text:
Digital imaging technician

A digital imaging technician (DIT) was created for the motion picture industry in response to the transition from the long established film movie camera medium into the current digital cinema era. The DIT is the camera department crew member who works in collaboration with the cinematographer on workflow, systemization, camera settings, signal integrity and image manipulation to achieve the highest image quality and creative goals of cinematography in the digital realm.

With the progression of the digitization ever more tasks concerning data management emerged: the position of the Digital Imaging Technician was introduced. The DIT is the connector between on-set time and post production. DITs support the camera team with technical and creative tasks with the digital camera. Their purpose is to ensure the best technical quality possible, as well as production safety. DITs are responsible for tasks during preparation, on-set time and post production. They are also responsible for managing data on set, such as making backups and quality checks of the material. In post production, the DIT hands the recordings to the post production team, possibly after checking the quality of the material and generating working copies.

Data backups and quality control are of great significance for the DIT who has to make sure that the original camera data and metadata is backed up at least twice daily, ensuring data integrity with checksum verification. Furthermore, the data may be backed up on LTO tape which is hardier than electronic devices and is used for long-term storage. Another copy must be made on a transfer data carrier that will be sent to post production along with the reports of the content. Again, the data has to be backed up. The data has to be accessible at all times and should be saved in a system where it can be reviewed, displaying the metadata of each clip.

The DIT's role on-set has become especially prevalent through assisting cinematographers, normally accustomed to film stock, in achieving their desired look digitally. This is accomplished by the DIT through monitoring picture exposure, setting up Color Decision List (CDL) on daily basis and, if requested, "look up tables" (LUTs) for the post-production. Additionally, the DIT handles any settings in the digital camera's menu system, such as recording format and outputs. As a courtesy, the DIT also secures the digital audio recorded by the external digital audio recorder operated by the Production Sound Mixer.

Related positions
Alongside the digital imaging technician, the digital loader position has also been created. Digital loaders may be independent or work under a digital imaging technician. A data wrangler is another common term for the role of digital loader. A digital loader supports the camera department by managing, transferring and securing all the digital data acquired on-set via any digital cinematography cameras, interacting with the 2nd AC. Depending on the scale of the project, the DIT can also wrangle data, but never the opposite. In tradition with the classic role of film loader, the 2nd AC may alternatively take on the responsibility of digital loading as an additional duty.

A digital loader may also be called a loader, DMT (Data Management Technician), data wrangler or film loader. Loaders usually, however, have responsibilities in addition to data wrangling, like maintaining the camera truck and completing paperwork for the camera crew. Traditional film loaders also continue to be employed on film productions where the skills of a DIT aren't applicable.

Prior to the DIT position and its focus on on-set image work, several other positions, including video controllers, video shaders and video engineers performed similar functions of exposure and color control on a live video feed. While video positions still exist (especially in live broadcast and studio television), the DIT position has become commonplace in cinema, commercials and digital television.

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

title: Digital imaging technician


text:
Talk:Cannon

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KylePLarsen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cannon in the Middle Ages
I have nominated Cannon in the Middle Ages for Tzatzikification, to bring it up to the same standard as the similarly named section here. (For those unfamiliar with the term, Tzatzikification is a collaborative effort to improve the article by the Tzatziki Squad.) There was some talk of doing this earlier, but I think we have to admit that it will never get done unless we include it in the list. The way I see it, it isn't necessary to take it as far as FA status. I think aiming for A-class is enough to keep it as an interesting side-project, agreed? --Grimhelm (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll help you with that as soon as we finish history of timekeeping devices. · AndonicO  Engage. 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I have done pretty much all that I can do myself with the article. I have brought in the relevant material from the sections here on Middle East and Medieval Europe, standardised the list of references, tagged uncited statements, and rewritten the lede to summarise the article. Of course, I also added some new sources and material: technological limitations, culverins, bombards, Russian cannon, etc. The areas that need to be worked on are in verifying tagged statements, finding page numbers for some of the references, and some general expansion of the article. The section on Early use in China and East Asia could also be improved from Early history here. Good luck when you get around to it! --Grimhelm (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The cannon as a siege engine
I wonder, can a cannon be classified as a siege engine? According to the article about siege engines: "A siege engine is a device that is designed to break or circumvent city walls and other fortifications in siege warfare". I read somewhere (can't seem to find it, where?) that the cannon, because of it's power, drastically reduced the advantages of city walls; hence, cannons must originally have been used against city walls. --Kri (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on how one defines siege engine; according to our article, cannon would be siege engines, however, if I remember correctly, most of the books cited in this article that mentioned siege engines referred to trebuchets, catapults, siege towers and the like. It might be worth further research, though. · AndonicO  Engage. 03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the term Siege Engine is reserved, in my experience, for weapons that are either useless against anything but a fortification, or that is very difficult to use in the field, against troops. Except for the ballista, the bulk of ancient artillery was rarely used in ancient engagements (in fact, use of artillery was one of Alexander the Great's largest advantages) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.158.221 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey mate. yes, a cannon can totally be called a siege engine. check out This Wiktionary definition. Hope it helps! 172.116.88.149 (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Autocannon?
From the description of the device, it seems more like an organ gun or volley gun rather than an actual "autocannon". If so, then it is at the very least preceded by at least a few hundred years. AllStarZ (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, seems like you're right; if you could fix that yourself, that would be helpful. I don't really have much time and might not be able to get to it for a few weeks, and it seems Grimhelm is rather inactive as well. · AndonicO  Engage. 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

explicit edits
someone has change paragraph 1 and some other parts of this article and im not sure why no one has noticed it. please change it back to the origional version because i dont really know how to work wikipedia. ` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.124.202 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. · AndonicO  Engage. 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cannons vs. Guns
On a trip to a fort, I have been told by a number of people working at the fort when I mentioned that "I have never seen a cannon this large", I was corrected and told that I would need to call what I was looking at a "Gun" and the "Cannon Balls" were prjectiles. Asking why? I was told that the Navy refers to Guns mounted on a ship as cannons, but if you took that same exact cannon and mounted it on dry land it would be a Gun and not a cannon. Because the Army never used cannons but rather guns. I point this out for your reference. Since this is not my fiend of expertise, I give you the information on the talk page. ~akc9000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.39.242 akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC) akc9000

Although not a SME, this article does need to add at least a sentence on cannons versus guns. See usage of guns and cannon on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-32_Dominator. (There are probably many more pages similar to this one). I believe in that article, the difference is that guns dispense static rounds (bullets) versus cannon dispensing exploding shells. This article on cannon is incomplete without explaining how early cannon fired "balls" of mass versus the invention of exploding shells. Do all modern cannon dispense shells, or do some modern cannon still dispense static masses? Bcwilmot (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was in the US Navy, 1969-1973 and I can assure you that we never referred to shipboard artillery as "cannon." With few exceptions, all of the weapons were referred to as naval rifles, not just because of the rifling but because of the proportions of the tubes; my ship carried a 5"/54, considerably longer, proportionally, than (let's say) a howitzer. One exception that I know of was the Newport News, who carried 8" howitzers. JDZeff (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dardanelles Gun
I have corrected the constant confusion between the cannon of Orban and the single extant piece, which, having been cast as late as 1464, did not take part in the 1453 siege of Constantinople (apart from that, there is anyhow little point in mentioning the same cannon in four different, unrelated passages). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual content in Cannon entry
The first two paragraphs have been edited to add sexual content to the Cannon entry. I thought I was on a parody site at first. I'm not an editor, but wanted to alert whoever takes care of this article. Example:

A cannon is any tubular piece of [a man's shaft] that uses pineapple or other usually explosive-based sperm to launch projectiles.

I hope someone can fix this because it's pretty stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedoscillations (talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive use addition?
During Bernal Diaz's book on the conquest of Mexico he describes of periods when the Conquistadors had run out of shot for their single cannon but continued to fire gunpowder from it for morale purposes and to scare waves of Aztecs back from them. This is a fairly significant historical example of deceptive use I think.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional Information

If deemed appropriate, I was wondering if anybody might contribute information regarding the supporting structures for cannon, carriages, chaces, tackle, etc., especially in historical naval applications, or at least link to this type of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.89.215 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Early modern naval cannon
There is no mention of naval artillery before the 17th century. The impression one gets is that guns at sea were virtually non-existent before that time. I'm sure this isn't intentional, so wouldn't it be advantageous to stock up on more info on the early development of the naval gun?

Peter Isotalo 11:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Use of Cannon
The first installation of a cannon on an aircraft was likely on the 1910 Voisin Canon. Possibly the most successful (or least unsuccessful) was the SPAD S.12 Ca.1 which was fitted with a 37mm Puteaux Cannon which fired through the centre of a specially designed Hispano-Suiza 8 engine's crankshaft, however the weapon's low rate of fire limited its use to only the most skilled pilots. The British trialled the Quick Firing 1 pounder on several types but none found official favour, while the Germans, Italians and Russians all trialled Cannons. The low rate of fire usually rendered most cannons unsuitable for combat. Probably the most well known pre-ww2 cannon was the Coventry Ordinance Works (COW) gun fitted to a couple of experimental RAF fighters (known as COW gun fighters). During WW2 the 37mm cannon was fitted to the Bell P-39 and P-63, which though not finding favour with the Americans, was well liked by the Russians, who found that a single well placed shot from the cannon would destroy almost any German aircraft. As a result while post-war USAF aircraft carried on with the then inadequate .50 cal machine gun, Russian fighters such as the MiG-15 were equipped with a very effective 37mm cannon. 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Recoilless
This was recoilless, another category that has been neglected (though most are designated as rifles despite their size putting them squarely in the cannon category). The Davis gun springs to mind here. 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian Navy
No mention has been made of the weapons used on Soviet/Russian ships - the US weapons sound impressive only when the Russians are ignored. The Russian AK-176 76mm/3" cannon is capable of firing over 2 rounds per second (130 rpm) and the 130mm/5.1" is capable of 80 rpm from a two barrel installation and both can be used as anti-aircraft weapons aside from their normal surface to surface role. 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rail
Little mention has also been made of guns (mostly howitzers and mortars) mounted on railroad cars, which were common in eastern Europe and Russia were roads are sparse and/or unsuitable. 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

don't quote me on this, but I believe that rail mounted guns are in there own category... might want to check that though. 2605:E000:B058:E300:283D:CC7C:6643:98A1 (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Korean Navy
The name escapes me at the moment but a Korean Admiral mounted cannon on armoured 'turtle' ships to defeat the Japanese in the 1500's (IIRC). 173.32.134.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Admirals name was Yi Sun-sin and additional relevant info is at Turtle ship. Seems he didn't actually invent it but instead he resurrected the idea, though his was the first real use. This would seem to require its own section if noone has added anything yet.NiD.29 (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lombard
The Christopher Columbus article mentions a lombard, which I gather from the 1913 edition of Webster's is a small cannon. Does anyone have any further information? --Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Early naval cannons
There's still an obvious lack of information on the early development of naval gunpowder artillery. Someone who reads this article will get the impression that cannons were first used on sailing ships in the 17th century,. The truth is that galleys were the first to employ effective naval cannons and did so as early as the 14th century. The article needs at least a minimal update about the use in galleys and the development for use on earlier sailing vessels, before the late 17th century.

Peter Isotalo 10:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

splinters from hits in wooden ships ("18th and 19th centuries")
The section's second paragraph (the carronade) says about splinters that "they were believed to be deadly" - would there ever have been any doubt about the lethality of meters long, jagged pieces of wood scything through the air and through the bodies of those who happened to be in their way? -- Kiwaiti (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Switch "Aviation Use" to Modern Usage?
The Aviation Use section is close to accurate, but too narrow and discusses the naming rather remotely.

Cannons are "medium caliber" guns, larger than machine guns, smaller than artillery. The general definition is "between .50 caliber (12.7 in) and 40 mm," but the definition is a bit fluid, and changes with technology or local conditions. E.g. If your army issues a 54 mm gun, and it is a rapid-firing, direct-fire gun, you may consider the top end to be 54 mm. Indirect fire weapons (grenade launchers) and some other things are excluded.

Anyway, you will see that these are not restricted to aircraft, but can be in any field, including maritime and land. The 40mm Bofors, and the 25 mm Bushmaster on the Bradley are two good examples. I think the Aviation section should be updated to refer to the modern use in general. Should not break the narrative arc, as this use came into being around the same time. As the rapid-firing automatic cannon was being developed, some were put in aircraft. But it was a distinctly different beast than the (broadly small-arms sized) machine gun, or the much heavier and slower-firing artillery gun.

If you need a reference, this is a rather nice and easily-consumable printed work: http://www.amazon.com/Cannons-Warfare-Brasseys-Battlefield-Technology/dp/1857531043 I think some other key publications (e.g. Janes annuals) make reference to the basic definition in the relevant works, in the introduction.

I apologize for only leaving this note. I don't have the time to do this myself, and I travel most of the time, so don't have access to my library when I do have spare time, so cannot get specifics right now. Shoobe01 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Aviation usage is separate for a reason as most cannon use is either nautical or army, while aviation use has its own history as well as technical difficulties that had to be overcome and this would be lost being buried in with the rest. I agree the part about limited rounds needs moving though (the examples are army ones and are not really applicable).

In any case there is already a section for modern usage under 20th and 21st Centuries, however that section could do with some expansion and maybe the terminology part of that broken off into its own section and moved up and expanded.NiD.29 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

4in 14th century Chinese gun
If anyone can visit Rotunda (Woolwich), there's a nearly identical gun there from c. 1338. Maybe they don't mind someone photographing it. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of patents in the external links section?
They are not discussed in the text, as far as I can tell. There are thousands upon thousands of cannon- and shell- related patents in the US. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community"
I don't see a great difference in quality between this and, say, gunpowder. Longer introduction maybe?. The users that took part in the vote here apparently have little or no subject matter knowledge, judging by their inability to spot any issues, and just giving rubber-stamping votes. This article actually had a few more problems than the one on gunpowder. That one lacked some information; this one had wrong statements, and statements that were individually correct but sequenced in a misleading way—misleading for the total neophyte; for anyone with more knowledge they provided amusement. 20:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Have mörser, will travel (talk • contribs)

I think you missed the point - all articles should be accessible to anyone and it shouldn't take an expert to gauge its quality. Since the story of gunpowder is that of chemistry, while this is more a matter of events and people, this article should be more accessible. Lots more to do here still, and I suspect a broad reorganization of what has been added to the page thus far is needed on both pages. NiD.29 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Overreliance on Ahmad Y. al-Hassan
I object to giving so much emphasis to this man's website in this article. He is no stranger to politics. Keep in mind that much of the UNESCO stuff is highly political, and being on various UNESCO committees doesn't entail much for one's academic reputation. Syrian universities are also not fabled for academic freedom or much independence from their government's views. Also, the claims from him put forth in this article are not even from his UNESCO-published books, but from his personal web site. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Length
As of today, Wednesday the 16th of May, 2012, this article is around 100KB in size. This is twice the recommended article size limit given in WP:SIZE. And it is getting to be really, really long... I am wondering if some portions might not be spun off into separate articles in their own right? Has anyone given thought to this? To how it might be done? To which sections might be able to stand alone or, alternatively, which might be cut or edited down in order to bring this article somewhere close to the 50 KB "upper limit" of size for a good article? 'Cause this thing is a behemoth as it stands... Ideas? KDS 4444 Talk  13:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I take it back: after implementing an article prose-size script, I am now told that the "prose" portion of the article is only 43 KB. Is this still too big?  In my opinion, frankly, yes.  Is it big enough to formally require re-scaling or splitting?  Hm.  Maybe not  But maybe this is something to keep an eye on for the future. That is all.  Thank you for your time.  KDS 4444  Talk  13:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The article weighs in at 7,102 words. That's not overly long, and there are many articles which are much longer. The question is whether 7,000 words is too long for this subject. It doesn't strike me as such, but it wouldn't hurt to think about pruning some information. The article was 6,137 words in length when it was made a Featured Article in March 2008, so maybe it's worth examining the accumulated material and whether its up to scratch. Nev1 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I may be a tiny bit biased towards the version that passed FAC as it was partially my work, but I'm intimately familiar with the article and could perhaps take a look in the next few days. If anyone thinks it's necessary, of course. Keilana | Parlez ici 02:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cannon photo
Possible photo for article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Improper(?) reference to Thomas Malthus
The end of the "Early modern period" subsection claims that Nathaniel Nye cited Thomas Malthus's writings on artillery in his book The Art of Gunnery, and links to Thomas Robert Malthus' page. As the Malthus in question was born a good hundred years later (and so far as I know never produced any military writings), this seems unlikely. A different Malthus, perhaps? 184.78.4.160 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Poundage vs. bore diameter
The article needs a table relating the "pound" rating of a gun to its bore diameter. Minimally there should be a description of the definition of poundage in terms of diameter of the shot. Thanks if you can help.CountMacula (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A question
It seems like before the mid-19th century, cannons were used predominantly on sea, rather than at land.

For instance, typical armies in the Napoleonic wars would have a few hundred cannons. E.g., at the battle of Waterloo, the French had ~250, and the Allies ~150. (The number of Prussian guns is not mentioned in the article, but is presumably comparable.)

In contrast, a typical ship-of-the-line during this era would by itself boast up to a hundred guns. At Trafalgar, the British fleet had 33 ships (including 27 ships-of-the-line) with a total of 2,312 guns by my tally. This is an order of magnitude higher than the number of guns boasted by a typical British army. Of course, the British had more armies, but by the same token, they also had more fleets. The Royal Navy around this time had something like 90 ships of the line and several hundred smaller ships.

Why was the use of cannons geared so much towards naval combat? Why could a nation not gain an advantage for its forces by earmarking the production of its cannons towards land combat, thus outmassing enemies in artillery by many times? What am I missing here? The article does not answer these questions at all. 140.180.241.146 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Manufacture
I could not find any information on manufacture of cannon in the article, and if there are any links they are not easy to find. Is there any particular reason for this? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

edit needed
I suspect the following to be incorrect: "To pack a muzzle-loading cannon, first gunpowder is poured down the bore."

I am certain that the powder is placed in the chamber, which is a recess at the breech end of the bore, rather then just poured in. I, however, don't have a source to provide. Zedshort (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Would hardly be "muzzle-loading" in that case, would it? Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, the powder charge is delivered to the recessed part of the breech end by a special tool that places the powder there. It is not simply poured into the barrel. If you know nothing about the subject you should not be posting responses. Zedshort (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cannon Plural
BilCat, I just read the reference you indicated. It (Websters) states that cannon and cannons are both correct usage, which is what I wrote, and you said the reference says only "cannon" is correct. Likewise, Answers.com says that both forms are common usage in both the US and UK. A third site, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cannon, also says that both forms are correct. Then there is this site: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4568/cannon-as-plural (admittedly more of a forum for syntax professionals), which describes English as having evolved from cannon to cannons over time. This Cannon article itself says that in American English, "cannons" is more common, and uses "cannons" in a number of places throughout the article. I think you should undo your changes. --Trifler (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Listing in one place here:

 * http://grammarist.com/spelling/canon-cannon/
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannon
 * http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/cannon
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cannon
 * http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cannon
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cannon
 * http://www.answers.com/search?q=cannon+plural
 * http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4568/cannon-as-plural

Moved Discussion from my talk page: - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

BilCat, I just read the reference you indicated. It (Websters) states that cannon and cannons are both correct usage, which is what I wrote, and you said the reference says only "cannon" is correct. Likewise, Answers.com says that both forms are common usage in both the US and UK. A third site, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cannon, also says that both forms are correct. Then there is this site: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4568/cannon-as-plural (admittedly more of a forum for syntax professionals), which describes English as having evolved from cannon to cannons over time. This Cannon article itself says that in American English, "cannons" is more common, and uses "cannons" in a number of places throughout the article. I think you should undo your changes. --Trifler (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what Webster's you're using, but mine says the plural is cannon. So no, I won't be changing anything. - BilCat (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannon - it's the same link as the reference on the Cannon page. It says "plural cannons or cannon". Also, again, the Cannon page itself uses "cannons." I did not find one single site online that says "cannons" is not acceptable. --Trifler (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 * All that links says is "plural usually cannon". - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 * If I may, this text 'Cannon serves both as the singular and plural of the noun, although the plural cannons is also correct' has been in the article since it was promoted to Featured Article in 2008. Whatever form was consistently used throughout the article and accepted at WP:FAC at that time should still be used now unless there is a very good reason not to. Cannon is the plural of cannon in the UK as is aircraft and sheep (not aircrafts and sheeps), what it is anywhere else I couldn't say. I can see that many edits have been wasted over this plurality 'mistake' and I'm also amazed at how many edits have been made to the article since it was promoted though it seems to be a target for vandalism. There are more constructive things to do than argue about something that has been accepted for over six years. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    03:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, you may, and thank you. @Trifler, I'm not sure how we can both look at the same linkand see different things. All the link you provide says about plurals is "plural usually cannon", and that's right at the top of the page. Merriam-Webster's is an American dictionary, and that's also what my printed edition says. Sorry if the truth isn't "a compelling argument" to you. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Read further down on that Websters entry. --Trifler (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 * So you ignore the first entry? - BilCat (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think Websters, and the other references clearly indicate that both are acceptable and you should not be making edits to remove the "s". Especially in the case of autocannons, where I have never once read it used without an "s". Nor have I ever heard anyone in the U.S. military not use the "s" for the plural form. "Cannons" is pretty much ubiquitous in the U.S. military as well, although "cannon" is used sometimes when referring to the Age of Sail time period. --Trifler (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you Nimbus. I agree that BilCat should leave the page the way it was for six years. Also here's a fourth reference saying that both are acceptable, since BilCat just disagreed again: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/cannon. --Trifler (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Nimbus is specifically refering tobthe Cannon article. That had used "cannon" as a plural for years. See the previous discussion at Talk:Cannon/Archive 3, where it states "Grammatically either is acceptable. For all articles in the cannon series, we use "cannon" ; per History of cannon, Cannon in the Middle Ages, and others that use this plural in the title." And "I believe most scholars use "cannon" as the plural; I think we should leave it as is." Can you show me where that consensus was changed? - 05:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had not seen that archived post. I can see that the Cannon article uses "cannons" in a number of places, and I see that there's a reference titled "The Cannons of San Francisco" on it. I also see something on Websters that I didn't notice before, which is their Concise Encyclopedia entry, which says:

 * "Long-range artillery piece, as distinguished from other big guns such as the howitzer or mortar. Early cannons, appearing in Europe in the 15th century, were smooth-bored and forged of iron, weighed 6,000–8,000 lbs (2,800–3,600 kg) and were loaded through the muzzle. They were mounted on wheeled carriages, which were thrown backward when the cannon was fired. Rifled bores and breechloading were adopted in the later 19th century, and new mechanisms such as the hydraulic buffer absorbed the recoil. Before 1850 ammunition was either cannister, grapeshot, or round, solid cannonballs and black powder, but rifled bores made possible the use of elongated projectiles, which had a longer range. The shrapnel shell was widely used in the 19th–20th century. Modern cannons, of high-grade steel, are towed on split-trail carriages or are mounted on tracked vehicles; a common calibre is 155 mm (6 in.). Many helicopters, airplanes, and naval vessels are equipped with multibarreled, Gatling-type rotary cannons firing 20-mm exploding shells."

 * In summary, I strongly believe "autocannons" should be accepted here since it is accepted everywhere else, and I honestly believe it's the most common usage worldwide. The dozens, if not hundreds of previous people editing the Autocannon article used "autocannons" so it's not like I'm alone in this. I certainly feel I represent at least some of the previous editors on this. It was all fine until BilCat came along. I also think both "cannon" and "cannons" should be considered acceptable on all Cannon pages. Four different sources say that both are acceptable. I am willing to consider that separately from the Autocannon page. It's not like I'm saying everything should use an "s." I'm saying both should be acceptable here on Wikipedia. --Trifler (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Autocannon Plural
I had a chance to talk with a couple of U.S. military guys I know over the holidays, and I mentioned the Cannon Plural discussion above with them. They felt that "cannons" was more common worldwide in this day and age, but left it at that. They felt more strongly about "autocannons" however. They couldn't think of any military that doesn't use it with an "s". They said that countries that use "cannon" as plural still use "autocannons". One of them was stationed in Germany for a few years and said that's what the German soldiers he spoke with used "autocannons" even though they used "cannon" as plural. Ditto for the one French soldier he spoke with. This was while speaking in English in both cases. They told me that the Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and S Korean militaries all use "autocannons", when speaking in English.

So I realize none of that discussion is reference-able, but I think the Autocannon article should be excluded from the current cannon plurality policy. I think they're correct when they say that even amongst people who use "cannon" as plural, a very large percentage of them say "autocannons". The Autocannon article used "autocannons" from the time it was created until it was changed just recently. --174.31.172.28 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Development of naval artillery (again)
The development of naval artillery is described in this article as though it began in England in the 1300s (the "three cannon and one hand gun" of the Christopher) and then went straight on to fully-perfected broadside amarmanent, also in England. This is quite misleading. I completely ignores all development in the Mediterranean region, which dominated European politics until at least the late 16th century. The first successful gun platform was actually the galley, not nefs, cogs, caravels or such, and was in regular use by the late 15th century. Solutions for heavy guns on sailing ships were much more complex and developed only gradually. Initially, they were direclty influenced by gun galleys and attempted to emulate them, or to adapt to tactics that focused on boarding rather than destruction.

I've brought this up before, but without getting any reactions. If it weren't for the FA status, I wouldn't mind much, but I believe this particular information gap borders on a template-taggable issue. The almost exclusive focus on the English/British and US navies makes it even more problematic.

Peter Isotalo 10:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you haven't received a reply, I'll just say that if you have access to information on cannon development in the Mediterranean region, feel free to add it. --174.31.172.28 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

new image
I provided a new image which might potentially be useful for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steffenz (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cannon. 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/20080226105129/http://www.history-science-technology.com:80/Articles/articles%202.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%202.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cannon. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%202.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220840/http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/070318/books2.htm to http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/070318/books2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209105150/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319011619/http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/ags/index.html to http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/ags/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719063934/http://www.442fw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123055695 to http://www.442fw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123055695

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) 01:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cannon. 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/20080507020233/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/films/film.aspx?ID=1 to http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/films/film.aspx?ID=1

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) 07:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cannon. 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/20080213152724/http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/rifled2.htm to http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/rifled2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720144457/http://www.fnpw.com.au/enews4/cannon.htm to http://fnpw.com.au/enews4/cannon.htm

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) 15:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes to narrative of cannon use spreading following development in China
A pair of edits recently changed the sequence of early cannon use following origins in China. This seems to hinge on earliest subsequent use in Western Europe or in Islamic world. Surely with discussion a unified approach can be worked out. — Neonorange (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cannon. 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/20120121114619/http://www.groseducationalmedia.ca/vsc/korea1.html to http://www.groseducationalmedia.ca/vsc/korea1.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Artillery gun crew-illustration.jpeg

Terms for directions on the cannon
In the Cannon materials, parts, and terms section, it says:

"In what follows, the words near, close, and behind will refer to those parts towards the thick, closed end of the piece, and far, front, in front of, and before to the thinner, open end."

Is it really necessary to have to define three or four terms for each direction? (Nor are they complete - 'foremost' and 'forward' are not listed and are both used.)

Would it be sacrilege to use ordinary English "front" and "back"? (See WP:JARGON.)

It would also be good to avoid words like "piece" which are not readily understandable to all readers, where "cannon" could easily be used. TSP (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Anything worth "importing"?
I'm planning a severe trim of the History of gunpowder article - in particular the section "Development of the Classic Gun". If the text and refs there belong anywhere it's probably this Cannon article so I suggest having a look and "importing" anything that is worth keeping, because once I delete it it will be gone from WP for good. Just remember to tag your change with "Text and references copied from 'History of gunpowder', check History there for full attribution". - Snori (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Do Not Censor this
This absolutely belongs in the second paragraph of the Introduction,

The Mamluks used hand cannons in battle against the Mongols in 1260 at the Battle of Ain Jalut.

The Mamluks in 1260 is before the Chinese in 1288,  and this fact must be included in the Introduction. 47.201.187.246 (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The way that WP works is that the Intro should summarize the body. In this case the body has a whole lot to say (under "Islamic world"), and it's pretty clear that there are several points of view - as indeed there are with the Chinese dates. Happy to discuss, but please don't simply try to 'win' by reposting. - Snori (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See your Talk page. You may not use Wikipedia as a source for itself, and any edit in which you attempt to do so will be reverted.  General Ization  Talk  13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then use the  same  sources  for  both  wikipedia  articles.  It  belongs  here  too.  Put it in. 47.201.187.246 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dazu rock cannon.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Xanadu gun.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jahan Kosha Cannon.JPG

Cascabel spelling
Having read the angst over cannons versus cannon as a plural, I hesitate to bring this up. The side view illustration is helpful. However the spelling le is unusual. According to Wiktionary “le” is an alternative spelling but it has no source and no quotations. I’ve never seen this spelling before and it isn’t in my goto dictionary. Wikipedia has an article Cascabel (artillery) which I suggest be a link somewhere, if only for the illustration of the parts of a cascabel. Perhaps we are stuck with the illustration, so I’d like to see a note attached re spelling. (Or globalize and call it a cul de lampe.) Load the spelling cannon (or cannons)! Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Terminology
From the article as it stands, it is clear that there are different entire sets of terminology that are incompatible with each other. For example, when we refer to an aircraft cannon, we do not mean that it fires cannonballs of 42 pounds or more. This is not an argument waiting to be resolved, it is simply several sets of jargon that nobody has explained yet.

When I say "cannon", I mean something very precise: "a standalone piece of field artillery that is much too large to be lifted off the ground except by heavy machinery". However, that is a definition I have made up out of thin air, because the people who write "Cannon" articles won't explain it to me. :D TooManyFingers (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024: "history of cannon"
The History section of this article includes a direct to a main article. The main article is titled History of cannons but for some reason this article has it as History of cannon, with a redirect to the former. Though not strictly necessary "history of cannon" sounds pretty silly, and I request an "s" to be added on the end to be in line with the very article it's linking to. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:9CB2:25FF:FE90:E63C (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 * ✅ ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Have an exquisite day. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:9CB2:25FF:FE90:E63C (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cannon


text:
The Deviants

The Deviants may refer to:

 * The Deviants (film), a 2004 independent comedy about a dating agency for sex deviants
 * The Deviants (band), a rock band formerly known as the Social Deviants
 * The Deviants 3 (1969), the third and final 1960s album by The Deviants

title: The Deviants


text:
U.S. Route 58

U.S. Route 58 (US 58) is an east–west U.S. Highway that runs for 508 mi from U.S. Route 25E just northwest of Harrogate, Tennessee, to U.S. Route 60 in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Until 1996, when the Cumberland Gap Tunnel opened, US 58 ran only inside the commonwealth of Virginia (and it now runs only about 1 mile outside of Virginia into Tennessee before terminating). It was then extended southwest along a short piece of former US 25E, which no longer enters Virginia, to end at the new alignment in Tennessee. For most of its alignment, it closely parallels Virginia's southern border with North Carolina.

State Route 383  (SR 383) is overlaid on U.S. Route 58 in Tennessee.

U.S. Route 58 is the longest numbered route in Virginia.

Tennessee
US 58 begins at a trumpet interchange with US 25E, just south of the Cumberland Gap Tunnel. The interchange is located on the border of the municipalities of Cumberland Gap and Harrogate, within Claiborne County. The route travels northeast as a four lane divided highway, through a small section of Cumberland Gap with a few businesses. US 58 then abruptly leaves Cumberland Gap and enters a small section of a rural area within Harrogate, passing along the southeastern edge of the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. After intersecting a road leading to the park and the historical area in Cumberland Gap, the route leaves the state of Tennessee and enters the commonwealth of Virginia, after only about a half mile in Tennessee.

US 58 in Tennessee carries the designation State Route 383.

Tennessee to Jonesville
Upon entering Virginia, US 58 also enters Lee County and becomes Wilderness Road. The divided highway makes a reverse turn heading generally towards the east, in a forested region, before turning east-northeast after to the south of the Wilderness Road entrance to the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. US 58 crosses over Station Creek, before curving due east through the hamlet of Gibson Station. Past Gibson Station, the highway passes northeast through an area of a rolling hills with homes surrounding either side of the road. It is paralleled by Indian Creek on its southeast side, with the route crossing over its Pendleton Branch, prior to intersecting SR 691 in the village of Wheeler. US 58 continues northeast from Wheeler, before turning due east again while passing along the southern edge of the Wilderness Road State Park. The route crosses Indian Creek twice, before intersecting SR 684 to the southwest of a park and ride lot, and the DeBusk Veterinary Teaching Center of Lincoln Memorial University. The route then dips south through more rural areas of rolling hills, residences, and farmland before turning northeast once more. After passing through some hill cuts with stone sides and crossing over the Roaring Branch of Indian Creek, US 58 reaches the unincorporated town of Ewing. At Ewing, the route reaches its first intersection with a gantry, as its intersection with SR 724 has a blinking yellow light above it. US 58 continues northeast through more rural forests and farmland along the southeastern slope of Poor Valley Ridge, before reaching the unincorporated town of Rose Hill. In Rose Hill, more businesses and houses appear along the edges of the road, and a jersey barrier briefly forms in the median before the road crosses over the White Branch of the Powell River. Beyond the crossing, the median reverts to a grassy surface as US 58 leaves Rose Hill. The route continues to pass more homes, mainly in the traditional style, and businesses, mainly those that are timber shed retailers, before it makes a brief turn to the due east. Here US 58 crosses over Burning Well Road, Hardy Creek, and the railroad line of CSX Transportation (former L&N) leading to the Hagan's Switchback, on a twin-span beam bridge. The route then turns back towards the northeast and crosses the Hugh C. Chance Memorial Bridge. US 58 then makes a curve to the southeast through hilly wooded areas, before crossing over Dry Creek and meeting State Routes 880 and 758 at an intersection. The latter road provides access to the Lee County Airport. Past the intersection, US 58 briefly gains an eastbound climbing lane, before narrowing back to two lanes in each direction. The route continues east before heading northeast through wooded residential areas. Soon US 58 narrows to a two-lane rural road heading east through hilly residential zones entering the town limits of Jonesville, the county seat of Lee County.

Jonesville to Virginia Beach
East of Jonesville, US 58 intersects US 421, and the two routes stay concurrent through Duffield (where the concurrency also picks up U.S. 23), Gate City, Weber City (where the US 23 concurrency ends), and Bristol, where US 58 begins a concurrency with Interstate 81. The two routes stay concurrent until I-81 exit 19 in Abingdon, where US 58 resumes its eastward journey close to the Virginia–North Carolina state line. The route is signed as the J.E.B. Stuart Highway and the A. L. Philpott Memorial Highway. Much of the highway through the region features hairpin turns, steep grades, and load-zoned bridges.

US 58 begins a concurrency with US 221 in Independence, and the routes stay merged through Hillsville, just past the interchange with Interstate 77. Continuing eastward, the route crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway in the unincorporated community of Meadows of Dan before winding its way to Martinsville, where US 58 and US 220 share a southern bypass of the city. Between Stuart and the Martinsville bypass, several loops are found following the original alignment. East of Martinsville, a loop between Byrd's Store and Axton follows the original alignment, although one section west of Byrd's Store and one section east of Chatmoss remain inaccessible. Between Martinsville and Danville and between Danville and South Boston the route was widened to four lanes as part of the Arterial Highway system initiated by the Commonwealth in the mid 1960s. A newer alignment was generally just added to the older alignment. A loop of the older alignment is visible east of Brosville.

Approaching Danville, US 58 once again follows an expressway bypass to the south of the city, while a business route enters the city itself. It reaches its southernmost point near the North Carolina state line at its interchange with US 29, where the exit ramp to southbound US 29 immediately enters North Carolina, and the ramp to eastbound US 58 from northbound US 29 instantly enters Virginia. Drivers continuing into the city without exiting onto US 58 east instantly enter Virginia before going under the bridge that carries the bypass. The southeastern half of this bypass is shared with 9. East of Danville, US 29 continues north, while US 58 picks up US 360 (which begins in central Danville) and resumes its eastward journey. The routes stay cosigned until South Boston, where US 360 resumes a more northerly route to Richmond, while US 58 travels eastward to Clarksville and crosses Kerr Lake.

The route crosses US Route 1 and Interstate 85 in South Hill, followed by Interstate 95 in Emporia. Near Franklin, an expressway bypass carries US 58 (and, for one stretch, US 258) south of the city, while a business route enters the city. A bypass also carries traffic around Suffolk, where US 58 begins concurrencies with US 13 and then US 460. The three US routes stay merged until an intersection with the Hampton Roads Beltway at the confluence of Interstate 64, Interstate 264, and Interstate 664. US 58 travels inside the beltway and through Portsmouth and into Norfolk via the Midtown Tunnel. The route crosses I-64 once again, and continues to Virginia Beach, roughly paralleling I-264 to its south. US 58, designated as Virginia Beach Boulevard and becoming Laskin Rd. in Virginia Beach, ends at US 60, Pacific Ave. Historically, US 58 continued for one additional block to the east, ending at Atlantic Ave., which once carried US 60 and then Business US 60.

Much of the western section of US 58 is part of Crooked Road, Virginia and The Crooked Road: Virginia's Heritage Music Trail.

Alternate route
An alternate route of US 58, known as U.S. Route 58 Alternate (US 58 Alt.), splits from the main route in Abingdon, Virginia and travels northwest (signed west) as the "Trail of the Lonesome Pine" to Coeburn. From there, US 58 Alt. travels in a southwesterly direction (signed west) through Norton, Big Stone Gap and Pennington Gap before rejoining the main route in Jonesville.

History
The corridor across southern Virginia was part of the initial 1918 state highway system, in which it was State Route 12. It generally followed the present U.S. 58 from Abingdon to Virginia Beach, while present US 58 west of Abingdon was part of State Route 10. These routes deviated from present US 58 in the following places:
 * SR 10 left Virginia into Kentucky at Cumberland Gap; the piece of current US 58 into Tennessee was (in general terms) State Route 107 from 1923 to 1928 and State Route 100 from 1928 to 1933 (as well as U.S. Route 25E from 1926 to 1996).
 * SR 10 used present U.S. Route 58 Alternate from Jonesville to Pennington Gap and U.S. 421 southeast back to U.S. 58.
 * SR 10 used present State Route 638 and State Route 600 from near Pattonsville to Clinchport.
 * SR 10 used present U.S. 421 and U.S. Route 11 through Bristol to Abingdon. From Abingdon to Meadowview, where SR 12 began, SR 10 used present State Route 609.
 * SR 12 used present State Route 80 and State Route 803 from Meadowview to Lodi and roughly present State Route 91 to Damascus.
 * From Danville to Boydton, SR 12 used present State Route 360 to near Scottsburg, U.S. Route 360 to Clover, and State Route 92 to Boydton. Present US 58 was State Route 44 (formed ca. 1930) from Danville to Clarksville, and from Clarksville to Boydton it was initially part of State Route 1, renumbered State Route 31 in the 1923 renumbering, State Route 324 from soon after 1923 to 1927, part of State Route 201 from 1927 to 1928, and State Route 400 from 1928 to 1933.
 * From Suffolk to Portsmouth, SR 12 used present State Route 337.

In 1959 there were plans to extend US 58 from Cumberland Gap to St. Louis, using US 25 to London, KY, using Kentucky Route 80 to Kentucky Lake, then join U.S. Route 68 to St. Louis.

Related U.S. Routes

 * U.S. Route 158
 * U.S. Route 258
 * Special routes of U.S. Route 58

title: U.S. Route 58


text:
Francisco Manuel da Silva

Francisco Manuel da Silva (21 February 1795 – 18 December 1865) was a Brazilian songwriter and music professor, notable for composing the Brazilian National Anthem.

Biography
Silva was born and died in Rio de Janeiro. He had great prominence in the musical life of Rio de Janeiro in the period between the death of José Maurício Nunes Garcia and Antônio Carlos Gomes. He was a singer of Capela Real since 1809, and later a cello player. He was one of the founders of Imperial Academia de Música e Ópera Nacional (National Imperial Music and Opera Academy), of Sociedade Beneficência Musical e Conservatório Imperial de Música, which became Instituto Nacional de Música (Nacional Music Institute) and is called Escola de Música da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro University Music School).

He was taught by José Maurício Nunes Garcia and, most probably, by Sigismund Neukomm. He was directly responsible for Capela Imperial's reinstatement and being turned to its old beauty. He left a handful of works, spread around Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and São Paulo archives, covering gospel music, modinhas and lundus.

He composed the Brazilian National Anthem, first as a patriotic march, since emperor Pedro I's abdication, later being officialized as anthem by the Brazilian Republic Revolution (1889). He also composed one opera, O prestigio da lei.

title: Francisco Manuel da Silva


text: Category:Microscopes

title: Category:Microscopes


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrosexual

Retrosexual was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus — keep. Cool Hand Luke  21:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is an non-exsistant word

 * Non-existant? If people use it, it exists.
 * — Tlogmer

 * Hmm...My vote is a Move to Wiktionary. The word obviously has some meaning attached to it, but it is not notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 15:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. This looks a decent stub at least. -- Taku 23:53, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Exists in todays Metro, so its exists as much as the horrid Metrosexual, and that gets a place in Wikipedia. Mlk 01:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Another lost VfD. Keep. Cool Hand Luke  05:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Non-existent? The word gets 5,160 google hits, from various kinds of sites. Judging from those, it seems a notable term, and the article certainly looks acceptable to me. So: Keep because of notability and quality of article. Sietse 07:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * KEEP. This term has been in common use in the Australian media recently.--Gene_poole 08:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep - --Cyprus2k1 09:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep with great disquiet. It's still way too new and unstable for me, and the article has too much speculation.  It starts with documentary fact of first use and meaning in that context, but then it goes on, Wiki style, to try to cover other bases, only without reference.  Geogre 13:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Neologism. --Improv 17:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. - WP should not be a tool for generating/popularizing concepts, fads, or trends. --Huge colin 18:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Terms such as these are a dime a dozen, and are more transitory than isopropyl alcohol rubbed on a cactus.  -- WOT 18:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep! This seems to be a valid term...sources are sited! Its as valid as 23 skidoo. --Jon, Conqueror of Men 18:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Merge and redirect to Metrosexual, since retrosexual seems to exist purely as a reaction to the term/concept metrosexual. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Trollminator 00:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep with possibility for further encyclopedic description. — siro  χ  o  08:53, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep: stop listing valid articles please, -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   20:51, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

I doth say Keep --cuiusquemodi 02:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Merge into Metrosexual and redirect. Alan MB 23:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Suspicious activity report

In financial regulation, a Suspicious Activity Report  (SAR) or Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) is a report made by a financial institution about suspicious or potentially suspicious activity as required under laws designed to counter money laundering, financing of terrorism and other financial crimes. The criteria to decide when a report must be made varies from country to country, but generally is any financial transaction that either a) does not make sense to the financial institution; b) is unusual for that particular client; or c) appears to be done only for the purpose of hiding or obfuscating another, separate transaction. The report is filed with that country's Financial Intelligence Unit, which is typically a specialist agency designed to collect and analyse transactions and then report these to relevant law enforcement teams.

Front line staff in the financial institution have the responsibility to identify transactions that may be suspicious and these are reported to a designated person that is responsible for reporting the suspicious transaction. This means that the front line staff can ask questions and in some cases refuse the transaction. However the financial institution is not allowed to inform the client or parties involved in the transaction that a SAR has been lodged, otherwise known as tipping off under the Financial Action Task Force's Recommendations.

The Financial Action Task Force's Recommendations are widely recognized as the international standard in anti-money laundering and countering financing terrorism with endorsements from 180 nations. FATF Recommendations set forth essential measures to combat money laundering and to protect domestic and international monetary systems including the application of preventive measures for the financial sector and other designated sectors; and establishment of powers and responsibilities for the relevant competent authorities (e.g., investigative, law enforcement and supervisory authorities), including guidelines regarding suspicious activity reports.

Most countries have laws that require financial institutions to report suspicious transactions and will have a designated agency to receive them. The agency to which a report is required to be filed for a given country is typically part of the law enforcement or financial regulatory department of that country. For example, in the United States, suspicious transaction reports must be reported to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury. FinCEN maintains a team of analysts who meticulously review these Suspicious Activity Reports to detect potential money laundering activities. They also supply informational support to local law enforcement, along with national and international bodies including the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National White-Collar Crime Center (NWCCC), and the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), facilitating further actions.

In Australia the Suspicious Matter Report must be reported to Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), an Australian government agency. A 2020 Bank Policy Institute study found that American SARs elicited a response from law enforcement in a median of 4% of reports, and that a tiny subset of those responses resulted in arrest and conviction, suggesting that 90% to 95% of SARs reports were false positives of unlawful activity.

History
In 1992, the requirement to file suspicious activity reports (as well as the accompanying implied gag order) in the United States was added by Section 1517(b) of the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act (part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992,, , 4060).

Reporting
SARs include detailed information about transactions that are or appear to be suspicious. The goal of SAR filings is to help the government identify individuals, groups and organizations involved in fraud like terrorist financing, money laundering, and other crimes.

The purpose of a suspicious activity report is to detect and report known or suspected violations of law or suspicious activity observed by financial institutions subject to the regulations (for example, the United States Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)). In many instances, SARs have been instrumental in enabling law enforcement to initiate or supplement major money laundering or terrorist financing investigations and other criminal cases. Information provided in SAR forms also presents governments with a method of identifying emerging trends and patterns associated with financial crimes. The information about those trends and patterns is vital to law enforcement agencies and provides valuable feedback to financial institutions.

Under the United States Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), financial institutions are required to assist U.S. government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering, such as:
 * Keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments,
 * File reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and
 * Report suspicious activity that might signal criminal activity (e.g., money laundering, tax evasion)

Reporters
The report can start with any employee of a financial services institution. The employees are trained to be alert for suspicious activity, such as situations where people are trying to wire money out of the country without identification, or activity by someone with no job who starts depositing large amounts of cash into an account. Employees are trained to ask questions about the transaction and communicate their suspicion up their chain of command where further decisions are made about whether to file a report or not.

Many different types of finance-related industries are required to file SARs. These include:
 * depository institutions (for example, banks and credit unions)
 * securities and futures dealers (for example, stock brokers and mutual fund brokers)
 * money services businesses (for example, check cashing services, currency exchange bureaus, and money order providers)
 * casinos and card clubs
 * dealers in precious metals and gems (for example, jewelry dealers)
 * insurance companies
 * mortgage companies and brokers

Other related reports
Most countries also require other types of transactions to be reported. For example, in the United States, FinCEN requires businesses and individuals report:
 * individuals who transport more than $10,000 in currency into or out of the country
 * shippers and receivers involved in the transfer of $10,000 in currency into or out of the country
 * businesses that receive more than $10,000 in currency in a single transaction or in related transactions
 * people who have control over more than $10,000 in financial accounts outside of the country during a calendar year

Confidentiality
In most countries, unauthorized disclosure of a SAR filing is an offense. In the United States, it is specifically a federal criminal offense.

Financial institutions are required to undertake an investigation process prior to filing a SAR to ensure that the information reported is appropriate, complete, and accurate. This process will often include review by financial investigators, management and/or attorneys prior to filing.

To encourage complete candor and cooperation, there are disclosure and evidentiary privileges that protect SAR filers. First, an individual or organization is precluded from discovering the existence or contents of a SAR that includes the individual or organization's name. SARs filers are immune from the discovery process. Second, SAR filers enjoy immunity for all statements made in their SARs, regardless of whether those statements were allegedly made in bad faith.

Penalties for non-compliance
In most countries financial institutions and their employees face civil and criminal penalties for failing to properly file suspicious activity reports, including any combination of fines, regulatory restrictions, loss of banking charter, or imprisonment.

title: Suspicious activity report


text:
SR111

SR111 may refer to:

 * List of highways numbered 111
 * Swissair Flight 111

title: SR111


text:
Round Square

Round Square is an international network of schools, based on the educational concepts of Kurt Hahn, and named after a distinctive building at Gordonstoun. Founded by a group of seven schools in the late 1960s, by 1996 it had grown to 20 member schools worldwide, and has since expanded to over 200 schools. Round Square is incorporated in England as a Company Limited by Guarantee, and is a registered charity.

History
Between 1962 and 1963 Jocelin Winthrop Young and Roy McComish listed all the schools which they considered to have adopted the educational ideas of Kurt Hahn or had included them at their foundation. These schools were: in Scotland, Rannoch School and Dunrobin School; in England, Abbotsholme School, Battisborough and Milton Abbey; in Germany Louisenlund; in Switzerland Aiglon College, in Ghana Achimota School; in India The Doon School; and the soon to open Athenian School in California. Salem, Gordonstoun, Anavryta and Box Hill were 'taken for granted' as the already established and pre-eminent Hahnian schools.

On 5 June 1966, Kurt Hahn’s 80th birthday was celebrated at Schule Schloss Salem, and as the headmaster of the school Winthrop Young invited the headmasters of Box Hill School, Gordonstoun, Louisenlund, Anavryta, Battisborough, the Athenian School, and the recently opened Atlantic College, to discuss the establishment of a Hahn schools conference. This meeting was chaired by King Constantine and during its course an agreement was reached on naming the conference "The Hahn Schools", it was then decided that the first conference would be held at Gordonstoun in 1967. At this first conference at Hahn's insistence the name "The Hahn Schools" was dropped in favour of a new name "The Round Square" after an iconic building at Gordounstoun. Six of the schools that attended this first conference and were the founding members of the Round Square: Box Hill School, Gordonstoun, Anavryta Experimental Lyceum, Schule Schloss Salem, Aiglon College and Abbotsholme School. At the 2nd Round Square conference held at Box Hill the principles of the association were established and co-education was the first of the sequence of conference themes that were discussed. At a later conference held at Box Hill in 1980 the R.S.I.S. (Round Square International Service) was created to promote and organise overseas voluntary service projects in much the same way as the project in Cephalonia. Winthrop Young retired as headmaster of Salem in 1974 but continued to run the Round Square association as Honorary Secretary and later as Director until he retired from that position in 1992.

Activities
Round Square schools encourage students to take part in a range of community service activities both locally and internationally. Many projects are run through the school and further opportunities are available via the Round Square Region, Network and Worldwide Organisation. The philosophy of Round Square is centered on the 6 IDEALS, namely the Spirit of Internationalism, the Spirit of Democracy, the Spirit of Environment, the Spirit of Adventure, the Spirit of Leadership, and finally, the Spirit of Service. The goal is to develop a sense of responsible leadership and deeper understanding of democratic practice.

title: Round Square


text:
U.S. Route 63

U.S. Route 63 (US 63) is a 1286 mi, north–south United States Highway primarily in the Midwestern and Southern United States. The southern terminus of the route is at Interstate 20 (I-20) in Ruston, Louisiana; the northern terminus is at US 2 8 mi west of Ashland, Wisconsin.

Louisiana
US 63 runs concurrently with US 167 for its entire route in Louisiana, from Ruston north, to Junction City, at the Arkansas state line, a distance of 35 mi.

Arkansas
U.S. 63 enters into Arkansas from Louisiana concurrent with US 167 in Junction City. Just a few miles into the state, the two highways run on the eastern edge of El Dorado as an expressway. US 167 splits here, traveling towards Hampton. US 63 bypasses the town of Warren, crossing US 278. US 63 passes through the rural Cleveland County, then enters into Jefferson County. In Jefferson County, US 63 serves the city of Pine Bluff. US 63 bypasses the city, running on the last 3 miles of I-530. Also in Pine Bluff, the highway overlaps with US 65 and US 79. US 63 runs northeast with US 79 until Stuttgart, where the highway runs north to Hazen. Just north of Hazen, US 63 overlaps with I-40 to Brinkley. In Brinkley, US 63 begins an overlap with US 49 north to Jonesboro. US 63 leaves US 49 and follows I-555 until I-555 terminates, together serving as a bypass for southern Jonesboro. In Hoxie, US 63 intersects with US 67 (Future I-57). Northwest of here near Portia the highway overlaps with US 412.

In Imboden US 62 joins this overlap. In Hardy, US 63 leaves the two highways. In Mammoth Spring, US 63 crosses into Missouri, traveling to West Plains.

While historically there were many non-concurrencies on US 63, many of those have been resolved. In 2016, US 63 from Jonesboro (including its original US 49 concurrency from Red Wolf Blvd. to Southwest Drive) to Turrell was designated as I-555. As a result, US 63 was rerouted to run concurrently with US 49 from Brinkley to Jonesboro. US 63 then runs concurrently with I-555 until it ends west of Jonesboro, where it then continues northwest alone to its concurrency with US 412 at Portia, just northwest of Walnut Ridge.

Missouri
The highway passes south-to-north through Missouri, from Arkansas to Iowa, serving cities such as Rolla, Jefferson City, Columbia, Moberly, Macon, and Kirksville. Notable routes that are intersected include US 60 in Howell County, I-44 at Rolla, US 50 (with which it shares a concurrency into Jefferson City south of the Missouri River until it reaches the junction with US 54), US 54 (which it overlaps in Jefferson City from the junction with US 50 and crosses the Missouri River with on the Jefferson City Bridge), I-70 at Columbia, US 24 at Moberly, US 36 at Macon, and US 136 at Lancaster.

US 63 in Missouri was Route 7 from 1922 to 1926.

Iowa
US 63 passes south-to-north through Iowa. It enters the state from Missouri south of Bloomfield. Between Ottumwa and Oskaloosa, the highway overlaps Iowa Highway 163. This segment is an expressway which connects Des Moines with Burlington, with freeway bypasses of Ottumwa and Eddyville. Near Malcom, US 63 meets I-80. Only a few miles later, it joins US 6 westbound for several miles near Grinnell, then goes north again. At Toledo, it intersects US 30 and at Waterloo, US 63 meets US 20. An expressway section opened in October 2012, completing the four-lane link between Waterloo and New Hampton. The highway enters Minnesota just north of Chester.

Minnesota
US 63 enters Minnesota from Iowa south of Spring Valley. After meeting I-90, US 63 serves the local airport and then intersects with US 52. In this area, US 63 is an expressway, but plans are to upgrade the highway to a freeway between Stewartville and the US 52 interchange. In 2014, US 63 was rerouted around downtown Rochester, running concurrently with US 52 to 75th St NW, jutting back to the east to the existing route. North of Rochester, the highway meets US 61 at Lake City. From there, the two routes run concurrently to Red Wing, where US 63 turns north and crosses the Mississippi River to enter Wisconsin over the Eisenhower Bridge.

The Minnesota section of US 63 is defined as Routes 59 and 161 in Minnesota Statutes §§ 161.114(2) and 161.115(92).

Wisconsin
US 63 enters Wisconsin south of Hager City. Near Baldwin, US 63 intersects I-94. The highway briefly overlaps near Spooner with US 53. At Trego, they separate and US 63 runs southwest to northeast, passing through Hayward and Cable most notably, and ending near Ashland at US 2. According to a 2013 law, the road is referred to as the "Gaylord Nelson Highway" throughout Wisconsin.

History
Though US 63 as a stand-alone highway had always ended at Turrell, Arkansas, before the 1999 extension, in the past it was concurrent with US 61/US 64/US 70/US 79 (and later I-55) on into Memphis, Tennessee, over the Memphis & Arkansas Bridge. Unlike the 1999 extension, this concurrency to Memphis was generally in line with the rest of US 63. Though some maps continued to show this concurrency until 1999, Arkansas had not recognized US 63 south of Turrell for many years, since at least the 1960s.

Major intersections

 * Louisiana
 * in Ruston. US 63/US 167 travels concurrently to El Dorado, Arkansas.

 * Arkansas
 * in El Dorado
 * south of Warren
 * in Warren
 * in Pine Bluff. I-530/US 63/US 65 travels concurrently through the city. US 63/US 79 travels concurrently to Stuttgart.
 * in Pine Bluff
 * in Stuttgart
 * in Hazen. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * in Hazen. The highways travel concurrently to Brinkley.
 * in Brinkley. The highways travel concurrently to Jonesboro.
 * in Fair Oaks
 * in Jonesboro. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * in Walnut Ridge. The highways travel concurrently to Hoxie.
 * southeast of Portia. The highways travel concurrently to Hardy.
 * in Imboden. The highways travel concurrently to Hardy.

 * Missouri
 * in West Plains. The highways travel concurrently through the city.
 * southeast of Willow Springs. The highways travel concurrently to southeast of Cabool.
 * in Rolla
 * north of Westphalia. The highways travel concurrently to Jefferson City.
 * in Jefferson City. US 54/US 63 travels concurrently through the city.
 * in Columbia
 * in Moberly
 * in Macon
 * south-southeast of Glenwood. The highways travel concurrently to Lancaster.

 * Iowa
 * in Ottumwa. The highways travel concurrently to east of Ottumwa.
 * south of Malcom
 * north of Malcom. The highways travel concurrently to north-northwest of Malcom.
 * in Toledo
 * in Waterloo
 * in Waterloo.
 * west of Fredericksburg. The highways travel concurrently to New Hampton.

 * Minnesota
 * in Stewartville
 * in Rochester
 * in Rochester
 * in Lake City. The highways travel concurrently to Red Wing.

 * Wisconsin
 * west of Ellsworth. The highways travel concurrently to east of Ellsworth.
 * in Baldwin
 * in Baldwin. The highways travel concurrently through the village.
 * in Turtle Lake. The highways travel concurrently through the village.
 * north-northeast of Spooner. The highways travel concurrently to Trego.
 * west of Ashland

Related routes

 * Iowa Highway 163 - Formerly a spur of US 63 numbered US 163

Special routes

 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Warren, Arkansas
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Pine Bluff, Arkansas
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Marked Tree, Arkansas
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Bono, Arkansas
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Hoxie, Arkansas
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Hardy, Arkansas
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in West Plains, Missouri
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Willow Springs, Missouri
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Moberly, Missouri
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in Ottumwa, Iowa
 * U.S. Route 63 Business in New Hampton, Iowa

title: U.S. Route 63