text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)

Tense guidelines again
We've previously discussed adding a statement on tense to the guidelines, similar to WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content, but never followed through. Are there any objections to adding that now? - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should add it, but I don't think that particular discussion came to a clear consensus. The last post there says that if it is not in service it should be past tense. That leads to odd situations, like standing in front of an aircraft in a museum and saying, "this was an aircraft". I have always edited based on past tense only when no examples exist anymore anywhere (ie all were destroyed). - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommend forming a good guideline, since the engine guideline was introduced (quite a few years ago now) there has been very little confusion over tense. I remember the tense being questioned in an article and when I linked to the explanation the editor said 'fair enough'. I tried searching other projects for style guides and tense guidance but it seems that the aviation project is one of few that has guidance. I did randomly stumble across AEC Routemaster (obsolete London double-decker bus) and it is described as 'was' even though plenty are on the road in private hands. I guess the key to tense is if the subject is still being used for its intended purpose or not (the bus is not in regular fare paying service). Could get complicated with warbirds as they are still flying but unarmed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 * There is a general guideline at WP:MOSTENSE:
 * By default, write articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued.... Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such. (Emphasis mine.)
 * That last part does seem to back up Ahunt' preference, though we could quibble over what exactly "meaningfully exist" means. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * That is a good find! I think we have to run with that and only refer to aircraft, engines and such in the past tense when they no longer exist, not when they are just out of service. Otherwise it produces very strange grammar. "Is this your private-owned F-86?" "Yes it was." "Were you going to fly it today?" "I was going to." - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * This issue seems to have come up again recently and this discussion was never closed or the page changed. I think we can act on the above and amend the guideline accordingly. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Agree MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but I lean towards the past tense. Rather than the above hypothetical dialogue around a privately-owned F-86, which indeed sounds surreal, a more meaningful situation to consider would be, e.g. your child asking you "Dad, what's a spitfire?" Would you word your answer in the present tense? I wouldn't. If the Spitfire can be described essentially as a WWII fighter, the examples still flying today no longer meaningful exist as fighters, which is what I read in WP:MOSTENSE as meaning that the past tense should be used. If a child (or a layperson) opens the article and reads the first line "The Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft", they will be forgiven for wondering if the Spitfire is still patrolling the skies today! --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 * You seem to be interpreting "meaningfully exists" to mean "its existence has meaning" ie, it's still being used as a fighter. That's probably not what the MOS intends, and it's certainly not how I interpret it. I agree the Lead sentence needs to be rewritten, as it predates the enforcement of the Tense guideline, and perhaps even its inception. Adding "retired" after "is" would probably help. - BilCat (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I understand "meaningfully exists" to be that there are not just little bits of it left. For instance here where I live we have the nose and the the wings from a prototype Avro CF-105 Arrow in a museum. That is all there is of any of them left. Is the Arrow referred to in past tense? Yes. On the other hand here in the city we have quite a few Spitfires of various marks that still fly regularly. I see them over the city quite often (in normal years). So what would you say to your child when they run outside at the sound of the Merlin engine flying overhead and ask "what type of aircraft is that?", pointing at it. "That was a Spitfire" ??? - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahunt, I would say "That is a Spitfire" because we would be referring to a specific example that is clearly in existence. My point is more general: if someone had no clue what 'spitfire' means or is, the simplest way to explain it would be to say that a Spitfire was a WWII fighter aircraft. The present tense may be semantically and philosophically more correct, but WP favours clarity and ease of comprehension over formal correctness (such as with WP:COMMONNAME). Therefore, clarifying right away that a particular aircraft type already belongs to aviation history, rather than current aviation operations, seems much more encyclopedic to me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 * That is kind of the point, though. Today World War II is past tense, whereas Spitfires are present tense. The Spitfire was a WWII fighter. The Spitfire is an aircraft seen flying at airshows. It is WWII that is past tense, not the Spitfire. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, our Project guideline is only drawing attention to the general WP:MOSTENSE in the context of aircraft types. If an editor lacks common sense or community spirit, no words that we can write will make them smarter or more cooperative. Let's just get on and see how this latest tweak works in practice. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 * For the record I disagree with using present tense for obsolete, museum only types. I would not use the word 'quibble' relating to an MOS guideline, rather 'interpret', it has been written that way for a reason, just a shame that it's not black and white. We could ask why so many articles use past tense, are all these editors wrong and will be there be a crusade to 'correct' them? We end up with tortuous leads such as the F-111, The General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark is a retired American supersonic, medium-range...'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  19:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Initial proposal
Following on a discussion on the main aircraft project page I would like to propose the following changes to this suggested guideline: Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Add a new section in body after variants "Related Development - If not already listed in the variants section then describe any other aircraft that are directly related to the subject aircraft."
 * The "See also" section is changed to "This section contains links to related articles not already linked including similar aircraft and related lists" everything else is removed.

 * Just to add it is intended that we dont provide any rules on how the see also also looks (like sub-lists) leave that to the general guideline, basically it would be a straight list of links . MilborneOne (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I definitely think this proposal is moving in the right direction. I am wondering about a few implications/variations:
 * Should something like the Canadair CF-104 be treated as a variant of the Lockheed F-104 or a related development? Might it be sensible to bring both groups together into one section, perhaps making related types a subsection of variants, and/or renaming the section "Variants and related types"?
 * The "See also" rule on non-duplications would mean that comparable types would often end up scattered across the article and not brought together anywhere. An example might be provided by submissions to a protracted multi-round procurement process. Is it safe to assume that any significant groupings will be mentioned in the main text, or do we need to keep some explicit provision for them? My tentative view is that if they are not worth discussing together in the main text then they are not worth grouping anywhere else in the article, but that may just be a lack of imagination on my part.
 * Sometimes the See also section is dominated by lists. This phenomenon is likely to increase as more lists get created and linked. Is this a good or bad thing? Sometimes the lists or the links to them are duplicated in that stack of nav templates that seems to accrue at the bottom of every article. I would love to see a cleaner and more explicit division of labour between list links and navboxes, to reduce clutter and maintenance issues.
 * — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comments Steelpillow
 * 1 Dont have a problem with related development being part of variants, I did try and think of related aircraft that would not be variants, the CF-104 would be a clear variant. I am sure somebody will be along soon and remind us.
 * 2 Agree with your observations.
 * 3 Not a big fan of listing lists, perhaps we should just remove the mention of lists in see also. We can then discourage the addition in see also if they appear elsewhere in a navigation template. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody else seems to have a strong view so I will change: If there is no major objections I will make the change, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Variants - to be changed to "Describing major subtypes or variants of the aircraft. These can be arranged in subsections - see Messerschmitt Me 163 for an example of how this can be done. Related developments by the same company or major modifications by others can also be listed."
 * See also - to be changed to "This section contains links to related articles not already linked including similar aircraft. To help the reader add an explanation why the link would help the reader. The use of the Template:Aircontent is deprecated"
 * I have no problem in principle with this. But before going ahead I would like to see a couple more attempts to garner views. One is to draw attention to this updated proposal on the Aviation and Aircraft project talk pages. The other is to seek some agreed home for list links, so we can forestall the inevitable "If I can't put them in "See also" then where can I put them?" questions. I am starting a sub-thread below for that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Thats OK we are not in a rush. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Now I've been away for a while and probably out of touch with changes of policy etc but could someone explain why we're changing things now. They'd hadn't been a problem as I understood it up til now.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. It was sparked off by this discussion on the Aircraft project talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Which was in turn sparked by this edit by a regular user. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So not initiated by policy then? So what we're about here is a bit more clarity about what goes into the See Also section and what stays out. In my opinion put related development in the see also if 1) it isn't already organically included in the body text, 2) not in a navbox at the bottom of the article. And a 'list of aircraft by X' belongs in see also if you haven't namedropped it earlier. That was easy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 * It's not that easy. 1) Comprehensive related development and/or Similar aircraft lists, including links already used in the article, have long been a part of Wikipedia aircraft articles, and are features that many readers and editors, myself included, like and want to keep in some form somewhere, which is what is being discussed here. 2) Navboxes are not currently visible to mobile readers on Mobile view, which may include up to 50% of Wikipedia readers. This issue has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout The guideline hasn't been changed yet, but there is some support for doing so, and it may eventually happen. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd overlooked mobile view showing neither Navboxes nor Categories (an annoyance on my mobile phone which leads me to switching to desktop view for navigation) . In that case, I would say the guidance should "Use the See also for any relevant links or lists that are not accessible elsewhere in the article" and "consider incorporating development of related designs or comparable aircraft in the body text where appropriate but be aware that not everyone reads the whole article when looking and that related and similar aircraft may need to be signposted through the index" To that end, don't change the current layout unless beneficial for the needs of any particular article (the usual case-by-case scenario). Revisit the guideline when Wikipedia do something about navboxes and categories for mobile uses GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Links to list articles
Where should these links go in aircraft articles? Sometimes a given type may be included in several list articles. There is a move to stop adding them to the "See also" section (see above topic). A templated "List of lists" navbox seems an overly rigid and clumsy solution - we have enough clutter down there as it is. Should we stop adding links to list articles anyway, if they are not appropriate in the main article content? For example in the Lockheed Hercules article is a link to Military transport aircraft sufficient and we can just leave out any link to the List of military transport aircraft? To be honest, I think I prefer this last approach and see how it goes. If a good, consensual home appears then we can revisit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think one of two lists added to aircraft type articles is a good thing, but if we are not going to put them in "see also" I really don't know where would work. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 * To be honest, links to list articles are a common feature of See Also sections in many Wikipedia articles, and I don't think we can put that jinn back in the bottle, at least not at the project level. That said, I am for recommending that we (WPAIR) limit them to 1 or 2 links. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another tweak after reading comments: Variants - This section describes major subtypes or variants of the aircraft. These can be arranged in subsections - see Messerschmitt Me 163 for an example of how this can be done. Related developments by the same company or major modifications by others can also be listed. See also - This section contains links to related articles or lists not already linked in the article including similar aircraft. Add an explanation why the link would help the reader. The use of the Template:Aircontent is deprecated. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 * No objections after a week so I have added the changes to the guide. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes
Recent and ongoing changes to this style guide are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and in various subsections of that thread. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

New Operators Map Style via Maplink
I'd like to suggest discontinuing the use of svg maps to show operators and adopt instead. This would be easier to edit and update, while also adding a nicer map interface, which can be zoomed and panned.

The SA 330 page contains a Maplink map, instead of an SVG.

What do you think?

Alex Roșu 11:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu (talk • contribs)

"Major" variants
The style guide states that lists of variants should only include major variants. How "major" is this, or do all variants count? Thank you for your help. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 * The Boeing 737-800 Series is a major variant. The 737-832 is not.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 * We normally rely on reliable sources to establish that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your replies! CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022
Instead of using the title word 'development', the more appropriate words would be Creation or History. Emirthesenat (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Aircraft are not "created", they are "developed", and "history" would conflict with "operational history". - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur. This is standard English language usage. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Creation" can surely only be suggested by someone entirely ignorant of English-language aviation literature. And there is no point in writing "Development history" when the first word says it all on its own. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Crash, not accident
I'm tired of using the word "accident" regarding transportation system fatalities. It's a loaded, political word used to dismiss deaths and injury as unavoidable and/or unpredictable. We need to stop using the word "accident" throughout Wikipedia regarding transportation deaths. It's already being phased out in news publishing best practices.

 * https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accidents/Jessie-Singer/9781982129668
 * https://crashnotaccident.com/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/11/17/crash-not-accident-better-road-safety-reporting-could-save-lives-show-researchers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeharding (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 * We use the word in aviation articles because it has specific, defined and legal meaning for both civil and military aircraft occurrences. For instance the civil Transportation Safety Board of Canada writes:

 * Investigation process
 * Definition of a reportable occurrence

 * As you can see "Occurrences" are legally broken down into "Incidents" and "Accidents".

 * The Royal Canadian Air Force Flight Safety Directorate uses exactly the same terminology, with the exact same meaning, as the language is standard throughout aviation globally.

 * You can note that in aviation safety, aircraft accidents are all viewed as preventable.

 * There is no logical reason to stop using the correct legal terms, even if the mainstream general news media is shying away from that. You will not find that same trend in the aviation media. For instance here is a recent aviation media report, that uses the correct terminology. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unless and until this fuss brings substantive changes to accepted terminology, we leave well alone. And it is misleading to suggest that the media are actually acting on it themselves, they are just reporting it as a novelty item. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 * The sources the OP cited are American. Is this even an issue outside the US? Also, https://crashnotaccident.com/ is an anti-automobile advocacy site, and appears to have a campaign to push this as an issue in the US. I'm concerned that the OP is (inadvertently) violating WP:SOAPBOX by bringing this up. Wikipedia isn't the place to push for social change, neologistic usage, etc. BilCat (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 * : you make a point but BilCat is right, this is no place for personal rants. Wikipedia cannot decide the language evolution. If there is a connotation risk, the best practice is to use the source words. In aviation, accident is defined by the Chicago Convention when there is injuries or fatalities, significant damage, or a missing aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC) moved from Talk:Boeing 737 MAX, more relevant here

Units
Changes are being made to this section without prior discussion here. I seem to recall a recent discussion elsewhere, but there was no clear consensus to change this guideline. So maybe we need to clear the air a little here.

Firstly, one can never foresee every circumstance, so the less prescriptive we are the better. For example I do not think we should mandate the use of Template:Convert, it is there to serve us not to bind us. Second, this template does have provision for departing from its default format, and it has that facility for a reason. We should not insist either on the default or on a different format. In particular, when a source states "miles" or "mph" it may mean statute or nautical (nm, knots) miles and speeds. Primary sources often targeted a particular market, and everybody concerned knew which they meant. Secondary and tertiary sources sometimes make the wrong assumption and, without the primary source and knowledge of its market for comparison, there is no way of knowing. For this WikiProject to try and prescribe a way through this kind of mess would be hopeless.

However I do believe that we should give the units published by the manufacturer. This may need to be qualified as in, say, "X claimed but [source Y] gives Z as the true figure", or some care over rounding errors for unit conversions. This is much as the guideline currently states. However, since the Convert template does have some provision for fine-tuning rounding issues, I would delete "If not," from "If the original source does include multiple units, the original numbers should be used to avoid adding rounding errors. If not, units can be converted using the undefined undefined template." and say something like, "Units may often be converted..."

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree, it is not a simple issue and we have to allow some editorial decision making. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 * There are two subjects here:
 * Convert template usage: I think it's best to avoid whenever possible (when the source gives both units) as the editor can't know which one is the original figure and which one is the one converted by the source: adding another convesion can lead to rounding error creep ;
 * units to be used (the most sensitive subject is for distances). There are previous discussions on the subject, in Talk:Airbus_A350 (proposition to use km, nmi and SM units, consensus to limit to km+nmi), and in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_49 (no obvious consensus, but nmi+km status quo not changed).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Accidents" vs "Crashes"
Let's discuss the use of the word "accident" when referring to airplane crashes. I changed a few instances of the word "accident" to "crash" at Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. User:Fnlayson reverted my changes citing "more formal wording," so I opened a discussion at the talk page for the article, and they helpfully pointed me to this style guide. As I pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"Accident", the term "accident" has fallen largely out of favor in reliable sources. Even in the body of the section I edited, the words had been used interchangeably prior to my edits being reverted. Further reading below, and I'm curious to hear thoughts on the subject. I acknowledge the importance of adhering to standards. Favoring "crash" instead of "accident" reflects the current language standards and avoids potential ambiguity, especially when lives (and billions of dollars) are at stake. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 * https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/associated-press-collision.php
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"Accident"

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I see this was discussed last year. There is a difference between using the "correct legal terms" and being an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a trade journal or government publication, and we are not beholden to the Royal Canadian Air force or other entities. We should be using the best language we have available to us, full stop. Insisting that we use outdated language because some sources still do represents a misunderstanding of the goals of the project. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't see why it matters. It is easy to get too precious about these things. There is possibly a technical difference, in that an accident might for example include colliding with a parachutist and staying airborne, but that might not be regarded as a "plane crash". And even that is arguable. Both terms are perfectly acceptable in everyday usage. It comes down to good writing, and there is no reason to change either to the other unless it improves the style of writing at that point. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Both terms are perfectly acceptable in everyday usage"
 * But accident is not acceptable in everyday usage and should be used sparingly if at all. That's my point. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's wholly untenable and belied by the evidence. Just google "air accidents" and "air crash" and you will see that both terms are used everywhere, indiscriminately. Of course "accident" is an everyday term. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Accident" is widely used in both the specialised aviation press and non-specialised press to refer to serious aviation occurrences (less serious occurrences are "incidents"). "Crash" is also widely used, though it tends to be less formal register and is less widely used in the specialised press. Accident is also a broader term: all crashes are accidents, but not all accidents are crashes. Accordingly, while it is perfectly acceptable to use "crash" on wikipedia to refer to a particular accident where reliable sources have used the term, there's absolutely no reason to exclude the word "accident". Rosbif73 (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not change the page unilaterally while this discussion is ongoing. As yet there is no consensus for change. You linked above to a press style guide on "collision", a medical discussion on "accident" (Oh, please, go check out "Hospital A&E"), and an archived discussion about car crashes in which you were admonished, "Simply put we follow the sources, if they consistently use 'accident' then so should we" and told to slow down and evaluate each case on its own merits. These hardly support your case here. You write above that you are "curious to hear further thoughts on the subject". Here you are ignoring all that, bulldozing the inconvenient thoughts you invited out of your way. And not for the first time. If you do not stop your headlong rush, I would warn you that you risk running foul of WP:DISRUPTION. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not my intent to be disruptive, sorry. Funnily enough, in the discussion you refer to the precipitating edit was at an article littered with sources that used 'crash' rather than 'accident', but they seemed to miss that in a rush to scold me. I don't mean to be recalcitrant, I'm just hearing a lot of  'this is the way things are, and because they are this way, that's the way it should be'  but not  'here's why accident is better word'.
 * You're a good writer and among the best who've admonished me so far. Maybe we do need to give sources another year or two to fully abandon the word, since it seems to have lodged itself pretty well in the hippocampi of editors who cling to it like a childhood stuffed animal. I'll take a step back and listen before making any more changes like this. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You get the way things are, not what we think message because that approach is Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it, the policy discussion pages are the place to win over hearts and minds, not here. But I don't hold out the slightest hope of success and it might be wiser not to push your luck for a while. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time believing this is a problem, but both "accident" and "crash" are equally acceptable. You are a native English speaker, so statements like "accident is not acceptable in everyday usage and should be used sparingly if at all" or that "accident" is "outdated language" baffle me.  Also, can you please explain how "lives (and billions of dollars) are at stake" over our use of "accident" or "crash"?  Forgive me of this sounds a little harsh, but these statements actually detract from your argument as they seem to show a lack of understanding of the English language. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at the edit that sparked this discussion, I will repeat what Fnlayson that "Accidents and incidents" is the standard name for the section per WP:Air/PC. I am against changing the standard for section titles to "Crashes and incidents", as "accident" is more broad and formal than "crash".  There are many aviation accidents that cannot be accurately described as crashes or incidents. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that 'accident' is more formal, but I think I understand what you're saying. 'Crash' recognizes that when there's a major loss of property or life, there's almost without exception a series of failures leading up to the collision, whereas 'accident' is a "normally unwanted event that was not directly caused by humans." When I say to use sparingly, I mean we should save it for all but the most insignificant crashes, like a fender bender or perhaps a tail strike incident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're getting your definitions, but if you look up crash and accident on Merriam-Webster, you will see that your above argument is not accurate. For example, it defines "crash" as "to damage (an airplane) in landing" (nothing about a major loss of property or life, or a series of failures leading up to a collision), while "accident" is defined as "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance". -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The item in quotes in my last reply is from accident. AP style is ahead of Merriam-Webster on this matter, and I'm arguing we should move in that direction. We should generally prefer 'crash, collision incident, derailment, etc' in place of 'accident' in most cases (and depending, obviously, on the circumstances of whatever happened). I can tell this won't be one of them for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For individual accidents and incidents, that's fine. For section and list article titles covering aviation accidents and incidents, we cannot have something like "List of aviation crashes, hijackings, shootdowns, mid-air collisions, ect." (note that mid-air collisions would have to be separate from crashes as, although rare, not all mid-air collisions result in a crash).  We have to summarize the titles to "accidents and incidents" to cover all scenarios. -  ZLEA  T \ C 16:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are times when "crash" is appropriate in everyday usage, and times when "accident" is more appropriate. Wikipedia generally follows how the event is described in reliable sources. There are also cases in aviation articles where the terms "accident" and "incident" (as defined in the Chicago convention) are more appropriate than everyday usage, again generally following usage in relevant reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I know 'accidents' can do some work that 'incidents' can't, but I still think 'crashes' is the common sense word to use in its place. I can tell I'm in the minority on the matter. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't have to agree, but common sense is to use the more broad word when the lists cover more than just crashes and incidents. - ZLEA  T \ C 17:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, I just think crash would be the better word in this case. Glad to have had the discussion either way. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the key here is intent. Most events are accidents (e.g. BEA Flight 548), where the crash of the aircraft was not an event the crew intended. A few events are deliberate (e.g. Germanwings Flight 9525), for which the word "crash" is a better word. Then there are terrorist incidents (e.g. Pan Am Flight 103, for which the word "crash" is also a better word. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Changing "Accident" to "Mishap" on US Military Aviation articles
This is related to the above discussion, but more limited in scope -- (only for U.S. military aviation articles, and *not* covering shoot-downs/hostile action). I'm suggesting that we change the name of the section on "Accident" to "Mishap" as the latter is the preferred terminology used by the DoD to describe incidents. In addition to being more accurate in a U.S. military-specific context, it also neatly avoids the above debates about "crash vs. accident" by using neither term.

See, e.g. USAF Mishap Investigation Process ("Any unintended occurrence in the Air or Space Force that results in death, injury, illness or property damage is considered a mishap and requires an investigation."); Army Mishap Classification; Navy Mishap Definitions, etc.

This would not change anything substantive other than the section title -- no change to the lists of events on any article, just to be very clear. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 * It may be worth noting the US military terminology at Aviation accidents and incidents as well. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Though on second look, the USAF link seems to say that "mishap" encompasses occurrences outside of aircraft operation (e.g. "ankle sprain at work"), which makes it less specific. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Production?
Its seems a major oversight, that there is no Production section. Sometimes this is included anyway or included as part of development, but some of the topics such as the location of production lines, total production numbers, and the end of production is not always related to development and design, and its not a part of the operational history either, which typically extends beyond the end of final production. I would suggestion including a section, perhaps before operation history or after development as an option. Obviously not all aircraft enter production, but if article are going to actually be reduced to the sections here then it seems logical to include a section on Production. A75 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
Erik Per Sullivan

Erik Per Sullivan (born July 12, 1991) is an American former actor. He is best known for his role as Dewey on the Fox series Malcolm in the Middle.

Early life
Sullivan was born on July 12, 1991, in Worcester, Massachusetts, the only child of his mother, Ann, born in Sweden and naturalized as a US citizen in 2007, and Fred Sullivan, of Irish descent, who owns a Mexican eatery called The Alamo. He speaks a little Swedish and his family visits Sweden almost every year. At a young age, he began studying piano and the saxophone. He has a first-degree black belt in Taekwondo.

Sullivan studied at the Mount Saint Charles Academy, in Rhode Island, and Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire. Beginning in 2009, he attended the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Career
From January 9, 2000, to May 14, 2006, Sullivan played Malcolm's younger brother Dewey in the Fox sitcom Malcolm in the Middle. In 2005, along with Malcolm co-star Jane Kaczmarek, he wrote the afterword to the children's book Together, which is about farming and was inspired by the nonprofit organization Heifer International.

Sullivan had a starring role in the 2004 movie Christmas with the Kranks and has played a variety of characters in film and on television, including the title role in the independent film Mo (2007), as well as voicing Sheldon the Seahorse in both the animated film Finding Nemo and its video game tie-in.

Sullivan's last acting credit was an appearance in the 2010 film Twelve when he was 18 years old. He has since kept a low profile, being notably absent from any social media accounts, and several Malcolm in the Middle cast reunions.

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

title: Erik Per Sullivan


text:
Drew Bledsoe

Drew McQueen Bledsoe (born February 14, 1972) is an American former football quarterback who played in the National Football League (NFL) for 14 seasons, primarily with the New England Patriots. He played college football at Washington State University, where he won Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year as a junior, and was selected by the Patriots first overall in the 1993 NFL draft. Considered the face of the Patriots franchise during his nine seasons with the team, Bledsoe helped improve New England's fortunes from 1993 to 2001. Under Bledsoe, the Patriots ended a seven-year postseason drought, qualified for the playoffs four times, clinched their division twice, and made a Super Bowl appearance in Super Bowl XXXI. He was also named to three Pro Bowls and became the youngest quarterback to play in the NFL's Pro Bowl game in 1995.

Following a period of declining success and two consecutive seasons in which the Patriots missed the playoffs, Bledsoe suffered a near-fatal injury early in the 2001 season that led to backup Tom Brady becoming the team's starter. He was unable to regain his starting position for the remainder of the season due to Brady's success, which led to the Patriots winning their first championship in Super Bowl XXXVI and began a dynasty for the franchise. Bledsoe then spent three seasons with the Buffalo Bills, where he made a fourth Pro Bowl appearance, and his final two with the Dallas Cowboys.

While his tenure with the Patriots would be eclipsed by Brady, Bledsoe is recognized for helping rebuild the franchise and his role during their first Super Bowl-winning season when he relieved an injured Brady to help win the 2001 AFC Championship. For his accomplishments in New England, he was inducted to the Patriots Hall of Fame in 2011.

Early life
Bledsoe attended Walla Walla High School and was a letterman in football, basketball, and track. In football, he was named a first-team All-State selection by the Tacoma News Tribune. In track, he competed in the throwing events, recording top-throws of 45.34 m in the discus throw and 54.70 m in the javelin throw.

College years
Bledsoe spent his college career at Washington State University in Pullman. After gaining the starting job at the end of the 1990 season as a true freshman (joined later by Jeff Tuel and Jayden de Laura as the only three in school history), he quickly became the face of the Cougars' offense. In 1992, Bledsoe led WSU to a 9–3 record (ranking #17 in the coaches poll and #15 in the AP) and a 31–28 win over Utah in the Copper Bowl in which Bledsoe completed 30 of 46 passes for 476 yards and two touchdowns. He also established WSU records in single-game passing yards (476), single-season pass completions (241), and single-season passing yards (3,246). He was named the Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year.

Following an impressive junior year in 1992, Bledsoe decided to forgo his senior season and enter the 1993 NFL draft. In the 34 starts of his collegiate career he amassed 7,373 yards, 532 completions, and 46 touchdowns.

Statistics

New England Patriots: 1993–2001
Bledsoe was the first overall selection in the 1993 NFL draft, taken by the New England Patriots. He started right away for the Patriots in 1993, as they improved from two to five wins. As a rookie, he passed for 2,494 yards, 15 touchdowns, and 15 interceptions in 13 games.

On November 13, 1994, the Patriots had won just three of their first nine games and were losing, 20–3, to the Minnesota Vikings at halftime. Bledsoe led a comeback victory in which the Patriots won, 26–20, in overtime, as he set single-game records in pass completions (45) and attempts (70). The win sparked the beginning of a new age for the Patriots, as they rallied behind Bledsoe and won their final six games to finish with a 10–6 record and capture the wild card spot. Bledsoe passed for 4,555 yards, 25 touchdowns, and 27 intereceptions. The Patriots lost to the Cleveland Browns (led by future Patriots head coach Bill Belichick) in the wild-card round 20–13. Due to his performance, Bledsoe was selected to his first Pro Bowl as an alternate.

In the 1995 season, Bledsoe passed for 3,507 yards, 13 touchdowns and 16 interceptions as the Patriots went 6–10. Following the difficult 1995 season, Bledsoe turned it around in 1996, ranking among the top passers in the league with the help of wide receiver Terry Glenn, pushing the Patriots to reach the playoffs again and winning the AFC championship over the Jacksonville Jaguars, 20–6. This led to an appearance in Super Bowl XXXI, where they lost to the Green Bay Packers, 35–21. Bledsoe completed 25 of 48 passes for 253 yards, two touchdowns, and four interceptions in the loss. He was also named a starter for the Pro Bowl that season, the second of his career. During the 1997 season, Bledsoe helped the Patriots win five of their final seven games to once again qualify for the playoffs, the fourth time in eight years as a Patriots starter he would lead the team to a postseason appearance. The Patriots lost in the Divisional Round to the Pittsburgh Steelers; however, Bledsoe built a career-high 87.7 passer rating, passed for 3,706 yards, tossed 28 touchdowns, and earned his third Pro Bowl invitation.

In 1998 he became the first NFL quarterback to complete game-winning touchdown passes in the final 30 seconds of two consecutive games. In doing so, he propelled New England into the postseason for the third straight year. He completed these come-from-behind efforts while playing with a broken index finger on his throwing hand, an injury that would later sideline him for the postseason.

Bledsoe started the 1999 season very strong, with 13 touchdowns and only four interceptions as the Patriots held a 6–2 midseason record. However, Bledsoe subsequently threw only six touchdowns versus 17 interceptions, and the team finished with an 8–8 record, while Bledsoe was sacked a career-high 55 times. The team's slide continued into the 2000 season as the Patriots ended with a record of 5–11. Bledsoe threw a then-career low thirteen interceptions that year but was sacked 45 times.

In March 2001, Bledsoe signed a then-record 10-year, $103 million contract. During the second game of the 2001 season on September 23, Bledsoe was racing toward the sideline on third-and-10 when New York Jets linebacker Mo Lewis leveled him with a hard, but clean hit. Bledsoe was about to dive for the first down marker, but defensive end Shaun Ellis clipped Bledsoe's ankles as he was about to dive, resulting in Lewis hitting Bledsoe while he was standing straight up. With Bledsoe appearing to have suffered a concussion, backup Tom Brady came in to finish the game. After the game, team trainer Ron O'Neill suspected Bledsoe did not look right and asked him to come to the medical room for evaluation. Team doctor Bert Zarins ran some tests and discovered Bledsoe's heart was racing. Zarins realized that this was something much more serious than a concussion; normally, concussed people have their heart rates tail off dramatically. Bledsoe was rushed to the hospital, where it was discovered that Lewis's hit sheared a blood vessel in his chest, causing a hemothorax that had him bleeding a pint of blood an hour.

Brady took the starting job and led New England to the playoffs. Bledsoe would never regain his starting role (Brady played 19 seasons in New England), although he proved integral to his team's playoff run when he replaced an injury hobbled Brady in the AFC Championship Game against Pittsburgh. Bledsoe, starting from the Steelers' 40-yard line, capped a scoring drive with an 11-yard touchdown pass to David Patten to give the Patriots a 14–3 lead, as well as all of the momentum going into halftime. With the Steelers trailing by four points in the fourth quarter, Bledsoe put together a 45-yard drive to put the Patriots in field goal range where Adam Vinatieri converted to make the score 24–17. Bledsoe later drove New England into Steelers territory to set up a 50-yard kick to seal the game, however Vinatieri missed and the ball went back to Pittsburgh. The Patriots defense held, and with a final score of 24–17 the upset was complete and the Patriots moved on to the Super Bowl. In winning the conference championship game, Bledsoe completed 10 of 21 passes for 102 yards, a touchdown, and no interceptions. It was the second time in six years (1996 and 2001) that Bledsoe was an integral part in leading the Patriots to a Super Bowl appearance, and during the on-field trophy presentation Bledsoe tossed his father a game ball. Brady started as quarterback as the Patriots won Super Bowl XXXVI, with kicker Adam Vinatieri hitting a game-winning 48-yard field goal as time expired.

With Brady entrenched as the starter, Bledsoe was traded in the offseason to the Patriots' division rival, the Buffalo Bills. Patriots fans appreciated Bledsoe's lengthy tenure and his role in improving the team, and cheered him in each of his three returns to New England as a visiting player.

Buffalo Bills: 2002–2004

Being sent to the Bills seemed to give Bledsoe a bit of rejuvenation in 2002. He had one of his best seasons ever, passing for 4,359 yards and 24 touchdowns and making his fourth trip to the Pro Bowl. In Week 2 against the Minnesota Vikings, Bledsoe set a team record with 463 yards passing in an overtime win. He led the Bills to an 8-8 record, which did not qualify for the postseason. He continued his strong play in 2003 as the Bills began the year 2–0. However, a flurry of injuries stymied the Bills offense; they failed to score a touchdown in three consecutive games en route to a 6–10 season. In 2004, they fell one game short of making the playoffs; a late season winning streak was wasted when Bledsoe and the Bills performed poorly against the Pittsburgh Steelers backups in the season finale, finishing with a record of 9-7.

Bledsoe was released by the Bills after the 2004 season to make way for first-round draft pick J. P. Losman to become the starter. When Bledsoe was later signed by the Dallas Cowboys, he expressed bitterness with the Bills for the move, stating "I can't wait to go home and dress my kids in little stars and get rid of the other team's [Buffalo's] stuff."

Dallas Cowboys: 2005–2006

Bledsoe went on to sign with the Dallas Cowboys, where he was reunited with former coach Bill Parcells and wide receiver Terry Glenn. Bledsoe was intended to be a long-term solution as quarterback for the Cowboys. Said Bledsoe on the day he signed with Dallas, "Bill [Parcells] wants me here, and being the starter. I anticipate that being the case and not for one year." He signed for $23 million for three years.

During his tenure with the Cowboys, he threw for over 3,000 yards in a season for the ninth time in his career, tying Warren Moon for fourth in NFL history. That season, Bledsoe led five 4th-quarter/OT game-winning drives to keep the Cowboys' playoff hopes alive until the final day of the season. Though the team ultimately failed to reach the playoffs, Bledsoe led them to a 9–7 record, an improvement over the 6–10 mark that Vinny Testaverde had finished with in 2004.

However, in 2006, his final season with the Cowboys, Bledsoe's play became erratic, so much so that six games into the season he was replaced by future Pro Bowler Tony Romo. Shortly after the end of the 2006 season, Bledsoe was released by the Cowboys. Unwilling to be relegated to a backup position, Bledsoe announced his retirement from the NFL on April 11, 2007.

Retirement
When Bledsoe retired in April 2007, he left fifth in NFL history in pass attempts (6,717) and completions (3,839), seventh in passing yards (44,611), and thirteenth in touchdown passes (251).

Legacy
On May 16, 2011, Bledsoe was voted by Patriots fans into the Patriots Hall of Fame. He was formally inducted in a public ceremony outside The Hall at Patriot Place on September 17, 2011. Bledsoe beat former head coach Bill Parcells and defensive lineman Houston Antwine in a fan vote.

In July 2012, Bledsoe was named the 30th-greatest quarterback of the NFL's post-merger era by Football Nation.

In January 2018, Bledsoe was named honorary captain of the New England Patriots as they hosted the Jacksonville Jaguars in the AFC Championship Game. Bledsoe's Patriots had beaten the Jaguars 20–6 in the 1996 AFC Championship Game to advance to their second Super Bowl. Patriots owner Robert Kraft said in a statement "Drew Bledsoe played such an integral role in our efforts to rebuild the Patriots. He gave fans hope for the future by providing many memorable moments during his record-breaking career. For a franchise that had only hosted one playoff game in its first 35 years, winning the AFC Championship Game at home in Foxborough and taking the Patriots to the playoffs for three consecutive years were unimaginable goals prior to his arrival." The Patriots defeated the Jaguars 24–20 to advance to their tenth Super Bowl appearance and Bledsoe presented the Lamar Hunt Trophy to Kraft.

Personal life
Bledsoe's parents were schoolteachers in Ellensburg, Washington. His mother was a teacher at Lewis & Clark Middle School, located in Yakima. His father was a coach who ran a football camp in Washington state, and Drew was able to interact with the professional players and coaches who helped his father run the camp. He is the fourth cousin once removed of actor Neal Bledsoe.

The Bledsoe family moved five times before Drew was in sixth grade. They finally settled in Walla Walla, where Bledsoe's father coached football at the high school. The only time Drew played a whole season of football without ever starting at quarterback was in seventh grade at Pioneer Junior High. In high school, with his father as his coach, he won numerous awards, including selection to the Western 100 and Washington State Player of the Year. Heavily recruited by colleges such as Miami and Washington, he decided to attend Washington State, which was a two-hour drive from home.

Drew and his wife Maura live in Bend, Oregon, where Maura (née Healy) has family ties. They have four children: sons Stuart, John, Henry, and daughter Healy. He coached Stuart and John at Summit High School in Bend, where he served as offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach. John was a walk-on player on the Washington State football team in 2017.

While playing for the New England Patriots, Bledsoe lived in Bridgewater and Medfield Massachusetts; his Medfield house was later purchased by former Major League Baseball player Curt Schilling.

After his retirement in 2007, Bledsoe founded the Doubleback Winery along with close friend Chris Figgins. After the 2014 vintage, Figgins left Doubleback and handed his interest in the business to his protege Josh McDaniels (not related to the Patriots assistant coach of the same name). The company's grapes, mostly Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay, are harvested from McQueen Vineyards and Flying B Vineyards, located in and around Walla Walla, Washington. The wine saw some critical success and placed 53rd overall in Wine Spectator Top 100 wines in 2010. His first vintage, 2007, quickly sold out of its initial 600 cases. In 2012, Wine Spectator's publisher Marvin R. Shanken invited Ernie Els, Greg Norman, Tom Seaver, and Bledsoe to introduce his wines, despite Shanken's disdain for the New England Patriots. Bledsoe also recorded a message to both Tony Romo and Dak Prescott in 2017 in his home, which also showed his red wine collection. In 2021, Bledsoe purchased an 80 acre property in Oregon's Eola-Amity Hills AVA with his business partner and winemaker Josh McDaniels.

In his spare time, Bledsoe works with many philanthropic organizations.

Accomplishments

 * His 4,452 pass attempts in his first eight seasons rank second to Brett Favre whose 4,456 attempts are the most by a quarterback during any eight-year period in NFL history.
 * His 70 pass attempts in a single game is still an active league record.
 * He passed for 3,291 yards in 2000, his seventh consecutive season with at least 3,000 yards passing.
 * Bledsoe was durable during his career, playing in 126 of his first 132 games since entering the league in 1993, and never missing a start after leaving NE until benched in 2006.
 * In 2002, his first season in Buffalo, he set single season records for yards, attempts, completions on an offense that had 7 other franchise records.
 * In 1998, he directed the Patriots to the playoffs for the fourth time in six seasons.
 * In 1994, he set Patriots franchise single-season passing records for attempts (691), completions (400) and yards passing (4,555; surpassed by Tom Brady in 2007).
 * In 1995, he set a franchise record by attempting 179 consecutive passes without an interception (10/23/95 to 11/26/95; since surpassed by Tom Brady).
 * At the age of 23, he became the youngest player in NFL history to surpass the 10,000-yard passing plateau when he connected with Ben Coates on a 6-yard completion just before the half vs. the Jets (12/10/95).
 * Prior to 1994, the Patriots' single-season record for passing yards was 3,465 yards. Bledsoe eclipsed that mark six consecutive seasons.
 * At the age of 22, he became the youngest quarterback in NFL history to play in the Pro Bowl.
 * Led 31 career 4th-quarter or OT game-winning drives and holds the record for most TD passes in overtime with 4.

While Bledsoe has thrown for a high number of yards and attempts, a frequent criticism is that they are based on volume (attempts, completions, yards) rather than efficiency (passer rating, TD-to-INT ratio, yards per attempt) proving only that he has thrown a great number of times, not that he has thrown well. According to sports writer Don Banks, Bledsoe's large career totals "reveal more about his longevity than about his excellence".

Bledsoe ranks fifth all time in completions (3,839), seventh in passing yards (44,611), and thirteenth in touchdown passes (251). Bledsoe's passer rating of 77.1 was 46th all-time in league history when he retired in 2006. As of 2022, he ranks 109th in league history. His 57.2% completion percentage is tied for 99th in league history. Bledsoe's 37 regular season 300-yard passing games ranks ninth in league history. He also ranks sixth in most career regular-season 400-yard passing games by an NFL quarterback, having done it six times. He was selected to the Pro Bowl four times (in 1994, 1996, 1997, 2002). Bledsoe was eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2011.

title: Drew Bledsoe


text:
Ozark Trail (hiking trail)

The Ozark Trail is a hiking, backpacking, and, in many places, biking and equestrian trail under construction in the Missouri Ozarks in the United States. It is intended to reach from St. Louis to Arkansas. Over 350 mi of the trail have been completed as of 2008, and the estimated length when finished will be at least 500 mi. When joined to the Ozark Highlands Trail in Arkansas, the full hiking distance from end to end will be at least 700 mi, not including a large loop through the St. Francois Mountains in Missouri.

Description
The trail is currently composed of thirteen sections, most of which are joined to other sections, though some gaps exist. The sections vary in length from 8 to 40 mi. The longest continuous stretch available for hiking in is 225 mi, from Onondaga Cave State Park to the Eleven Point River. The exact routes for incomplete sections have not been established, so the total length of the trail when completed remains undetermined.

Some sections have restrictions on their use in order to be compatible with the goals and purposes of the various public and private landholders whose property the trail crosses. Horseback riding, mountain biking, or trail side camping may be restricted in certain environmentally sensitive areas.

Development
The Ozark Trail had its beginnings in the 1970s when a group of public land managers, land owners, and trail users met to discuss the concept of a long-distance hiking trail. A comprehensive state outdoor recreation plan prepared by the state of Missouri in 1975 showed a need for an addition of 500 to 900 mi of hiking trails. It was determined that a trail spanning the Ozarks from suburban St. Louis southwest to Arkansas could be routed over mostly existing public lands with a minimum amount of right-of-way needing to be obtained from private landowners. A first meeting in 1976 at Meramec State Park lead to the first draft of the trails proposal in February 1977 and in 1981 the first sections of the trail were under construction.

The general route of the Ozark Trail is determined by the Ozark Trail Council, which was formed by seven governmental agencies including the National Forest Service, the Missouri State Parks Department, the Missouri Conservation Commission, et al., plus several environmental groups and a private landowner with significant holdings. The land manager for each parcel held by these constituents is responsible for the trail within its holdings.

This unique decentralized arrangement is conducive to work progressing on many fronts at once and is partly responsible for the rapid initial progress in building the trail — 170 (275 km) miles within the first decade and over 200 mi by 1991. In 2008, the mileage stands at over 350 mi. As the route over contiguous public lands is completed further progress will likely be slowed by the arduous process of acquiring private land and easements.

Volunteers formed the Ozark Trail Association in 2002 to work with the Ozark Trail Council to develop and maintain the Ozark Trail. The Ozark Trail was designated a National Recreation Trail in 2008

Taum Sauk reservoir failure
The upper reservoir of the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant failed in December 2005, causing a flood that devastated Johnson's Shut-ins State Park and destroyed a part of the Taum Sauk section of the Ozark Trail at the shut-ins. The Ozark Trail Association and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources mapped out a new route to replace the damaged section, which was completed in mid-2009.

May 2009 storms
An unusually strong May 2009 windstorm devastated 44 miles of the trail within the Mark Twain National Forest, and all or parts of several sections of the Ozark Trail were closed because of downed trees. Within months several sections were repaired and reopened through the work of both volunteer and paid forest service crews. All access was eventually restored, though as of May, 2013, conditions on some sections of trail may be of concern to bikers or to those on horseback.

title: Ozark Trail (hiking trail)


text:
Talk:Ozark Trail (hiking trail)

Map
I made that map for this article, but I don't like it so much. I'm trying again, using tips and colors found in the mapping project. I'm open to any suggestions on what features would make for a good map for this article. Likewise for that one I recently did for the St. Francois Mountains article, which I dislike for other reasons. --Kbh3rd talk 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I've made a much better map, but it needs further improvement. See the talk page for the image. --Kbh3rd talk 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

New map (v3)
I replaced the map with a new one. And I just realized it is lacking a scale bar, dang-it. This map is terribly busy, which is why I stopped before adding state highway numbers. Maybe I'll try yet another without quite so much emphasis on terrain. --Kbh3rd talk 02:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ozark Trail (hiking trail)


text:
Category:Business organizations

 * This category gathers together organizations of and for businesses, and about business.

title: Category:Business organizations


text: File:The Trollenberg Terror film poster.jpg


text:
Judith Chapman

Judith Chapman (born Judith Shepard on November 15, 1951) is an American actress, best known for soap opera roles, particularly as Natalie Bannon Hughes in As the World Turns (1975–1978), Charlotte Greer on Ryan's Hope (1983), Ginny Blake Webber on General Hospital (1984–1986), Sandra Montaigne on One Life to Live (1987), Anjelica Deveraux on Days of Our Lives (1989–1991, 2018), and Gloria Abbott Bardwell on The Young and the Restless (2005–2018, 2020–).

Life and career
Chapman was born in Greenville, South Carolina. She is the daughter of retired United States Air Force brigadier general Leland C. Shepard Jr. Her older sister Patty Shepard also worked as an actress. She debuted at the age of 16 in the Spaghetti Western Up the MacGregors! (1967). After getting a degree in theater from Stephens College, she headed to New York, where she joined the Actors Studio and began working in commercials and theater. In 1977, she made her American big screen debut in the psychological horror film False Face.

Chapman has appeared on several daytime dramas since the mid-1970s. Her first soap role was scheming Natalie Bannon (one of Tom Hughes' wives) on CBS soap As the World Turns from 1975 to 1978. She guest-starred on prime time series include Kojak , Fantasy Island, Barnaby Jones, The Incredible Hulk, Galactica 1980, The Love Boat, and two times on Magnum, P.I.. She had a recurring roles on Flamingo Road and The Fall Guy. In 1977, she tested for the role of Pam Ewing on CBS primetime soap opera, Dallas.

A four-month stint as the mysterious Charlotte Greer on Ryan's Hope in 1983 brought Chapman critical acclaim. Her role had her character as part of a revenge plot against the Ryan family after lying to the press that she was Frank Ryan's ex-wife. She joined the cast of General Hospital the following year as the devious Ginny Blake who was the biological mother of Mike Webber, adopted by Rick and Lesley. After Lesley's "death", Rick and Ginny married in an attempt to share custody and fell in love after Ginny was found to be the killer of D.L. Brock. She received Soap Opera Digest Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Daytime Drama nomination for her performance. After that stint ended, she had a brief role on One Life to Live as Sandra Montaigne, a con-artist out to scam ex-boyfriend Jonathan Russell. She was the third former General Hospital actress to play the role of Anjelica Devereaux Curtis on Days of Our Lives, playing that part from 1989 to 1990 and briefly in 1991.

Chapman had supporting roles in films And God Created Woman (1988), Dead Space (1991), Fire on the Amazon (1993), Night of the Running Man (1995), 28 Days (2000), and The Sweetest Thing (2002). She appeared in three episodes of Murder, She Wrote, and five times on Silk Stalkings as different characters. She starred in the LGBT comedy film Saugatuck Cures (2015), and in 2021 played Nancy Reagan in the biographical drama King Richard.

Chapman made her first appearance on The Young and the Restless after that, briefly subbing for Jess Walton as Jill Abbott. She joined the cast of The Young and the Restless full-time in January 2005, replacing Joan Van Ark in the contract role of Gloria Fisher. In March 2011, it was announced that Chapman had been taken off her contract and bumped to recurring. In October 2014, it was announced that she would make a guest appearance as Gloria on The Bold and the Beautiful. She appeared in a few more episodes of The Young and the Restless in 2015 and 2016. She played Diana Cooper on Days of Our Lives for two months in 2019, then returned to Y&R.

Television

 * As the World Turns (1975–1978) as Natalie Bannon Hughes
 * Kojak (1976) as Gretchen Hodges
 * Barnaby Jones (1978) as Rita Lockwood
 * Fantasy Island (1978) as Evelyn Wallace
 * The Paper Chase (1979) as Amelia Hutton
 * B. J. and the Bear (1980) as Pamela Gerard
 * Beyond Westworld (1980) as Laura Garvey (Pilot episode only)
 * Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1980) as Lara Teasian
 * Galactica 1980 (1980) as Angela
 * Family (1980) as Jo Hamlin
 * The Incredible Hulk (1980) as Nancy
 * Fitz and Bones (1981) as Clementine
 * Magnum, P.I. (1981) as Lisa Page/Sara Clifford / Louise DeBolt Jackson (2 episodes)
 * The Love Boat (1981) as Nancy Atwell
 * The Fall Guy (1981–1983) as Kay Faulkner (4 episodes)
 * Darkroom (1982) as Pamela
 * Knight Rider (1982) as Linda Elliot
 * Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (1983) as Technical Agent Z
 * Ryan's Hope (1983) as Charlotte
 * Simon & Simon (1983) as Denise Carroll
 * Trapper John, M.D. (1983) as Robin Yaeger
 * General Hospital (1984–1986) as Ginny Blake Webber
 * One Life to Live (1987) as Sandra Montaigne
 * Highway To Heaven (1987) as Gail
 * Stingray (1987) as Carla
 * Murder, She Wrote (1987–1992) (3 episodes)
 * MacGyver (1988) as Dr. Sandra Millhouse
 * In the Heat of the Night (1989) as Charlotte Sinclair
 * The Accident (1991) as Miss Radovich
 * Days of Our Lives as Anjelica Deveraux (1989–1991, 2018) and Diana Colville (2019)
 * Silk Stalkings (1996) as Marcia Travers
 * The Young and the Restless (2005–2018, 2020–) as Gloria Abbott Bardwell
 * The Bold and the Beautiful (2014) as Gloria Abbott Bardwell (Episode date: November 20, 2014 )

title: Judith Chapman


text:
Coolie Ranx

Coolie Ranx (born Obiajula Ugbomah; 9 March 1965) is a British-American actor and singer best known for his membership in the third wave ska bands the Toasters and Pilfers. He is a long-time resident of New York City.

Biography
Ranx was born in London on 9 March 1965 and was raised in New York City. His mother is from Jamaica and his father is from Nigeria. He was discovered in 1990 when the lead singer and guitarist of the Toasters, Rob "Bucket" Hingley, heard Ranx's dancehall reggae EP. Joining the Toasters in the early 1990s, he toured and recorded two albums with the band, including Dub 56, which features two songs he wrote.

After leaving the Toasters, Ranx co-founded a band called Pilfers. In Pilfers, he shared vocal duties with Vinny Nobile. Pilfers played a combination of third wave ska music, punk rock, and reggae that they called "raggacore". After self-releasing their first album, the band signed to Mojo Records, who released the band's second album, Chawalaleng. He made frequent guest appearances on the albums of other third wave ska bands, such as Spring Heeled Jack, Metro Stylee and Mojo labelmates Reel Big Fish.

After a lineup change, which saw the replacement of the rhythm section, Pilfers disbanded in 2001. Ranx began a solo career, recording and playing shows around the world with Fear Nuttin' Band as his new backup band. In November 2005, he and the other four original members of Pilfers, reunited at the Knitting Factory in New York City for a sold-out performance.

Ranx provided the voice of Little Jacob in the 2008 video game Grand Theft Auto IV.

Discography

 * 1990 The Toasters – Frankenska
 * 1993 The Toasters – Live in L.A.
 * 1994 The Toasters – Dub 56
 * 1995 Magadog – Magadog – "Smoke"
 * 1996 The Toasters – Hard Band For Dead
 * 1996 The Pietasters – Comply – "Tell You Why"
 * 1996 Pilfers – Rude by Association (self-released 5 song demo tape)
 * 1997 Magadog – Daze... (1992–1997) – "Smoke (Remix)"
 * 1998 Metro Stylee – Soul Garage Ska – "Back Again"
 * 1998 Eastern Standard Time – Second Hand – "Mad Dog"
 * 1998 Spring Heeled Jack – Songs From Suburbia – "Man of Tomorrow"
 * 1998 Pilfers – Pilfers
 * 1999 Reel Big Fish – Why Do They Rock So Hard? – "Song No.3" & "Thank You for Not Moshing"
 * 1999 Pilfers – Chawalaleng
 * 1999 Aks Mamma – Jolly Holidays – "Get Together"
 * 1999 Nicotine – Carnival – "Bad Breath"
 * 2000 The Toasters – The Best Of...
 * 2001 Catch 22 – Washed Up And Through The Ringer! – "Straight Forward"
 * 2004 "Rankin Don" – It's Time – "More To Me"
 * 2006 Sonic Boom Six – The Ruff Guide to Genre Terrorism – "All In"
 * 2006 The WBC (Wuda Bang Clan) – Hi-Fidelity Offbeat – "Better Left Unsaid"
 * 2007 Babylove and the van Dangos – Big Big Baboon 7" – "Big Big Baboon"
 * 2007 More Than Me – 1.0 – "Love You More"
 * 2007 "Father Goose Music"- It's a Bam Bam Diddly! – "Bam Bam"
 * 2010 Exes Of Evil – ''Take My Number
 * 2010 Across The Aisle In Ska We Trust EP – "Beer Song"
 * 2012 Reel Big Fish – Candy Coated Fury – "Hiding in My Headphones"
 * 2013 Big D and The Kid's Table – Stroll – "Put It in a Song"
 * 2014 Father Goose – Bashment Time – "Constant Sorrow"
 * 2015 Doped Up Dollies – The New Way Out – "Be Free"
 * 2015 Pilfers "From Far"
 * 2016 Pilfers "Zimbabwe" Specialized Project
 * 2016 Sonic Boom Six "Train Leaves Tomorrow"
 * 2016 Eric Best "Linoleum"
 * 2018 "Father Goose Music" – King of the Dance Party (61st Annual GRAMMY Awards Ballot)
 * 2019 "Father Goose Music" "Rise Up Now"(61st Annual GRAMMY Awards Ballot)
 * 2020 Coolie Ranx for song off his debut music project entitled "Days Gone By" All Dem Ah Try"
 * 2022 Coolie Release The Intro to "Days Gone By" announcing his arrival of his Raggacore debut project

title: Coolie Ranx


text:
Talk:Jamming with Edward!

I changed the artist to The Rolling Stones, because it is simply that. The Rolling Stones with guest musicians. Not to mention that the previous artist was very bulky and made the page look ugly, and this album is generaly accepted as part of The Rolling Stones discography. --Gitaroo Man 18:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed half the page that was plagiarized from George Starostin's review of the album. --Anon Guy

title: Talk:Jamming with Edward!


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/teoti

This was tagged speedy, but to me it clearly isn't a speedy candidate (8 coherent sentences in context), but might be a vfd candidate, so I bring it here. Alexa Traffic Rank for teoti.com: 128,985. Below the 100,000 I've seen mentioned. Niteowlneils 03:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/teoti


text:
Talk:Last Comic Standing

pov
June 19,2006 -Added POV tag to the end section of article. Who decides who the "truely funny" comics are. The stereotyping argument is valid, but the words used in the last section seem stiled and baised.

This article could use some work, some rewording and fixing up, and I'm just not good at that. -- elykyllek 03:06, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Controversy and Trivia
Would someone address the nature of the interaction between judges and producers a little better, please? An interesting note is the introduction of new judges, and the seeming democratization of the show's format (2 person and 3 person groups)Nandor1 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone else please try their hand at cleaning up these sections? I hope I did a decent job with the "Premise" section re-write. OscarTheCat 00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Norton
Jim Norton has stated multiple times on Opie and Anthony that the reason he did not make it onto the show was that he was still under contract for a pilot done for Viacom - MTV, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewhime (talk • contribs) 21 January 2007

Keith and the Girl
When Keith malley auditioned for last comic standing he was never seen, he stood in line for several hours, then they told the people in line they would not be seen. Also, 2 guests on the Keith and the girl show, Victor vernado and Preston something or other, both confirmed that when they got seen by the judges, they never had to wait on line. Should this be added to controversy section? I assume sources other then KATG have had simaller finidngs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.84.7 (talk • contribs) 16 June 2007

Changes in format in Season 5??
Details are needed for the televised format of the series as well as "housing arrangements" when the contestants were "in the house," particularly Season 5 where virtually no mention of non-comedic activities/living arrangements was mentioned (clearly they weren't going round and round in LA on a former school bus 24 hours a day!). This needs to be fleshed out. There were also other, more subtle, changes to accommodate the international viewing audience. There should be mention of the reappearance of various comedians that producers liked in the earlier rounds but didn't make into the finals (like Mel Silverback). 147.70.242.40 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jasper T. Colbaire?
Jasper T. Colbaire was recently added to the article by User:Jaspertcolbaire. 12-second video QxSDeTBKVoQ titled "JASPER ON LAST COMIC STANDING" at YouTube (uploaded 2008 August) shows guy in lineup who identifies himself as Jasper T. Colbaire being questioned by "Bill" (looks like Bill Bellamy). I'm assuming that video is from Last Comic Standing. --EarthFurst (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Felipe not Tommy?
I'm watching the show on 8/9/10, and Felipe just won. Why does it show Tommy as the LCS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Last Comic Standing is canceled for the third time!
I went to TVseriesfinale.com and found out that NBC canceled the series again. Please update the article ASAP. Lamp301 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Last Comic Standing. 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/20070715131643/http://www.nsmt.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=638&Itemid=1723 to http://www.nsmt.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=638&Itemid=1723

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) 00:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Last Comic Standing


text:
Sam Smith (journalist)

Sam Smith (born 1937) is an American journalist and political activist who was an early pioneer in alternative media. He was also involved in the establishment of the Green Party of the United States. Several times a week, Smith publishes an email news digest, Undernews.

Early life and education
Smith was born in Washington D.C. in 1937, into an Episcopalian and Quaker family. He grew up in Philadelphia, where he was educated in Quaker schools. Smith attended Harvard University, where he became news director of the college radio station, a drummer on the college dance circuit. He graduated in 1959.

Career
Following his graduation from Harvard University, Smith went to work in radio news in Washington, D.C. In 1961, Smith joined the United States Coast Guard, where he served three years as an officer.

In 1964, Smith returned to Washington, D.C., where he started an alternative monthly, The Idler. At the time, there were only a handful of such journals being published.

In 1965, Smith, then working in radio, was offered a job as assistant to James Reston, the Washington correspondent of The New York Times, and later was offered a position at The Washington Post, which he turned down because he preferred to pursue alternative journalism. The following year, he took part in a day-long SNCC boycott of Washington D.C.'s transit buses, giving rides to boycotters with his car. After his article on the action appeared, Smith was visited by the local chair of SNCC who was seeking help with public relations. Thus began a long relationship with Marion Barry, who later became mayor of the city.

That same year, in 1966, Smith launched a community newspaper called the Capitol East Gazette to serve a largely poor, black neighborhood of Washington DC. Aided by a $2,000 grant from a local Lutheran church, the Gazette went on to cover such issues as plans to build a huge network of freeways in the city, the war on poverty, public education, neighborhood battles, and urban planning. Smith also became a vociferous advocate of statehood for the District of Columbia. In 1969, the paper was renamed the DC Gazette and became a citywide alternative newspaper. In subsequent years, contributors would include James Ridgeway, Jim Hightower, Eugene McCarthy, and Paul Krassner, and the publication became an articulate voice opposing the Vietnam War.

In 1974, Indiana University Press published Smith's first book, Captive Capital: Colonial Life in Modern Washington. In 1980, he became a guest commentator on the local NPR radio station and Washington correspondent for the Illustrated London News.

In 1984, the Gazette was renamed Progressive Review and evolved into a bimonthly format. Smith's articles on the savings and loan scandal, the problems of urban America, the first Gulf War, the Bush family, and scandals surrounding the Clintons were widely cited.

National Green Party
In 1993, Indiana University Press published Smith's book on Bill Clinton's first year. Because of his opposition to Clinton and his work at reforming the liberal mainstay, Americans for Democratic Action, he was purged as a vice president of the organization. He then turned his energies to helping create a national Green Party and his home was an occasional gathering spot for Green organizers up until the founding of the party on November 17, 1996. In subsequent years, Smith found he was banned from the local NPR station as well as listed on de facto blacklists at C-SPAN and the Washington Post for what he believes was too aggressively pursuing the Clinton scandals.

In 1994, Smith started sending out email updates. The following year, he launched a website, prorev.com, which subsequently grew to be one of the most popular websites for progressive politics on the Net.

In 1997, Sam Smith's Great American Political Repair Manual was published. His fourth book, ''Why Bother? Getting a Life in Locked Down Land'' appeared in 2001. In 2003, Smith wrote a 2000-word history of the Iraq War for Harper's Magazine lifted entirely from verbatim statements by Bush administration officials.

In 2004, Smith stopped publishing the Progressive Review in hard copy edition, continuing Undernews in email format with regular updates to his website. In its current form, Undernews consists of an entertaining and idiosyncratic selection of news excerpts from a wide variety of sources together with pithy commentaries by Smith himself.

title: Sam Smith (journalist)


text:
Eurocurrency

Eurocurrency is currency held on deposit outside its home market, i.e., held in banks located outside of the country which issues the currency. For example, a deposit of US dollars held in a bank in London, would be considered eurocurrency, as the US dollar is deposited outside of its home market.

The Euro- prefix does not refer exclusively to the "euro" currency or the "eurozone", as the term predates the creation of the euro. Instead, it can be applied to any combination of deposits in a foreign bank outside of its home market e.g. a deposit denominated in Japanese yen held in a Swiss bank is a Euroyen deposit.

Eurocurrency is used for short-to-medium term financing by banks, multinational corporations, mutual funds, and hedge funds. Eurocurrency is generally seen as an attractive source of global funding due to its ease of convertibility between currencies as well as typically lower regulatory measures compared to sources of funding in domestic markets. Eurocurrency and eurobond markets avoid domestic interest rate regulations, reserve requirements and other barriers to the free flow of capital.

The relevance of eurocurrency deposits has been disputed ever since its inception in the 1950s by notable economists including Ronald McKinnon, yet it remains a prevalent aspect of the global financial system.

Background Information
The emergence of Eurocurrency is closely tied to the origins of the Eurodollar as it was the first type of Eurocurrency. Eurodollars began from large quantities of US dollar-denominated deposits being held in European, namely London, banks during the 1950s. Over several decades, economists have produced several explanations of how eurocurrency came about, why it occurred in London, and how London managed to maintain a competitive advantage in the market as eurocurrency expanded globally. Environmental and political factors commonly underpin most theories, influencing the decisions of nations during this period known as the Bretton Woods Era.

The Bretton Woods Era spanned from 1944 to 1973 and saw national policymakers, notably those of Britain and the US, agree to a fixed or pegged exchange rate system. Under this system, national currencies were "pegged" against the US dollar which itself was now convertible into gold. This was done to promote freer world trade in response to a sharp decline in imports and exports after the 1930s financial crises and World War 2 (WW2). As a result, national governments had raised their barriers to trade in an attempt to boost their domestic performance, causing major declines in world trade.

Drivers of Eurocurrency in the 1950s
By mid-1955, US and foreign businesses and nations were regularly using Eurodollars to hold US-dollar balances or obtain US-dollar denominated loans outside of the US. The eurocurrency market was birthed organically from the rise of the Eurodollar. Ultimately, there was multiple causes for the rise of the Eurodollar which lead to the creation of Eurocurrency.

Firstly, large holdings of US dollars entered Europe shortly after WW2. This was a result of the fixed exchange rate system that lead to more countries using US dollars for trade, as well as increased imports into the US itself from Europe. Moreover, the US provided economic aid to European nations after WW2 in the form of damage assistance under the US governments' Marshall Plan. Secondly, after WW2 communist governments including the Soviet Union and China transferred their holdings held in the US over to European banks. This is believed to have been done for two primary reasons; (1) over fears that US authorities will seize their assets, and (2) to accumulated goodwill with Eurobanks as a strategy to nurture a future source of loans and funding. Thirdly, the 1957 sterling crises forced the UK's strongest movement toward alignment with the Bretton Woods plan. Here, the Bank of England banned sterling-financed trade for non-sterling countries as a result of a sharp increase in the bank rate to 7%, compelling London-based banks to join the rest of the world and use dollars for trade. This alongside the demand for other types of eurocurrencies outside of their home markets lead to the innovation of the eurocurrency market.

Competitive Advantage of London
The inception of eurocurrency occurred in London with the introduction of the Eurodollar in 1955. Even after eurocurrency had expanded globally however, London maintained its position as the centre of the Eurodollar market which is still true of today.

Economists provide disputed explanations for why London was able to gain and maintain this competitive advantage. Ronald McKinnon theorised that it was attributed to London's pre-existing foreign financing expertise retained from Britain's dominant trade history in the 19th Century and servings as the centre of the sterling when it was a major international currency. However, criticisms of this theory deemed it "rather static and deterministic" and lacking any archival evidence. McKinnon also emphasised the regulatory freedom provided to commercial banks in London by the Bank of England, aligning with recounts of the Treasury questioning whether financial institutions in London had excessive influence on decisions made by the Bank of England. Nonetheless, both the Treasury and Bank of England agreed that London should remain an important financial centre even after the sterling was no longer a major international currency. Therefore, imposing restrictive regulations would have been counterintuitive, leading to London's permissive environment. In reality, eurocurrency market centres in general enjoyed freedom from supply side restrictions such as reserve requirements and interest rate ceilings which allowed them, in particular London, to gain a competitive advantage by providing high and low rates of interest according to the class of the borrower and lender. Additionally, London's competitive advantage was enhanced by tight restrictions throughout the rest of Europe due to possible risks of "hot money", increased bank liquidity, and potential reliance on reserves in the case of bank runs.

Currencies
The four main Eurocurrencies are the US dollar, the Euro, the sterling and the Japanese yen; the currencies of the major economies of the world.

Eurocurrency Markets
A eurocurrency market is the money market for any currency deposited outside of its home market. The key participants in these markets includes banks, multinational corporations, mutual funds, and hedge funds. Eurocurrency markets are generally chosen as a source of finance over domestic banks for their ability to offer lower interest rates of borrowers and higher interest rates for lenders situationally. This because eurocurrency market have less regulatory requirements, tax laws, and typically no interest caps. Nonetheless, there are higher risks, particularly when banks experience periods of poor solvency which can lead to a run on the banks.

There are several eurocurrency markets, with the two most widely used being the Eurodollar market and the Euroyen market. There are also various smaller eurocurrency markets including the Euroeuro market and the Europound market.

Eurodollar Market
The Eurodollar market involves holdings of US dollars outside of the jurisdiction of the US Central Bank. These holdings may arise via two primary ways. Firstly, from purchases of goods and services made in US dollars to suppliers who maintain European bank accounts - these suppliers may be European or non-European. Secondly, Eurodollar deposits arise from investments of US dollars in European banks, generally for more favourable returns on interest.

Today, the Eurodollar market is the largest source of global funding for businesses and nations, estimated to be financing over 90% of international trade deals. It is the most widely used eurocurrency. Accounting for approximately 75% of all eurocurrency accounts held worldwide. This prevalence is often attributed to economic and political factors. Firstly, the economic power of the US, particularly its influential position in the world economy and steady deterioration of the other currencies during the inception of Eurocurrency in the 1950s. Secondly, the lack of interest caps and limited regulation in the Eurodollar market enables favourable rates of interest for both lenders and borrowers.

Euroyen Market
The Euroyen market involves deposits of yen in banks outside the jurisdiction of the Japanese Central Bank. The market emerged in 1984, at the beginning of the Japanese asset price bubble that saw Japan pursue financial liberalisation and internalisation. During the 1990s, interest rates in Japan experienced substantial declines, making the relatively high rates of interest paid by Euroyen accounts attractive investments. Today Euruyen deposits are used by non-Japanese companies to efficiently obtain investments from Japanese investors. Euroyen bonds allow foreign companies to avoid the regulations enforced by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and in bond registration with the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE).

Euroeuro Market
The Euroeuro market involves deposits of euros outside of the jurisdiction of the European Central Bank.

Europound Market
The Europound market involves sterling deposits outside of the jurisdiction of the Bank of England.

Eurocurrency Network
The concept of eurocurrency can have two implications.

Firstly, it can be the accumulation of all the currencies and banking facilities worldwide that are participating of the offshore banking network. This is not limited to the four eurocurrencies (US dollar, euro, yen, sterling) or the home markets of those eurocurrencies. For example, a bank in Denmark that chooses to keep holdings of Swiss franc in London would also be considered a part of the eurocurrency network.

Secondly, it can refer to the sum of all the technologies i.e. data processing and communication lines, used to enable stakeholders around the world to interact and participate in the eurocurrency market. Eurocurrency marks function within the global financial system with market centres spread across the global. Therefore, powerful financial technologies and information systems are required to connect market centres to enable communications and transactions to occur. For example, technologies such as high-speed communication lines link market centres enabling fast eurobanking transactions, and also giving rise to the overnight market.

Regulatory History
In the 1970s, regulating the eurocurrency market became a key priority for policymakers globally. This was because the growth of Eurodollars forced domestic banks to participate in offshore banking in order to stay competitive against rapidly growing foreign banks. Offshore banking allowed domestic banks to avoid the rising costs and restrictions resulting from national banking regulations. National governments struggled to monitor money supply and accurately predict economic outcomes in the global financial system due to unregulated and regulated financial markets existing in parallel. Since this realisation, governments have attempted various regulatory measures such as imposing reserve requirements, ceilings on interest rates and extending supervisory authority into the unregulated eurocurrency market. Overall, critics today maintain that regulation in offshore banking as a whole remains largely insufficient.

Usage of Reserve Requirements
Reserve requirements refer to a particular predetermined amount of cash which banks must have on-hand for the purpose of meeting liabilities in the case of sudden withdrawals. In the case of eurocurrency, this is a crucial regulatory measure with the high risk of bank runs. Typically, the central banks of individual nations enforce reserve requirements for its commercial banks. For example, the US central bank - The Federal Reserve, requires commercial banks to retain money in reserves against their commitments to depositors under the Monetary Control Act 1980. However, little progress has been made in imposing reserve requirements on eurocurrency deposits as nations continually fail to reach consensus over eurocurrency reserve amounts. Thus, it is the extension of national reserve requirements to the eurocurrency markets that has some level of mitigation between eurocurrency deposits and domestic bank balances.

Eurocurrency and Interest Rates
A key attraction for eurocurrency deposits are favourable interest rates for both lenders and borrowers relative to domestic interest rates. However, studies including the Granger causality test show that the “stickiness” of eurocurrency interest rates only exists with respect to the Eurodollar market. Interest rates for other eurocurrencies often move in parallel with corresponding domestic interest rates, seen as a control used by national governments to limit international capital flows.

Eurobanks
A eurobank is a financial institution anywhere in the world which accepts deposits or makes loans in any foreign currency.

Eurocredits
Eurocredit is a loan whose denominated currency is not the lending bank's national currency. A eurocredit loan would be made by a U.S. bank to a lender requiring a denominated currency which differs from the bank's local currency (USD) for specific reasons, most likely some sort of business operations or trade requirements. Despite the inclusion of the word "euro," a eurocredit is not immediately derived from the euro.

Eurocredits are short- to medium-term loans of Eurocurrency extended by Eurobanks to corporations, sovereign governments, nonprime banks, or international organizations. The loans are denominated in currencies other than the home currency of the Eurobank. Because these loans are frequently too large for a single bank to handle, Eurobanks will band together to form a bank lending syndicate to share the risk. The credit risk on these loans is greater than on loans to other banks in the interbank market. Thus, the interest rate on Eurocredits must compensate the bank, or banking syndicate, for the added credit risk. On Eurocredits originating in London the base lending rate is LIBOR. The lending rate on these credits is stated as LIBOR +X percent, where X is the lending margin charged depending upon the creditworthiness of the borrower. Additionally, rollover pricing was created on Eurocredits so that Eurobanks do not end up paying more on Eurocurrency time deposits than they earn from the loans. Thus, a Eurocredit may be viewed as a series of short-term loans, where at the end of each time period (generally three or six months), the loan is rolled over and the base lending rate is repriced to current LIBOR over the next time interval of the loan.

title: Eurocurrency