn left onto 1st Street SE and continue their northern direction. On the southeastern corner of the intersection with 2nd Avenue SE lies the main office for Southwest Georgia Bank.

One block later, at 1st Avenue SE, they intersect the eastbound lanes of SR 37. Just north of this intersection, they pass the Colquitt County Courthouse. One block later, they intersect the westbound lanes of SR 37 (East Central Avenue). On the northeastern corner of this intersection lies the annex for the county courthouse. Here, 1st Street SE changes to 1st Street NE. At this same point, South Main Street changes back to a two-way street. At an intersection with 1st Avenue NE, 1st Street NE becomes a two-way street. On the southwestern corner of an intersection with 2nd Avenue NE lies the municipal building. On the northeaster corner lies the annex for the municipal building. Just north of 9th Avenue NE, they travel on a bridge over some railroad tracks of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). North of Sylvester Drive, they have a roundabout with Sylvester Highway and the southbound lanes of US 319 Bus./SR 33. Just south of this roundabout is a sign for SR 33 south, even though it is actually still on Main Street. In fact, there is a directional sign in the roundabout that says that 1st Street NE is SR 33 south. The reunited lanes travel to the northeast. They cross over Okapilco Creek before they meet their northern terminus, an intersection with US 319/SR 35/SR 133 (Veterans Parkway/Tifton Highway). Here, SR 33 turns left onto East Bypass, concurrent with SR 133.

Between 2nd Avenue NE and 4th Avenue NW, they pass the U.S. post office for the city. Whereas the northbound lanes travel on a bridge over the NS line, the southbound lanes actually meet them at a railroad crossing. Just south of Sylvester Drive, the southbound lanes have an intersection with SR 111 (West Bypass NW). SR 111 does not meet the northbound lanes, or vice versa. Just north of Sylvester Drive, northbound Main Street has signage that indicates that it is northbound US 319 Bus./SR 33, although they are actually on 1st Street NE.

The entire length of US 319 Bus., and the portion of SR 33 concurrent with it, is part of the National Highway System, a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility, and defense.

Tifton loop route
State Route 35 Loop (SR 35 Loop) is a 0.4 mi loop route for SR 35 that exists on the southwestern edge of the city limits of Tifton. It actually functions more like a connector, since it connects US 319/SR 35 to Interstate 75 (I-75). This interchange with I-75 is on the Tifton–Phillipsburg line. SR 35 Loop is known as Old Omega Road for its entire length.

title: U.S. Route 319


text:
Howland will forgery trial

The Howland will forgery trial (Robinson v. Mandell) was a U.S. court case in 1868 where businesswoman Henrietta "Hetty" Howland Robinson, who would later become the richest woman in America, contested the validity of the will of her grandaunt, Sylvia Ann Howland.

According to Sylvia Howland's will, half of her $2 million estate would go to various charities and entities, the rest would be in a trust for Hetty Robinson. Robinson challenged the will's validity by producing an earlier will that left the entire estate to her, and which included a clause invalidating any subsequent wills. The case was ultimately decided against Robinson after the court ruled that the clause invalidating future wills and Sylvia's signature to it were forgeries.

It is famous for the forensic use of mathematics by Benjamin Peirce as an expert witness.

History
Sylvia Ann Howland died in 1865, leaving roughly half her fortune of some 2 million dollars to various legatees, with the residue to be held in trust for the benefit of Robinson, Howland's niece. The remaining principal was to be distributed to various beneficiaries on Robinson's death.

Robinson produced an earlier will, leaving her the whole estate outright. To the will was attached a second and separate page, putatively seeking to invalidate any subsequent wills. Howland's executor, Thomas Mandell, rejected Robinson's claim, insisting that the second page was a forgery, and Robinson sued.

In the ensuing case of Robinson v. Mandell, Charles Sanders Peirce testified that he had made pairwise comparisons of 42 examples of Howland's signature, overlaying them and counting the number of downstrokes that overlapped. Each signature featured 30 downstrokes and he concluded that, on average, 6 of the 30 overlapped, 1 in 5. Benjamin Peirce, Charles' father, showed that the number of overlapping downstrokes between two signatures also closely followed the binomial distribution, the expected distribution if each downstroke was an independent event. When the admittedly genuine signature on the first page of the contested will was compared with that on the second, all 30 downstrokes coincided, suggesting that the second signature was a tracing of the first.

Benjamin Peirce then took the stand and asserted that, given the independence of each downstroke, the probability that all 30 downstrokes should coincide in two genuine signatures was $$\textstyle\frac{1}{2.666 \times 10^{21}}$$. That is one in 2,666,000,000,000,000,000,000, in the order of magnitude of sextillions. He went on to observe:

"So vast improbability is practically an impossibility. Such evanescent shadows of probability cannot belong to actual life. They are unimaginably less than those least things which the law cares not for. ... The coincidence which has occurred here must have had its origin in an intention to produce it.  It is utterly repugnant to sound reason to attribute this coincidence to any cause but design."

The court ruled that Robinson's testimony in support of Howland's signature was inadmissible as she was a party to the will, thus having a conflict of interest. The statistical evidence was not called upon in judgment.

The case is one of a series of attempts to introduce mathematical reasoning into the courts. People v. Collins is a more recent example.

General bibliography

 * Eggleston, Richard (1983). Evidence, Proof and Probability, ISBN 0-297-78263-0
 * Robinson v. Mandell, 20 F. Cas. 1027 (C.C.D. Mass. 1868) (No. 11,959)
 * Menand, L. (2002). The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America, ISBN 0-00-714737-6, pp. 163–176
 * Meier, P. & Zabell, S. (1980). "Benjamin Peirce and the Howland Will", Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 75, p. 497
 * "The Howland Will Case", American Law Review, vol. 4, p. 625 (1870)
 * Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez, Math on trial: How numbers get used and abused in the courtroom, Basic Books, 2013. ISBN 978-0-465-03292-1. (Ninth chapter: "Math error number 9: choosing a wrong model. The case of Hetty Green: a battle of wills").

title: Howland will forgery trial


text:
Garston

Garston could refer to several places:

England

 * Garston, Hertfordshire
 * Garston railway station (Hertfordshire)
 * Garston, Liverpool, Merseyside
 * Garston railway station (Merseyside)

New Zealand

 * Garston, New Zealand, town in the Southland District

title: Garston


text: Category:Alexandria, Virginia

title: Category:Alexandria, Virginia


text:
Talk:Cricket

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024
"Polishing the ball and wetting it with sweat or saliva is legal, even when the polishing is deliberately done on one side only to increase the ball's swing through the air, but the acts of rubbing other substances into the ball, scratching the surface or picking at the seam are illegal ball tampering." This should be changed to: "The act of using saliva is illegal after Covid restrictions were placed." Wisden can be referred in case a trustworthy validation is needed.

Please refer to this article for reliability https://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/saliva-ban-made-permanent-as-icc-announces-changes-to-playing-conditions/article65913273.ece#:~:text=The%20use%20of%20saliva%20to,into%20effect%20on%20October%201. Hrishi Preetham GL (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 * ✅  Antrotherkus 18:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding a New Section: Rivalries
Cricket, often described as a game of emotions, is characterized by numerous rivalries, both renowned and lesser-known. While the article currently lacks information on this aspect, it's essential to acknowledge the significance of rivalries in shaping the sport's narrative and captivating fans worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cricket_rivalries This article provides some history on few major rivalries and I want to link this article under the rivalries section but it also does not list some of the recent rivalries like the India, Australia which i want to write about under this section Abdulkhan02 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I deleted it. It was poorly written and doesn't really suit the page. It can be written in the history section, for example there is currently nothing about bodyline or India-Pakistan etc. But if I was reading about a sport and then saw "When we think about rivalries and how they are formed, they are mainly due to real-world issues.In the case of Bangladesh and Srilanka, the rivalry was sparked by a dance called the "Naagin Dance". I would rightly think "Why are you telling me this". It was also unsourced. If I was going to add anything to this page. I may write about Bodyline in the Inter war section, as well as India and Pakistan and how they do not play each other due to political reasons. But stuff like "Bangladesh and Srilanka's rivalry is at its early stages but the two South Asian sides have produced more memorable games in the last four years than in the past." is also pretty pointless and doesn't mean anything.
 * Sorry but I really don't see the point in adding any of what you wrote except for adding a link to the rivalries page itself.
 * Please don't revert the deletion. Basetornado (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for your feedback. What are your suggestions on how I can incorporate the rivalries section without actually making it seem "pointless". I have listed the source I have been trying to use to gather information for the banglades-srilanka rivalry section. Let me know what you think. I am also working on improving the wording from my initial edit so let me know where and how I can incorporate this section
 * https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricket-videos/the-story-of-the-naagin-dance-and-a-feisty-modern-rivalry-1159493 Abdulkhan02 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am rewriting the history section, to include bodyline and India-Pakistan. The rest of the rivalries are not needed on this page. I will add a short link to the main cricket rivlaries page where you can add that information. But it's not really notable enough to be featured on this page itself. Bodyline, India-Pakistan are notable as Bodyline resulted in diplomatic cables between the two countries, while India-Pakistan refuse to play itself due to poltical reasons. Sri Lanka-Bangladesh is just an onfield rivalry, which isn't notable enough. Currently the history section, includes things from the 21st century in the 20th century section so im rewriting it all.
 * Sorry but the rivalry section just isn't needed on this page. Basetornado (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Are there any other edits I can make to help you out? Abdulkhan02 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can i add the link to this rivalries wiki page by creating a new rivalries section like I did before
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cricket_rivalries Abdulkhan02 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No. I think just add that information to the Cricket Rivalries page itself and I will add a link to it. Basetornado (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, how you did it works well. Basetornado (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Laymans terms
Being American I have never heard of Cricket until hearing it mentioned in cartoons my kids watch. The article uses game terms I am not familiar with & spent a lot of time clicking on links to learn them. Its time consuming & I still have no idea what the game is other than a ball & bat game. It would be nice if the article at least explained what the terms mean. Thank you! Neshutahi (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree articles like this can always be improved, I think you might be being a bit unfair when you say "I still have no idea what the game is other than a ball & bat game". I am one of those rare non-Americans who happens to know a fair bit about both cricket and baseball, so I went and had a look at the baseball article. The openings of both are very similarly structured, so it's obvious some attempt has been made in the past to make this one comprehensible to non-aficionados. Maybe if you gave us the first three or so examples of wording that confused you, we could see if we can improve the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked an AI what Cricket was & I understood it. Where I got lost is terms like "Wicket", "Bails" & "Bowl". I now understand that a wicket is a cylindrical stick & a bail is like a ball that goes on top of it to show if the wicket has been disturbed. By reading the article I had to guess what a wicket was which at first thought was the bat & at no point knew what a bail was & couldn't tell if it was an act or verb. The term bowl also confused me & I assumed it was just a way Australians & British spoke. I now know that it is different than a throw cuz there are illegal throws. Even if some things are clear, me not understanding the basic terms made the rest kinda hard to read. Neshutahi (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I note that you are new to Wikipedia. Those words that confused you are in blue in the text. That means they are what we call Wikilinks, or hyperlinks, that you can click on to see a new article linked to from that word. Hope that helps. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I hated clicking each link, straying away from original article & taking time to read it then coming back. It didn't really help. I was able to learn them easier elsewhere in the concept I was needing it in as a whole. It would still help those who don't know to have a short basic of what something is while reading the article your on without the need of having to read a bunch of other articles to try to put them all together & then back to first article or just try to remember everything. A link is helpful for a more in deph info but a quick "(Bail is like a ball)" would be helpful in the moment. Neshutahi (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Bcci
About bcci and other association 223.235.61.253 (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 * What about it? There's an article Board of Control for Cricket in India, and BCCI is set up to redirect to it. JH (talk page) 17:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024
Add “pickle ball” to the list of similar games:

“Cricket is one of many games in the "club ball" sphere that involve hitting a ball with a hand-held implement. Others include baseball (which shares many similarities with cricket, both belonging in the more specific bat-and-ball games category[2]), golf, hockey, tennis, squash, badminton and table tennis.[3])”

https://usapickleball.org/what-is-pickleball/ DottheiCrossthet (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cricket


text:
U.S. Route 221

U.S. Route 221 (US 221) is a 734 mi spur of U.S. Route 21. It travels from Perry, Florida, at US 19/US 98/US 27 Alternate to Lynchburg, Virginia, at US 29 Business (Lynchburg Expressway). It travels through the states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. It travels through the cities of Valdosta, Georgia; Spartanburg, South Carolina; Marion, North Carolina; Roanoke, Virginia; and Lynchburg, Virginia.

Florida
U.S. Route 221 originates just south of the city of Perry, with its southern terminus intersecting with the cosigned U.S. Route 19 U.S. Route 98 and U.S. Route 27 Alternate, taking hidden SR 55 with it away from US 19. It continues through the city of Perry and intersects Interstate 10 and U.S. Route 90 in rural Madison County before crossing into Georgia.

Georgia
U.S. Route 221 runs through the cities of Quitman, Valdosta, Lakeland, Pearson, and Douglas in southern Georgia.

In Quitman, it joins U.S. Route 84 (cosigned Georgia State Route 38) to Valdosta. From Valdosta to Douglas, it joins with Georgia State Route 31. It also joins with Georgia State Route 135 and State Route 56. From Pearson to Douglas, it joins with U.S. Route 441 as a four-lane highway, which was completed in 2000.

In Douglas, U.S. Route 221 runs as the eastern part of Bowens Mill Rd. and will be widened in the future. It passes through Hazelhurst, Mount Vernon and Soperton before crossing Interstate 16, then later joins up with U.S. Route 1 and Georgia State Route 4 after passing through Louisville. After going through Wrens, it splits off to the north, cosigned with Georgia State Route 47 and passes through Harlem before crossing Interstate 20 /Georgia State Route 402 approximately 20 miles west of Augusta. Shortly before crossing into South Carolina, Georgia State Route 150 merges with Route 221 at the Pollards Corner intersection as Georgia 47 turns away. The passage into South Carolina takes place on top of the J. Strom Thurmond Dam, which forms the southern shore of Lake Strom Thurmond.

South Carolina
U.S. Route 221 enters South Carolina in rural McCormick County at the southeastern edge of Lake Strom Thurmond. It continues north and northwestward to the town of McCormick. From McCormick, it continues northerly to the city of Greenwood.

From Greenwood, U.S. Route 221 continues northeasterly to the city of Waterloo, South Carolina. U.S. Truck Route 221 bypasses the city of Laurens on the east side. It continues northerly and intersects Interstate 385 in rural Laurens County and proceeds to intersect Interstate 26 in rural Spartanburg County.

U.S. Route 221 continues through the center of the city of Spartanburg before intersecting Interstate 85 just north of the city. It continues to the city of Chesnee before exiting the state in a rural area of Cherokee County. The southern terminus of U.S. Alternate Route 221 intersects the main route in the city of Chesnee and exits the state a few miles to the east of the main route.

North Carolina
US 221 is a major highway in Western North Carolina. It runs through the cities and towns of Rutherfordton, Marion, Blowing Rock, Boone, and Jefferson. The highway is predominantly two-lane, while four-lane in Marion, Blowing Rock, and Boone. The section from the U.S. Route 321 interchange just east of Boone and into Jefferson in Ashe county is now a divided, four-lane controlled-access road, making this section a much more pleasant and scenic one. Two sections of the highway can be considered challenging and twisty: 13-mile stretch between Linville and Blowing Rock, and a 21-mile stretch between Jefferson and Twin Oaks.

U.S. Route 221 has one Alternate (continuing from South Carolina) and two Business Routes (in Marion and Jefferson). It intersects two major highways: U.S. Route 74 near Rutherfordton and I-40 near Marion; and also intersects with the Blue Ridge Parkway four times.

Virginia
In Virginia, US 221 runs 149.61 mi from the North Carolina state line near Independence north to its northern terminus at US 29 Business, US 460 Business, and US 501 Business in Lynchburg. US 221 connects Independence, Galax, and Hillsville in Southwest Virginia while running concurrently with US 58. The U.S. Highway connects those communities with Roanoke via Floyd County, within which US 221 is the main west–east highway. The U.S. Highway also runs concurrently with US 460 from Roanoke to Bedford and parallels that U.S. Highway from Bedford to Lynchburg.

Major intersections

 * Florida
 * in Perry
 * in Perry
 * south-southeast of Greenville
 * in Greenville. The highways travel concurrently through Greenville.

 * Georgia
 * in Quitman. The highways travel concurrently to Valdosta.
 * in Valdosta
 * in Valdosta. US 41/US 221 travels concurrently through Valdosta.
 * in Lakeland. The highways travel concurrently to east-northeast of Lakeland.
 * south-southwest of Pearson. The highways travel concurrently to Douglas.
 * in Pearson
 * in Hazlehurst. The highways travel concurrently through Hazlehurst.
 * in Mount Vernon
 * north of Soperton
 * north-northeast of Norristown
 * south-southwest of Bartow. The highways travel concurrently to Bartow.
 * in Louisville. The highways travel concurrently to Wrens.
 * in Wrens
 * in Harlem
 * south of Appling

 * South Carolina
 * in McCormick. The highways travel concurrently through McCormick.
 * south-southeast of Greenwood. The highways travel concurrently to northeast of Greenwood.
 * in Laurens
 * north of Laurens
 * east-northeast of Moore
 * in Spartanburg
 * north of Spartanburg
 * east of Valley Falls

 * North Carolina
 * southwest of Forest City
 * in Rutherfordton
 * southeast of West Marion
 * in Marion
 * in Blowing Rock. The siblings travel concurrently to Boone.
 * in Boone. The siblings travel in a wrong-way concurrency to north-northeast of Deep Gap.
 * in Twin Oaks. US 221 travels concurrently with its parent to Independence, Virginia.

 * Virginia
 * in Independence. US 58/US 221 travels concurrently to Hillsville.
 * in Woodlawn
 * in Hillsville
 * in Roanoke. The highways travel concurrently through Roanoke.
 * in Roanoke
 * in Roanoke. US 221/US 460 travels concurrently to Bedford.
 * in Lynchburg
 * in Lynchburg

title: U.S. Route 221


text:
User talk:Kyz

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Minor change
Sorry about that. I forgot to uncheck the case upon re-editing.

Best, Ravn 16:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Medical Torture
Hello, I have attempted to make a compromise at Medical torture to keep everyone happy. Please let me know what you think. Best wishes, -- FirstPrinciples 01:28, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

66.20.28.21's case
The Arbitration Committee has ruled on the case of 66.20.28.21. You may be interested in seeing the final decision of the case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:40, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

List of shock sites
Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lemarchand's box

The article Lemarchand's box has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jonnymoon96 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kyz