text:
Mandeville School, Aylesbury

The Mandeville School is a coeducational secondary school and sixth form located in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, England.

Built in the 1960s, there are approximately 1050 students currently attending Mandeville, aged between 11 and 18 years.

History
During the 1970s, England Rugby Prop Forward, Gary Pearce attended the school and played several games against Aylesbury Grammar School. In July 2004 the school was awarded specialist school status as a Sports College, an accolade reserved for the more successful schools in England.

Previously a community school administered by Buckinghamshire Council, in January 2022 The Mandeville School converted to academy status. It is now sponsored by the Insignis Academy Trust.

Mobile phone masts
Mandeville School is one of several Buckinghamshire schools which host mobile phone masts. Contracts between Buckinghamshire Council and various mobile phone operators generate an income of £145,000 per annum, of which about £59,000 comes from contracts for masts that are installed in schools.

title: Mandeville School, Aylesbury


text: File:The Yngwie Malmsteen Collection.jpg

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


text:
Little Creek

Little Creek may refer to:

Places in the United States

 * Little Creek, Delaware, a town in Kent County
 * Little Creek Hundred, Kent County, an unincorporated subdivision in Delaware
 * Little Creek Hundred, Sussex County, an unincorporated subdivision in Delaware
 * Little Creek, Georgia, an unincorporated community
 * Little Creek Peak, a mountain in Utah
 * Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, a United States Navy base in Virginia Beach, Virginia

Waterways

 * Little Creek (Gualala River), a tributary of the Gualala River in California
 * Little River (Delaware), also called Little Creek, a tributary of Delaware Bay
 * Little Creek (North Fork River), a stream in Missouri
 * Little Creek (Addition Creek tributary), a stream in Montana
 * Little Creek (New Jersey), a river in Burlington County
 * Little Creek (New York), a tributary of Cayuga Lake
 * Little Creek (Cape Fear River tributary), a stream in Harnett County, North Carolina
 * Little Creek (East Branch Tunkhannock Creek tributary), a creek in Pennsylvania

title: Little Creek


text:
Little Egg Harbor

Little Egg Harbor is a brackish bay along the coast of southeast New Jersey. It was originally called Egg Harbor by the Dutch sailors because of the eggs found in nearby gull nests.

The bay is part of the Intracoastal Waterway.

The historical spelling for the bay is "Little Egg Harbour" as found on maps provide by Rutgers University: 1706, 1775, 1777, 1784, 1795, 1826, and 1834.

Tributaries

 * Tuckerton Creek
 * Westecunk Creek

title: Little Egg Harbor


text:
Talk:British Indian Ocean Territory

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * British Indian Ocean Territory Product Exports (2019).svg

Permanent population
Why does the quick facts box say there is one permanent inhabitant? The official government website says that there is no permanent population and I can't find any other source supporting the number of 1. 2001:9E8:A33D:9D00:A59F:3C46:AE08:8BCF (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 * I changed the permanent population to 0. It must have been a typo or subtle vandalism that occurred months ago. DDMS123 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Breach of agreement
It would seem that America in its deference to the UK, forbade a British supreme court mission from entering the area where the Supreme Court has absolute jurisdiction in this regard. What is next? Folks told they can't visit the Isle of Wight perhaps? So much for the much vaunted "rule of law" from the country that today is pillorying Russia for its barbarity yet has committed far far worse barbarity against humans during Vietnam, GW1, GW2, Afghanistan and we were all told it was not fair to slam the US for its absolute despicable waging of war of which Diego Garcia played a part. I think it is time for Keir Starmer to grow some balls and tell the US military to get off our land, it is a British territory, the Chagossians are British subjects. 92.25.15.10 (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:British Indian Ocean Territory


text:
Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle1

Date: Saturday, 6 November 2004 which is to say it's already happened!

Location: Seattle Central Library (meet at the tables by the coffee cart) At 3:30 pm, we've headed for the east side of the 10th floor.

 * Address: 1000 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. Occupies the block between Spring and Madison streets and Fourth and Fifth avenues. The coffee cart is located on the 3rd floor of the library, near the Fifth Avenue entrance.

Time: 3:00 pm PST. We'll stick around by the coffee cart for a little while to give latecomers a chance, but that area isn't terribly large, so we may want to adjourn to a more convenient location once everyone arrives.

For those who may be driving: There is underground parking available at the library itself (the entrance is on Spring Street), but they only validate for up to two hours and validation only gets you a 50% discount. The library doesn't appear to change its rates on weekends, so you may be able to get better rates by using a nearby parking garage.

There is some (but not much) free, all-day on-street parking a few blocks east of the library on the other side of I-5. Once one gets away from the center of town there is a great deal of free on-street parking and the vast majority of in-city Metro bus routes have stops within a few blocks of the central library.

Also, for anyone who may be interested, the library offers tours that you can sign up for at the welcome desk on the 3rd floor. On Saturdays they have general tours at 10:30, 12:30, 2:30, and 4:30, plus architectural tours at 1:30 and 3:30.

People
If you plan to attend, you can list yourself below. If you would like to attend but aren't sure whether the proposal is convenient for you, please let us know what alternatives would be more convenient.

 * 1) Definitely will attend. --Michael Snow 22:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Barring calamity. -- Jmabel 22:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm pretty sure I can make it. --Lukobe 23:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Hell and high water are the only possible obstacles I envision. -- Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) It looks like it will work for me. Eclecticology 10:51, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
 * 6) Probably; will likely bring a couple friends -- Bryce 21:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I have my wife's permission, so I plan on being there to match faces & voices to names. Any plans for lunch? -- llywrch 00:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) I may be out of town that weekend, but if not I plan to attend. Won't be able to make it, unfortunately.  Hopefully there'll be a next time.--Jkiang 04:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) I'd love to be there. --DanKeshet
 * 10) I'll be there if I remember. Call me up, 206.427.2545, if you want to remind me the day before. --LionKimbro
 * 11) I'll try and attend. My birthday is the next week, so it depends on when My Lady wants to celebrate it.  (39 + 2 yrs seniority for the curious.)  Why so late in the day? Elde 07:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) If I have the gas money, I'll be there --kees 17:22, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
 * 13) Planning on it. RadicalSubversiv E 19:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) I'll probably show up -- RobLa 06:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes. -- Decumanus 17:59, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Report
Thought I'd write up a little report of the fantastic day and throw in my photos.If you'd like, please identify yourself in photo captions,(I learned your names, I think, but I'll let you decide if you want to place your name with your image).--Decumanus 07:43, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

We met as scheduled at 3:00 p.m, gathering around a table behind the coffee cart on the 5th Avenue level of the Seattle Public Library. The table was soon crowded, and after introductions, at User:Jmabel's suggestion, we adjourned to a bigger space on the 10th floor of the library, leaving behind a note on the coffee cart with the Space Needle-Wikipedia graphic that Michael Snow had designed for the event. Upstairs, under the slanted roof designed by Rem Koolhaas, we took over all the chairs and gathered them into a circle, including the strange cross-like ones. Pretty much everyone had a seat. llywrch brilliantly had brought along nametags for the group.

User:Jmabel took the plunge and initiated the discussion for the afternoon, bringing up his concern about how to get librarians to understand Wikipedia so they might consider it worthy of being an authoritative source. (Within days after the meeting, this led to a pretty good start on a document at Researching with Wikipedia.) We talked about licensing issues, possible software changes that might allow POV-type overlays, and swapped lots of war stories about POV warriors, trolls, and other things only a fellow Wikipedia would really understand. BryceHarrington regaled us with tales of the wild and wooly early days of GNUPedia and Nupedia, and how he made the leap to Wikipedia. We came to a quasi-agreement, mostly through a nodding of heads, that a system of committees that might judge the worthiness of questionable content (rather than just violation of Wikipedia rules per se), might save everyone lots of pain and heartache. User:Jwrosenzweig earned our sympathy with his stories about being on the arbitration committee, a thankless task for which none of us seemed to envy him.

The three hours in the library went quickly. Towards the end, with the library staff announcing the impending closure of the building, Michael Snow handed out a Wikipedia quiz (see below). Among other things, you could earn points by knowing that the Irish language Wikipedia had fewer entries than the Welsh one, that Anthere calls herself "SweetFluffyThing", and that there is no entry (yet) for the catchphrase Boxers or briefs? but there is one for It depends what the definition of is is....

At six o'clock most of us adjourned to have dinner in Seattle's International District, at a Chinese restaurant Hing Loon, where we sat around a large circular table. At Jmabel's suggestion, we ordered green onion pancakes for an appetizer and selected from among the many specials on white paper on the wall. We ate sea bass, salmon, various vegetables, and sea cucumber with mushrooms, polished off with fortune cookies and sesame seed balls (麻糰 ma-tuan), the last of which were very tasty but probably don't merit a Wikipedia article. It came about sixteen bucks per person with the tip. Dinner lasted to about 8 p.m. We all trickled back home, glad for the great day. The Portland contigent set off on the three-hour drive back to Oregon. Everyone was glad they'd come.

Oh, and we talked about doing something like this again early in 2005.

The quiz
You can find the quiz at Meetup/Seattle quiz. Everyone tallied their own scores and there were no prizes at stake, it was purely for fun. After all, Wikipedia is too large for anyone to master all the trivia available here.

title: Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle1


text: File:Social Distortion - Social Distortion cover.jpg


text: File:The Hives Tyrannosaurus Hives.jpg

title: File:The Hives Tyrannosaurus Hives.jpg


text:
Mindbend

Mindbend is a novel by the author Robin Cook, first published in 1985. The current paperback edition is available with ISBN 0-451-14108-3.

Plot
Arolen is a giant pharmaceutical company, expanding at rapid pace and bringing more and more doctors into its clutches. Once doctors go on CME on board a cruise organised by Arolen, they come back totally changed, in personality and opinions. Strangely many of them opt for a job in Julian Clinic, even at the cost of leaving their lucrative private practices. Incidentally, the number of therapeutic abortions at the Julian Clinic are also rising. The hero of the novel, Adam Schonberg, a third year medical student, has to leave his medical education midway for want of money as his wife becomes pregnant and later on trapped in the clutches of unethical medical practice. Adam finally succeeds in unraveling the mystery behind Arolem pharmaceuticals. They drug the doctors and later perform psychological surgery on them aboard the ship (Fjord) which makes them opt to join the Julian Clinic.

title: Mindbend


text: File:Social Distortion - Sex, Love and Rock 'n' Roll cover.jpg


text:
Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Seattle1

Preliminary discussion cobbled together, primarily from User talk:Jwrosenzweig and User talk:Michael Snow.

Seattle meetup
You once mentioned the idea of doing a Seattle-area meetup, and inspired by the pending Chicago meetup, I was wondering if it would be a good time to try and organize something. I don't know how big of a crowd we might get - hopefully people might consider traveling from the Vancouver or Portland areas, although the event probably wouldn't have the same draw as Jimbo's star power. But even if it was nothing more than the two of us, I think it would be rewarding nevertheless. --Michael Snow 22:25, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, the thought had reoccurred to me just recently -- glad you thought of it too. I'm teaching now, so my schedule has gotten more complicated than it once was -- Friday and Saturday nights are therefore best (well, all day Saturday, actually), although nights preceding school holidays like Veteran's Day (or nights on a school holiday like Veteran's Day) work well also.  Would you give your schedule a look and propose a list of dates?  Once we have one, I think it could be publicized in the usual places -- I know Jmabel and Lukobe are local, and I think a few other contributors are (at least one is a UW student who's been polishing up those pages).  We may have lost all our Vancouver editors, I can't remember, but certainly it would be good to meet some of them.  You're right that the lack of star power will reduce turnout, but then I'd frankly rather spend time getting to know a few people than spend time trying to simply shake all the hands of a massive crowd. :-)  Maybe we should start setting up the details in a user subpage -- yours or mine?  Makes no difference to me either way.  Thanks for the spark -- let's make this happen.  Jwrosenzweig 14:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saturdays sound best to me; I think basically all meetups so far have been scheduled for weekends. At least a few weeks lead time is probably called for, so October 16 is the earliest date I would even consider possible. At the other end of the window, I think getting it done before Thanksgiving weekend would be best, which leaves November 20 as the latest possible date. In between those, October 30 is a probable conflict for me and likely not an ideal choice due to competition from Halloween-related events.

The other major competition that I can think of, given Wikipedia's skew towards a college-age male demographic, is college football. The Husky football schedule for the relevant weeks is: Of course, I don't know if any of our potential attendees go to the games or care about them (less likely given the current state of the team), but if nothing else it might be a consideration for traffic and/or parking, depending on the time and venue we choose.
 * October 16 Oregon State, 12:30 PM
 * October 23 at USC, 1:30 PM
 * October 30 at Oregon, 12:30 PM
 * November 6 Arizona, 12:30 PM
 * November 13 California, 12:30 PM
 * November 20 at Washington State, 5:00 PM

Speaking of venues, do you have any ideas or preferences? Presumably indoors at least, in light of the season. Various possibilities would include restaurants, library or school/university spaces, other community facilities, or private homes. --Michael Snow 16:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's look at those first two Saturdays in November -- does either one appeal to you? I can do either one at this point.  I think 16th is too soon, the 23rd is the Huskies at the #1 team in the nation, which will probably distract at least a few, and the 30th was out for you and for Halloween.  Let me know which Saturday you prefer.  If you have absolutely no preference, let's aim for the 6th.  As far as a location goes, the brand new downtown Seattle library presents itself as a good candidate -- perhaps in the cafe on the main level?  I'd be open to other possibilities also -- on the UW campus (a library, cafe, or the student union bldg.), Bell Square, a restaurant that doesn't mind a lively discussion happening in the corner.  I'm in Sammamish -- I don't know where you'll be coming from.  If you have some preferences, feel free to suggest them: I'm just tossing around some ideas that occur to me at the present.  Let me know what you think. Jwrosenzweig 20:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Date: I agree, let's shoot for November 6th, and then we can use November 13th as a fall-back option in case people have lots of scheduling conflicts or if venue availability is problematic. No need to try and take on the Apple Cup (I'm glad to discover the article already exists).

Place: The downtown library would be the perfect choice, in my opinion. Appropriate to our mission, a worthwhile destination as a building, an easy landmark for people traveling in or unfamiliar with downtown. Although I haven't been inside yet (for my sins), I will try and find some time this Saturday to scout the location, just to be sure there will be enough space for the kind of group we anticipate. From checking out the library website, the cafe area is small (seats 20), which may be enough anyway but I'm not sure what the competition from other patrons will be like - and since it is a library, minimizing disruption to other patrons seems like a sensible courtesy. There are some study/project rooms we could also use if one is open. The website says the larger meeting rooms aren't available until 2005, and start taking reservations in October (are the rooms not finished yet?). The smallest holds 29, which is probably larger than we need anyway, but something to consider if we want to have future, larger Wikipedia events in Seattle.

Time: If it is the library, hours are 10-6 on Saturdays. I would suggest 2 or 3 o'clock. Late enough that people can sleep in and/or get other things done, miss Husky pregame traffic, etc. Still would give us plenty of time before the library closes, depending on how long people want to stay, and then if anyone wants even more, they can move on to another location for dinner and so on into the evening. --Michael Snow 21:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The 6th it is. I haven't been inside the library either (and we call ourselves scholars!), but I read the special section in the newspaper so many times, poring (pouring?) over diagrams that I feel as if I know the space.  Though obviously I don't, since I thought the cafe space was bigger.  Any scouting you can do would be fantastic -- Seattle's a bit of a drive for me, and I don't do it often.  As far as meeting space, a study room of some kind would be wonderful -- can we arrange it as private citizens, so to speak?  I like the 3 pm idea -- lends itself naturally to dinner downtown somewhere if anyone is willing, without imposing the expense on starving college students (or starving public school teachers, come to think of it, but I think I can swing it if people are interested).  Two things remain, then -- what page shall we use to plan this (a user subpage or something in the Wikipedia namespace?) and when/how shall we announce it (village pump?  mailing list?  both?)? Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've left messages on Jmabel's and Lukobe's talk pages about this, so if they want to come but can't make the 6th then we can change the date. As far as a page to organize it, we can probably use Meetup or create a subpage thereof. I'll wait until after my scouting trip before making a general announcement, which will give them time to respond as well. Based on my experience, I would try to advertise in as many places as possible, because there really isn't any one place where people look for things. --Michael Snow 22:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds very good. I left notes (having see you do so) for User:Jkiang, the fellow who rewrote the UW page and is a student there, I think, as well as User:JHK, who is unlikely to attend (she was one of the early Wikipedipioneers who is on semi-permanent vacation now, but now and then I catch her lurking and she always seems pleasant -- I thought it would be neat to get a sense of the history of the site if she showed).  I also dropped notes to Mkmcconn and Llywrch as the only two Portlanders I can think of.  The only fellow in Vancouver anymore (now that Vancouverguy is gone) is Eclecticology, I think -- I'll drop him a note.  I figure the odds of any of them attending is low, but it would be neat to meet them if they wanted to make the trip.  I figure if one or two out-of-towners show and most of us in-towners do also, that's 6-7 people, which is a good number, I think -- small enough to be manageable but large enough to have a couple of conversations going at once.  The only other experienced name I know in the general area is Sarge Baldy, but he's down in Corvallis and I figure that's too far to drive for a Saturday afternoon meeting.  If he doesn't think so, I'm sure he'll catch the announcement on the pump. Jwrosenzweig 22:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'm for this. Let me know when you have a precise time. By the way, there is also great space on the 10th floor of the library, east side; other than the lack of refreshments, it may be a better meeting spot than the cafe. Can you set up a page for planning this, so we can all watchlist it? -- Jmabel 22:22, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I'll be sure to check out the 10th floor too and see if it's suitable. I just don't want to be stuck in a part of the library where we need to be overly concerned about noise. And we'll definitely create a dedicated page soon so people can watchlist it. --Michael Snow 22:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry I couldn't make it--the holidays are coming and as an employee of a major internet retailer :) I had to work. --Lukobe 07:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Proactive publicity
I'm presuming that whoever started this has contacted a number of people, but what exactly besides creating this page is being done to let people know this is happening? -- Jmabel 23:37, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * I was planning to announce it on the Village pump, Goings-on, and the WikiEN mailing list. Hopefully that will reach most people who would be interested that we don't know about. --Michael Snow 03:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Also I'd suggest Wikipedians/Washington and maybe even Wikipedians/Oregon and Wikipedians/Canada#British_Columbia, which I bet is mostly near Vancouver. I for one would be perfectly glad to host an out-of-towner or two if they want to come for this... -- Jmabel 05:48, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Where exactly to meet
Alright, having made an actual physical visit to the library, I think meeting at the tables by the coffee cart, as Jwrosenzweig suggested, is probably fine. It's an easily identifiable location, near the entrance (the Fifth Avenue entrance, that is, which is the 3rd floor of the library), and allows people to sit down. I don't know that we want to stay there the whole time, but once people have gathered there are other spots we can move to where we won't feel the need to act like church mice. And while the library is reasonably well-populated, I think the competition for space won't be much of a problem. Any objections to this plan? --Michael Snow 04:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael, I didn't have objections before, but at this point it's obvious you and I grossly underestimated the number of Wikipedians in the area. :-) With 13 (not including Bryce's friends), we're going to overwhelm the cafe.  That may be a good place to meet for those who don't know the library (easy to find), but I'm sure that this many is too many to stay there without inconveniencing the library -- what about the locations you scouted.  Any rooms that you anticipate we'll head for?  That way we can tell people "meet us before 3 at the cafe if you don't want to get lost looking for conference room Q1313, which is where we'll go at 3".  Just a suggestion -- I'm open to any others.  Jwrosenzweig 22:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, there is a very pleasant space on the east side of the 10th floor. I'd much rather be there than in one of the might-as-well-be-anywhere conference rooms. -- Jmabel|Talk 23:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds great to me, but would we be at all disturbing to patrons? I'd rather not get tossed out on my ear. :-)  But I haven't been inside yet (only studied floor plans in the paper), so I don't know where that is.  If it's a good place for this size of a group where we could talk at a reasonable level without troubling anyone, I'm all for it. Jwrosenzweig 23:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * On the 10th floor I was a little worried about whether a large conversational group might be disruptive. On the 3rd floor itself, though not right by the coffee cart, there is what you might call "common space" where whispering is not particularly required. Wherever we end up going, I'd be willing to wait behind by myself for a little while and bring any stragglers to join the main group.

 * Overall, I'm thrilled to have the turnout be even more than we expected. I wasn't thinking of the cafe tables as anything more than a handy landmark, and didn't really anticipate we'd necessarily stay there the whole time, regardless of the group's size. --Michael Snow 23:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agenda
I don't want to make this too official or anything, but I think it would be a good idea to list here anything we think we might want to discuss as a group. I can't imagine what that would be, other than to discuss whether or not it would be fun to have a "regional board". The Deep South and New England now both have regional posting boards where they work on local topics of interest. Do we want a PNW board? I don't know, but I'm willing to talk it over -- obviously we have a lot of Wikipedians in the area with free time on Saturdays. ;-) Maybe we have time to pursue something like that.  Any other ideas?

Also, quizzes were given at the London and Boston wikimeets. Is this more of a casual gathering, or would something like that be fun? If so, does someone want to put it together? The content of the quizzes (which were good and difficult) can be found by link-surfing from Meetup to the info pages about London and Boston -- I don't have the links in my memory. Just thought I'd mention it. Any and all reactions, counterproposals, and ideas are welcome. Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are a few things I'd like to see on an agenda:
 * What we can do to support Wikipedia outreach to under-represented communities (e.g. Native American, African-American)
 * What we can do by way of outreach to librarians to help them better understand Wikipedia and its strengths and weaknesses as a reference (especially how to use it well).
 * Possibility of establishing a roughly monthly casual get-together.

I'd love to see us locally take on some prototype outreach projects that might potentially be replicated elsewhere. -- Jmabel|Talk 23:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm game for discussion -- it sounds good. Are you willing to come with some more specific ideas in mind?  That would help me -- outreach is a big term and I'm having trouble envisioning what you're thinking of.  And every other month might be a better idea (it's a ways to travel for our Oregon friends, and I don't know if we'd have enough to chat about going monthly) from my perspective, though of course we'll need to talk over the timing of it as a group. :-)  Great ideas: I'm glad to see we'll be doing more than say "oh, is that what you look like in real life?"! Jwrosenzweig 23:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I've been thinking about the outreach issues a lot, I'll be coming with several ideas. -- Jmabel|Talk 05:34, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've given a little bit of thought to a quiz and have some potential questions in mind, so I can probably work that up. If people are interested we can do it, if not it can be done another time. As for the agenda, I figure once we've gone through the initial introductions and casual conversation, a group discussion on the issues Jmabel mentions could be held. Anyone who has additional items they want raised is welcome to suggest them too, I think. One thing I'd be particularly interested in is hearing something from Bryce about the very earliest days of Wikipedia - he's one of the people who came over from GNUPedia right after it started. --Michael Snow 23:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Last minute checkin
Just want to be sure we're all still on board. Michael, are you doing the quiz? Need any help, or is it under control? I assume you're way ahead of me there. Also, we haven't talked about recognizing each other -- should we all assume some characteristic posture or chant "wiki wiki wiki" as we walk around the library cafe? ;-) Seriously, though, I don't want us to look like an outing of the Red Hat Society but have we given any thought to how we will meet otherwise?  I'm not normally one to ask strangers if they edit an open source encyclopedia, but if that's the only reasonable way of doing this, I'll live I'm sure. :-)  Just curious if anyone had given this some thought... Jwrosenzweig 21:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The quiz is not finished yet, but I think I have it under control. I didn't want to encourage suggestions for fear of giving anyone an unfair advantage. To aid in recognition, I was thinking of printing out a copy of the picture I cobbled together to illustrate the page - just put that out and people should be able to figure out which one is the table full of Wikipedians, assuming that eavesdropping on conversations won't already be sufficient. --Michael Snow 22:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * As always, Michael, your proposal is wise. I'll look for the Wiki-ed Space Needle -- thanks! Jwrosenzweig 22:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pictures
Could someone put names under the pictures so that we can share seeing people ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 15:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have done so, although in a couple of cases it was hard to decide whether or not to name a person who was obscured save for a right foot. :-) Hopefully no one minds, and if they do, they can pull out their name. Jwrosenzweig 19:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :-) It is always so funny and interesting; I did not see Ec as hairy, nor Michael so young :-) Overall, the average age is significantly older than the meetings I participated to till now :-) - ant

Quiz
Jeeee, I made it in the quiz !!! SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you were the most readily identified user in the "real name/username/sig" mix and match. :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Librarian Symposium Presentation Idea
One of the topics that was discussed quite heavily was "How to make Librarians more accepting of Wikipedia". One suggestion I had was to find out if there are any conventions/symposia/etc. that librarians (or other educators) go to, and encourage someone to give a talk there.

This is an extremely common and effective technique used by other areas of the open source community to get the word out about what they're doing, and to plan out future direction face-to-face.

In some projects I've been in, we've collaborated on helping the speaker put together his slides; I think this model would work quite well for Wikipedia.

Some symposiums charge an entry fee to attend; I think most give free access for speakers, but if not, and if it seems like a key one for Wikipedia to present at, a collection could be considered.

Some topics that may be worth raising in a presentation to a group of librarians could go something like:
 * What is Open Source Philosophy and why is it so important to today's world?
 * What is Wikipedia?
 * How does Wikipedia work?
 * Walk-thru example of creating/editing/categorizing an article
 * How Wikipedia has become a key information resource for the entire world.
 * Wikipedia has weaknesses - we need your skills and ideas to help make Wikipedia a better reference
 * The future of Wikipedia

-- BryceHarrington
 * I like your ideas, Bryce -- I hope you'd be willing to be one of these speakers? :-) I think you can talk very knowledgably about open source projects, and about Wikipedia's relative strengths and weaknesses sompared with other open source projects.  I'm also interested in Joe Mabel's ideas about an open conversation with librarians (through the Gates Foundation, as I recall) which might go along similar lines.  Hopefully we can kick some of those ideas around here, perhaps get more input from people outside our region. Jwrosenzweig 20:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I was thinking that the best reception would be gained from speakers who hold academic credentials or teaching positions, since their backgrounds would probably resonate better with librarians, but I'd certainly be willing to give a talk if not. :-)  Bryce 21:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Credentials are always nice, but having good ideas and presenting them well will trump credentialed incompetence almost every time.

 * Dan Keshet started an article relevant to this at Researching with Wikipedia. I've contributed a little. I'd love to see people jump into this. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:49, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * If you guys can identify a worthwhile conference in the greater Portland area to talk about Wikipedia, and can help put together a Wikipedia presentation, I'd be quite willing to have a shot at giving it there. But I have to add I'm far from a skilled speaker...  Bryce 06:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd gladly talk on something like this, and believe I am a pretty good presenter (although the ideal would be someone with a library sciences degree, for obvious reasons). My hope, though, for a first shot would be less a conference presentation than a sit-down with 3 or so Wikipedians and 3-to-5 librarians, more of a give and take. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:29, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd gladly volunteer to talk as well. I have quite a few years academic research and teaching experience (in my former life). --- Decumanus 21:31, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0
Another topic that was raised and discussed was what a "1.0 release" would mean. We talked about review processes (such as assembling something like Review Boards, perhaps on a per-page or per-area basis). I made the point that for most open source projects there is a strong danger in trying to focus on a 1.0 release as being the paragon of perfection; this often will lead to 'analysis paralysis' where the team gets stuck trying to make everything 100% perfect before showing anything off. A much better approach is the 'release early, release often': You take your code and go through the release process, worrying less about making it perfect than with making it useful and usable. Then collect feedback from your users (in the form of bug reports, requests, etc.) and immediately start work on the next version.

One idea could be that, since there are so many articles in wikipedia, that instead of starting with EVERYTHING and polishing each article, to instead start from NOTHING and create a 0.01 release with only a handful of the best articles. For instance, the featured article section could be an excellent place to start, especially since these articles have probably received the most thorough and complete review of any in the system, and are probably pretty "complete".

We also mentioned the importance of having the reviewed "release" version of the page be tagged with the names of the review board, to give some authority and accountability to the page, and to distinguish it from future edited versions. This notion of 'tagging' is common in software revision control systems; if there is not a tagging capability in MediaWiki currently, I'm sure it would be a reasonable thing to have added.

-- BryceHarrington

User Communities and Civility
Another topic that received a lot of discussion was ensuring civility between participants, and problems with too much rudeness. It was felt, for example, that this posed a barrier to entry for newbies, discouraged diversity, and led to burnout among old timers (especially admins).

I've seen these issues in many open source projects before, and remarked that this seemed to be an issue about human nature moreso than any problem with Wikipedia itself. When communities grow beyond certain sizes, they change social dynamics. For example, 6-8 people is the limit for having a unified discussion; above this the group typically will break into multiple conversations. A really good manager can handle about 8 people reporting directly to him.

30 is another magic number; this is an effective limit for close bond relationships; you see this number voiced in relation to team sizes, classroom sizes, departments, etc. In groups between 8-30 people, there is a strong social pressure to be civil to one another and to try to get along. Most likely you're going to be seeing that person every day, so having a bad relationship with that person can result in problems with your relationship to the group itself; you seek to find "working relationships" with the individual - you may not like them or agree with them, but a level of politeness and cooperation exists for the sake of cohesiveness.

30-300 appears to be the optimal size for "tribal identity". Below 30, and the group is really just a band, not large enough to have a distinct, permanent identity separate from its members. Above 300, the opportunities for running across someone you already have built a relationship are too low. The value of establishing relationships with group-members has fallen below a critical point, so the incentive to be civil does not work as well - it's ok to be curt or rude with people because you may not run into them again, or at least you won't have to work closely with them in order to exist in the group. A teacher once remarked that 300 has also been identified as the optimal size for a school. As the group grows higher beyond 300, the social dynamic returns to the beginning; people look at establishing tribes-within-the-tribe, which can lead to all sorts of interesting disfunctions. ;-)

A good place to learn more about these community size limits is some of the research papers written about MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) communities. They had found a rather ironic pattern - that the more successful the MUD, the more people came, and the more quickly it failed. They noticed that the "best" MUDs with the most long-lived and enjoyable communities that were limited in size to below about 300. The US Army has also done a great deal of research into group size and dynamics.

At the meetup, Joe presented the idea of establishing "safe areas" - groups given a specific objective to work on semi-independently of the wikipedia-at-large community. I think that this would be quite in keeping with the above group size theory. To some extent this probably already happens naturally, judging from the number of side projects spun-off from Wikipedia itself. But perhaps good results could be attained if Wikipedia undertook this more deliberately. For example, the Wikipedia project could establish a sectioned off working environment for students working on class projects; this environment would have room for, say, 5 classes of 20-30 students each to build their projects and assist one another in developing articles that would be delivered to Wikipedia itself at the conclusion of the class.

Over the years I've also noticed a natural grouping of Wikipedians into topic groups; when I started everyone generally pitched in everywhere on any topic. It was normal to keep an eye on the RecentChanges page for work your friends were doing and pop into any random topic to help fix spellings, toss in ideas, critique, etc. These days, though, RecentChanges moves way too quickly to stay atop of all the changes, and most of the names that show up are not people you "know". However, I have noticed that focus groups have emerged - e.g., a group of people who work together on a certain topic area, etc. Unfortunately, these are rather ad hoc groupings and appear to be of the tribe-within-a-tribe variety. An idea would be to give some mechanisms that enable these groups to attain stronger "self-identity", allowing them to strengthen their relationships with each other and to establish their own internal group rules and dynamics. There are risks to doing this, however; it is common for this kind of grouping to engender a counterproductive us-vs-them dynamic - this could reveal itself in massive "edit wars" between two groups. A way to avoid this may be to enable the group to strongly isolate itself from the larger community, and interact through a controlled "social protocol" of some sort. For example, let them work independently from Wikipedia on pages that are currently 'locked' for one reason or other and when they feel they have completed a suitable replacement, to deliver it to a review board to replace the locked page.

If this model worked, we could see Wikipedia evolve from being a wide open free-for-all into being more of an integration point, where the interesting and intensive work more often occurs in these focus groups. Other large open source projects have benefitted from this social model; the Linux kernel and Apache communities, to name two examples, are composed of a central codebase plus a large number of satellite module or driver development communities.

-- BryceHarrington

Managing this page
Should we maybe move the current contents of this to something like Meetup/Seattle November 6, 2004 (with a link from Meetup/Seattle) to allow us to start using Meetup/Seattle to plan the next one for early 2005? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:02, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds excellent to me -- One suggestion I'd make, though, is to put it at Meetup/Seattle/November 6, 2004 (assuming double subpages aren't doubleplusungood) -- that way every Meetup's archive will autolink back to Meetup/Seattle at the top of the page. Just a thought. Jwrosenzweig 16:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds smarter, I'll go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:32, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Seattle1


text: User talk:68.225.230.195

title: User talk:68.225.230.195


text:
List of MTR stations

The MTR, the rapid transit system of Hong Kong, encompasses 10 heavy rail lines and 98 stations as of May 2022. The following list sorts the stations according to their service line. In addition to the 98 metro stations listed on this page, the MTR system also consists of 68 light rail stops and one high-speed rail terminus in the city.

The current system was formed after the merger with the Kowloon–Canton Railway on 2 December 2007, when the operations of the East Rail line, the West Rail line, the Ma On Shan line and the Light Rail system were transferred to the MTR Corporation. Serving exclusively the northwestern New Territories, the light rail network comprises 12 routes, serving 68 stops. The network is being expanded and several new lines are being proposed.

title: List of MTR stations


text:
Little Cataraqui Creek

The Little Cataraqui Creek is a watercourse, much of which is a semi-urban wetland, that empties into Lake Ontario within the municipality of Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Further inland, just north of Highway 401, the creek has been dammed to form a reservoir that is part of the Little Cataraqui Creek Conservation Area.

The adjective "little" distinguishes the creek from the (Greater) Cataraqui River 4.5 kilometers to the east, which forms the beginning of the Rideau Canal.

Depending on the season, the creek is navigable by canoe or other very small craft.

title: Little Cataraqui Creek


text: File:Social Distortion - Prison Bound cover.jpg


text:
Talk:Prison Bound

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prison Bound


text: File:Social Distortion - Mommy's Little Monster cover.jpg


text:
Herne Bay, New Zealand

Herne Bay is an affluent suburb of Auckland, New Zealand. It is located on the southwestern shore of the Waitematā Harbour to the west of the Auckland Harbour Bridge. It is known for its extensive harbour views, marine villas and Edwardian age homes. Herne Bay has been a prosperous area since the 1850s due to its outlook over the Waitemata Harbour. It continues to be an exclusive suburb, as it ranked as the most expensive suburb in New Zealand in 2015. In 2021 it again topped rankings of the most expensive suburbs in New Zealand, with a median property value of $3.25 million.

Herne Bay is under the local governance of Auckland Council.

Demographics
Herne Bay covers 0.88 km2 and had an estimated population of as of  with a population density of  people per km2.

Herne Bay had a population of 3,036 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 96 people (3.3%) since the 2013 census, and an increase of 54 people (1.8%) since the 2006 census. There were 1,233 households, comprising 1,488 males and 1,548 females, giving a sex ratio of 0.96 males per female. The median age was 44.0 years (compared with 37.4 years nationally), with 519 people (17.1%) aged under 15 years, 495 (16.3%) aged 15 to 29, 1,542 (50.8%) aged 30 to 64, and 480 (15.8%) aged 65 or older.

Ethnicities were 92.4% European/Pākehā, 5.5% Māori, 2.0% Pacific peoples, 6.1% Asian, and 2.4% other ethnicities. People may identify with more than one ethnicity.

The percentage of people born overseas was 23.2, compared with 27.1% nationally.

Although some people chose not to answer the census's question about religious affiliation, 53.9% had no religion, 37.4% were Christian, 0.1% had Māori religious beliefs, 0.6% were Hindu, 0.2% were Muslim, 0.7% were Buddhist and 2.3% had other religions.

Of those at least 15 years old, 1,278 (50.8%) people had a bachelor's or higher degree, and 159 (6.3%) people had no formal qualifications. The median income was $62,100, compared with $31,800 nationally. 1,137 people (45.2%) earned over $70,000 compared to 17.2% nationally. The employment status of those at least 15 was that 1,434 (57.0%) people were employed full-time, 342 (13.6%) were part-time, and 69 (2.7%) were unemployed.

History
The suburb is named after Herne Bay, a fashionable but respectable seaside resort in English county of Kent.

From the 1850s onwards it became apparent that Auckland's Herne Bay was quite handy to the centre of town by a short boat trip. Herne Bay developed as an early commuter suburb and was the location of several large houses belonging to members of the professional classes. Most of these houses (termed 'marine villas') were readily accessible from the water, with their own jetties and boathouses - in some cases there was not any land route to them. Some of these early houses still exist, surrounded by later houses which were built as their large properties were subdivided around the turn of the 20th century.

Also located in this area on the shore of Ponsonby (between Argyle Street and the sea) was Kemp's Gardens. This was a popular pleasure resort for Auckland's people during the 1860s. The gardens were "complete with pavilion, gardens and illuminations": "A free hand was given, drinks were sold, music was provided and the least said the better". Later renamed "Cremorne Gardens" after the fashionable pleasure gardens in London, Kemp's gardens boasted a "Dancing Pavilion, ten acres of walks and sports grounds". It is remembered in the name "Cremorne Street".

Twenty-first century
In late 2008, Herne Bay became New Zealand's first "$2 million suburb", when the average house price surpassed the $2 million mark.

The Sultan of Brunei purchased 11 properties in Herne Bay for his visit to the APEC Summit in Auckland in 1999, these were all extensively renovated, although the Sultan never actually lived in any of them. All 11 properties were sold to low profile businessman Gary Lane in 2005.

Schools
Bayfield School and Ponsonby Primary School are coeducational contributing primary schools (years 1-6) with rolls of and  respectively, as of

Nearby secondary schools include Auckland Girls' Grammar School, Western Springs College (Coed), St Paul's College (Catholic boys) and Saint Mary's College (Catholic girls).

Notable buildings

 * Baptist Church, 43 Jervois Road. A wooden building in the Classical style. This church contains an organ reputed to be the oldest in Australasia, possibly used by Queen Charlotte at Windsor Castle or Kew Palace it was given by Queen Victoria to the St Paul's Church in Emily Place, here in Auckland. After that building was demolished and rebuilt on Symonds Street with a new big up-to-date organ this chamber organ made its way into the possession of the Baptist Church here.
 * St Stephen's Presbyterian Church. Corner of Jervois Road and Shelly Beach Road. Wooden Gothic Church with impressive interior.
 * Stichbury Terrace. Corner of Jervois Road and Curran Street. Neo-Classical Apartment Block from around 1915.
 * Ponsonby Primary School. 44 Curran Street. The main building is an intact example of the Arts & Crafts style employed for educational facilities just around the First World War. Reinforced concrete construction with brick and stucco detailing, Marseilles tile roof and metal windows. Prior to 1920 this property was occupied by a Chinese Market Garden.
 * Shangri-la Apartments. 97-103 Jervois Road. Late 1980s High-rise apartment block; this building contains a mere 16 apartments many of which occupy an entire floor.
 * Turret House 4 Shelly Beach Road. Large Edwardian Mansion with a rooftop turret. Currently a bed and breakfast hotel.
 * Westwater Apartments. 10 Shelly Beach Road. High rise apartment block from the 1980s.
 * Dome House. 11 Shelly Beach Road (corner Cameron Street). Unusual large Edwardian house in the American Queen Anne Style - a landmark due to its large domed corner turret.
 * Stebbing Recording Studios. 108-114 Jervois Road.
 * Art-Deco Flats. 175-183 Jervois Road. Four apartment blocks built in the 1930s on land previously owned by the tram company.
 * The Gables. 248 Jervois Road. Dating from the early 1970s this was the first pub to be built in this previously dry area. The building was designed to harmonise with the surrounding bay villas and so imitated their roof line, hence the name "The Gables".
 * Former Bayfield School. 272 Jervois Road. Wooden Edwardian school now used for preschool activities. Typical example of the building created by the Ministry of Works for schools of the period.
 * Sea Breeze Motel. 213 Jervois Road. Interesting example of 1950s exotica architecture.
 * 286 Jervois Road. Large two storied Edwardian Italianate house. Recently restored.
 * 235 Jervois Road. Arts & Crafts Cottage by Basil Hooper. Single storied wooden house from around 1928 by a prominent Arts & Crafts architect. Probably done in conjunction with the Chapman Taylor house next door. Wood, brick and Marseilles tile roof.
 * Williamson House. 237 Jervois Road. Important 1928 Arts & Crafts house by Jame Walter Chapman Taylor for Francis H. Williamson. Two-storied masonry house with stucco facades, Marseilles tile roof and metal framed windows.
 * Hawke Sea Scout Hall, 55 West End Road. First built in 1928 on this site, rebuilt 1952 after a fire in a vernacular site by local volunteers with timber donated by US Marine Corps. Recently restored in traditional style.

title: Herne Bay, New Zealand


text:
Talk:Prandtl–Glauert singularity

Question
Question: should this article have a 'see also' link over to sound barrier or is that misleading since it is an effect that is not necessarily dependent on being near the speed of sound? (though it's often mistaken for 'breaking the sound barrier'. Thoughts? jwilkinson 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell -- do these clouds follow the plane around while Mach >=1? Or is it a phenomenon that occurs just at the moment of Mach = 1? Chrisvls 22:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It occures at transonic speeds, not only at Mach-1. The cloud follows the aircraft; it is not stationary. Rsduhamel 00:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I know, it should occur at speeds >= mach 1, as this should follow from the underlying principles. What would change with additional speed would be the angle of the cone, becoming more acute, and if (can we presume?) the strength of the shockwave is stronger at higher speed then so should be its diameter, and if the sweep of the wing is less than this angle then the cone should have an irregular shape in the wing area. The diameter of the cone will of course be dependent upon also the local relative humidity.

 * An anecdote that may be of interest. Note that the shock wave can be reflected from an underlying surface. I did not personally see this, but a fellow naval airman described a low flying supersonic overwater demonstration. He said it appeared that the aircraft was "flying inside an ice cube". -- Leonard G. 02:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I personally observed this effect around an F-4 Phantom II that was certainly not exceeding the speed of sound. It was at the Miramar Air Show sometime in the late 1970s. It was a cool very humid day and all of the military aircraft had visible clouds in the shock waves that were forming over the wings. It seemed that the pilots were making a point of doing fast flybys to produce these clouds. The Blue Angels announcer made a point of talking about the clouds and their cause. As an F-4 flew by, with the clouds showing over his wings, for about a half second at most, a huge doughnut-shaped cloud formed around the middle of the aircraft. I cursed myself for not having my 8mm movie camera rolling. I find it very hard to believe the plane had exceeded the speed of sound since there was no sonic boom. (Actually, as I remember back, this was more than 25 years ago and the aircraft may have been an F-14 but I'm pretty sure it was an F-4.) Rsduhamel 19:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You all already have a link to my page where I gather information about these photos. On there is a B-2 with the effect. B-2's are subsonic aircraft.  --jwilkinson 21:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Request
The wording in this article makes it seem as though the vapor starts behind the shock, i.e. the first vertical rise of the N. Pressure, and temperature, increase across a shock wave. I am pretty sure that this phenomena is created at super-critical Mach numbers (M=~0.8 - 0.9) where the flow is in a compressible regime, but the craft is not traveling at supersonic speeds. As the flow accelerates around the bulging features it accelerates to Mach one, and then beyond as it expands supersonically over the diverging features. (Think Laval nozzle, or the flow over a supercritical airfoil.) Thus there is no N wave, there is notionally half an N wave, a region of supersonic expansion (M > 1) in some cone/wedge like regions which are terminated with a shock to decelerate the flow back to the free stream velocity. It is in this sonic region that the flow is expanding, thereby dropping the temperature and pressure causing the visible condensation. The shock that terminates the sonic region then increases the temperature causes the condensation to vaporize and disappear. Also see the last two subjects "Big Mistake " and "Prandtl-Glauert Singularity"

 * You are right. In addition, condensation clouds can occur whenever sufficiently wet air is moving into a low-pressure region: On wing-tip vortices, at the edges of flaps or rudders, in the intakes of civil jet engines (standing aircraft, engines near full-power: The air accelerates sharply into the intake). I've personally seen them several times as passenger in an A320 (both above the wing and at the edge of high-lift flaps), during landing approach on rainy days, just after descending through low-hanging clouds; a good opportunity is also on cloudy, humid days in the approach lane of a big airport. www.airliners.net has lots of pictures of this.
 * The cloud is completely independent of the Mach number or presence of a supersonic area, and is just wrongly attributed to those because the most famous examples include supersonic jets close to water.
 * The volume that has visible vapour in it marks the volume with sufficiently low pressure to cause condensation, which may or may not require locally supersonic conditions.138.250.80.173 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictures
I really think these pictures are interesting. Keep posting more. What kind of camera can catch the Prandtl-Glauert singularity? - Fat Tony

 * any normal camera or camcorder will do, though the effect can be quite short so the photographer has to be on his/her toes. See some of the videos of this effect.  There are also some photographers' details of how some of these shots were taken over at my site, Wilk4: Breaking the Sound Barrier jwilkinson 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a general effect. Rapid condensation occurs due to the air pressure falling lower than the local dew point. Transonic weak shocks are only one means of achieving this around aircraft. Manoeuvering aircraft can induce this effect without entering the compressible regime. In an highly accelerated subsonic turn the pressure can drop significantly around the top of the leading edge and induce the effect there. Nothing to do with the P-G rule. In fact the SU-35 picture is a case in point. This aircraft is manoeuvering at subsonic speeds. The condensation is forming in the low pressure cores of the vortices that are formed by the strakes at high angles of attack. Once the cores rupture down stream the effect is lost. What ever about the other photos relationship to the P-G rule this one has nothing to do with it. The source of the low pressure there is not due to compressibility effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonicusfacilis (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable technical information and photographic sources for the stunning Prandtl-Glauert condensation clouds
Collection of "Sound Barrier" tutorials by Dr. Mark S. Cramer. Covers the sonic boom, the sound barrier, and the Prandtl-Glauert condensation clouds. An authoritative site. Site URL: http://FluidMech.net
 * http://FluidMech.net/tutorials/sonic/sonicboom-intro.htm

"Prandtl-Glauert Condensation Clouds" tutorial by Dr. Mark S. Cramer. Part of the "Sound Barrier" collection of tutorials. The site is authoritative. Site URL: http://FluidMech.net
 * http://FluidMech.net/tutorials/sonic/prandtl-glauert-clouds.htm

"Gallery of Fluid Mechanics - Condensation due to the Prandtl-Glauert Singularity" by Dr. Mark S. Cramer. One of the best authenticated and documented photo collections of Prandtl-Glauert condensation clouds (alternatively, Prandtl-Glauert Singularity or Prandtl-Glauert clouds). The site really is an authority on the subject. Site URL: http://GalleryOfFluidMechanics.com
 * http://GalleryOfFluidMechanics.com/conden/pg_sing.htm

ChamorroBible.org, Tenjos (Agosto) 17, 2004, "Manguaeyayon na Palabran Si Yuus - God's Precious Words, with the Photograph of the Day". One of the best authenticated and documented photo collections of Prandtl-Glauert condensation clouds (alternatively, Prandtl-Glauert Singularity clouds or Prandtl-Glauert clouds). Eight photographs are included in Part 1 of 2 (August 17, 2004). All public domain. Site URL: http://ChamorroBible.org (generally referenced as "ChamorroBible.org" or the "Chamorro Bible" WWW site).
 * http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw-20040817.htm

ChamorroBible.org, Tenjos (Agosto) 18, 2004, "Manguaeyayon na Palabran Si Yuus - God's Precious Words, with The Photograph of the Day". One of the best authenticated and documented photo collections of Prandtl-Glauert condensation clouds (alternatively, Prandtl-Glauert Singularity or Prandtl-Glauert clouds). Eight additional photos in Part 2 of 2 (August 18, 2004). Included in this collection is a remarkable NASA photo of a Prandtl-Glauert cloud around the Apollo 11 Saturn V rocket at launchtime. All public domain. Site URL: http://ChamorroBible.org (generally referenced as "ChamorroBible.org" or the "Chamorro Bible" WWW site).
 * http://ChamorroBible.org/gpw/gpw-20040818.htm

--TheStudent 21:48, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

expand request
How about a simple graph to accompany (or supplant) the paragraph of text explaining the N curve? The text requires a couple of readings to understand. 72.14.224.1 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone could give an expansive discussion on this effect and it role in fluid dynamics - compressible fluids and newtonian fluids, etc; with some weighting in the mathematics, that would be wonderful. If not, des someone have a reference they could put out. Something heavier on the math/fluid dynmaics than what is currently there. Thanks much. Ya'll are the best! 128.62.97.227 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * see the links to Mark Cramer's explanations. jwilkinson 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I tagged this for merger with Prandtl-Glauert method, which doesn't contain enough information to indicate whether it should really be a separate topic. From what I can tell, the "method" is simply one way of deriving the equation of the singularity. If I'm wrong here, then that article certainly needs expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the topic, but from what I ascertained I agree. 23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Prandtl-Glauert singularity
The phenomenon is not necessarily airspeed related; it occurs when there is a change in air pressure. According to Bernoulli's principle, the airflow across the top of the wing is faster than that across the bottom because the wings are cambered, and the airflow over the top has further to travel in the same amount of time. This creates a high pressure beneath the wing, and low pressure on top. The two pressure areas attempt to swap, which is what creates wingtip vortices. Increasing the airflow (with airspeed, for example) will increase the difference between the high and low pressure areas, which creates lift. As the Prandtl-Glauert Singularity suggests, the drop in air pressure can drop the air temperature below the dew point, which causes visible moisture.

While Prandtl-Glauert Singularity seems to be specific to airspeed related visible moisture, there there is another way to create this effect -- an effect fighter pilots refer to as "vapes." It usually occurs in humid air during high-G maneuvering. We've all seen this airshows before; it forms on the wings and leading edge extensions of aircraft like the F-16 and F-18.

Big mistake
Gentlemen, I think there is a big mistake here. What you call the Prandtl-Glauert singularity,is not what is really happening to the airplane. Prandtl and Glauert did not work together. There is a rule that have their names, but they work on it separatedly. It is based on potential flow, small disturbances, and it is used to correct the perfect flow around a body due to compressibility. But, instead of that, Prandtl worked with Theodor Meyer 8one of his students) to modelize shock and expansion waves. What we are viewing in this photographs is that. expansion flow, with Mach waves (sound waves). The aircraft is flying subsonic, but it has a Mach number greater that the critical one. Then there is supersonic flow over the airplane. For those parts were an expansion (cockpit, tail before the local shock)occurs the humidity of the air is condensed. You can find an introduction on this subject in "Foundations of aerodynamics" Kuethe-Chow. Hope this helps. [Carlos Gayer]190.48.115.60 06:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I believe that the "Prandtl-Glauert-singularity-clowd" is more like an urban myth. So far nobody could explain, where the singularity is. Neither a shock wave nor a steady pressure drop into a condensation condition describes a singularity. There must be an error here. Is there anybody with a good aerodynmics textbook who can explain? 88.217.24.161 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Prandtl-Glauert Transformation" is a mathematical method that was developed and taught by Ludwig Prandtl but first published by Glauert. This method enables one to extend potential flow methods (which are only for strictly incompressible flow) to compressible flows. It becomes physically incorrect above M = 0.7! There is a nice article on it in the German Wikipedia ( -- anyone care to translate it?). The Prandtl-Glauert Singularity is not an observable phenomenon described by the theory but the reason why it is invalid at M = 1. Following the formula, pressure would go to Infinity at the speed of sound and then switch signs. Which is obviously not physical, thus ... sorry, you'll need to change this article :( --129.247.247.239 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Carlos is right here. The correct explanation for the visible phenomenon is this: In transonic flight (inflow Mach Number slightly < 1) there are some supersonic regions, mainly on the wing or behind the cockpit of the aircraft. When flying low in humid air (the F-18 in the picture was next to an aircraft carrier, I believe), Water condensates in the supersonic region. At the shock, temperature, pressure and density increase, thus the rear end of the cloud nicely marks the shock location. Sometimes you can see a similar effect in landing passenger aircraft, where water condensates in the core of flap- or wing-tip vortices (where pressure is also very low).

 * I translated the German article, see Prandtl-Glauert transformation. Besides this I fully agree that the "Prandtl-Glauert singularity" is a purely mathematical problem, and it is not related to the condensation clouds seen in the pictures. Maybe "Prandtl-Glauert singularity" just sounds very eloquent so people tend to use it too often... ;) NickFr (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So why does the article say otherwise? It is an example of a mathematical singularity in aerodynamics. The German article about the cloud phenomenon is separate from the article about the singularity, and it says that it's incorrect to conflate the phenomenon with the mathematical singularity: Eine Singularität gibt es in Wirklichkeit nicht.--87.162.40.71 (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I have done some editing to try and clairfy this situation. Key points: there is no actual singularity - the tranformation is not valid for the speeds. Still, extreme pressures exist and this can result in condensation. --Kvng (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Flag Picture
In a science article like this, in a politically neutral encyclopedia, the U.S. flag shouldn't be on the foreground starring the picture. Please change or modify the picture. Thank you very much. --158.42.244.159 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As German I don't feel offended by the picture mentioned above. It's from the 60s (nearly historic, space race age) and I don't see any political tendencies in using it. However if someone else does, this one here will do the job as well. Regards NickFr (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Apollo 11 at Max Q?
I've marked the reference to Max Q as dubious because, though I know nothing about fluid dynamics, the altitude pictured looks too low for Max Q. According to the sources in the Max Q article, the Apollo launches reached max Q at around 8-9 miles up. That's what it sounds like from the NASA's recording of the launch in the Apollo 11 flight journal. Given that the Saturn V was 101.6 metres tall, either the U.S. flag in the image was almost microscopically small, or the vapour cloud happened at a far lower altitude. Or have I missed something? - Pointillist (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the flag just simply a lot closer to the camera than the Apollo is? It looks legit to me. Ehque (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think angular diameter calculations allow the spacecraft to be so high. Here's how I see it:
 * Assume the flag is four feet tall (1.22 metres). Given that the spacecraft is 101.6m tall and the flag is about 18% taller than the spacecraft in the original image, the spacecraft must be about 100 times further from the camera than the top of the flagpole.
 * If the condensation happened at Max Q, by then the spacecraft was 13.6km high (table 4-1 in Apollo 11 launch vehicle flight evaluation report) so the flagpole would have to be roughly 136m tall. But that's impossible, because in 2001 the world's tallest unsupported flagpole was only 86m tall (per this BBC story).  Even if the condensation happened at Mach 1, the spacecraft was already 7.8km high by then which would make the flagpole about 78 metres tall (256 ft).  That's pretty unlikely.
 * Another factor is the thin cloud in the background, which (per para A.3 of the evaluation report) is either 1/10 Cumulus at 700m or 2/10 Altocumulus at 4.6km - far lower than the altitude at Mach 1, let alone Max Q.
 * So the Max Q suggestion is probably rubbish.
 * Personally (this is just speculation) I think this picture probably shows the flag pole at the KSC Press Site (which is maybe 12-15m tall) and was taken much earlier in the flight. - 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a composite photo, light sources between the Flag pole and the Apollo are completely different. I submit it is a Max Q event photographed through a telescopic lens. Then post composited likely (given its age) through dye transfer retouching (very old school) Ice Czar (talk) comment added 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Ice Czar, it's a composite photo. It could be a real photo, but that would have taken being in a really lucky position, and being really lucky snapping the shot, but I doubt it.

Looking at the Apollo 9 launch journal (http://history.nasa.gov/ap09fj/001_day01_launch.htm) and assuming them to be pretty similar, Mach 1 would have been achieved at +00:01:08, and Max Q at +00:01:25. Myself, being that I don't work for NASA, and this happened 4 years before I was born, I am not an expert in it, but I would place the photo closer to +00:01:08.

JW Smythe (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the image close up, it looks like a painting.

alex-thong (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.20.205 (talk)

Max Q is ruled out by the fact that Prandtl-Glauert singularities are transsonic phenomena, i.e. Mach 1; as JW Smythe points out, Mach 1 came 17 seconds earlier in the flight than max Q. As to the composite photo issue, Ice Czar is correct, the sunlight on Apollo 11 is from the right, while that on the flagpole (note the ball on top) is from the left. This is unambiguously a composite shot. The anonymous speculations about the height of the flagpole are flat wrong; possible variations in shooting angle and focal length make any attempt to deduce the flagpole's height completely fruitless. In deriving and applying the factor-of-100 height ratio, Mr. Anonymous is making major assumptions that just aren't valid. I could shoot just such a shot using a 1-foot-high flag on a 10-foot pole. It wouldn't even be terribly lucky, provided I set the camera up in advance; at a height of 7.8 km, the angular speed of the rocket is relatively slow (I was 7 at the time, and watched this and later Apollo launches on TV), so split-second timing isn't necessary. As to the cloudy "background", the yellow-orange glow around the exhaust plume pretty clearly shows that the clouds are below the spacecraft, not above. SeanWillard (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilson cloud

Operation Crossroads mentions the formation of a "Wilson cloud" following the detonation of an atom bomb at Bikini Atoll. The same photo is shown in this article. Is a Wilson Clud the same thing as a Prandtl–Glauert singularity? Can we coordinate our terms and make sure we're being consistent? See also Talk:Operation Crossroads.  Will Beback   talk    09:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Prandtl–Glauert singularity rainbow
The PGS can also make rainbows.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/the_physics_of_a_fighter_jet_r.php

Hcobb (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Too technical? Too much jargon
I don't get this...I think....possibly...I'm not sure if I understand it....particularly the second sentence of the introduction, and I took AP Physics in the mid-80s, getting a 4. I should know if I get this or not. I am just too confused by all jargon. I am not sure if I have understood the jargon correctly. I think that I can figure it out but it should be clearer and in less technical language. Perhaps "singularity," "transformation" and "apply" should be defined or other wording used. What is being transformed? And what is it being transformed into? As for "apply", what is being applied to what? One applies nail polish and paint. Or applies oneself to a task. How does one apply a transformation? A transformation may occur after something is applied, but how can that be invalid. I hope you see my point. "Applying the transformation" might be a phrase that engineers and scientist understand; I don't see too many others understanding it.

The whole "N wave" discussion should be moved down if not junked altogether.

I came to this article because I saw the photography of the F/A-18 with the cloud and wanted to see if it was real or somehow digitally enhanced. I now think that it is real and is a cloud caused by condensation, condensation in turned created by the sound wave, I think. The Bikini Atoll picture is interesting; I always though that cloud was caused by ocean water being raised into the air by the explosion. Now I am not too sure. Maybe it is water that was in the air and is being formed into a cloud be the explosion's shockwave. I think that this article should basically answer that question in layman's terms: Why is there this odd looking cloud attached to the F-18? is it a cloud? What made it? Since I can't be sure if I understand the article, I cannot edit it for clarity. --Bruce Hall (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Over at the Sonic Boom article it says this "Rapid condensation of water vapor due to a sonic shock produced at sub-sonic speed creates a vapor cone (known as a Prandtl–Glauert singularity), which can be seen with the naked eye" That makes sense to me, though it still could be tweaked.  Having "sonic shock" and "sub-sonic" in the same sentence is probably confusing to some.  Perhaps better: "Sound waves produced at sub-sonic speed causes water in the air to condense creating a vapor cone (known as a Prandtl–Glauert singularity), which can be seen by the naked eye." But then again I don't know if that vapor cone is the singularity or not. --Bruce Hall (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy and Relevance of This Article
This article handles at least three relatively unrelated subjects, and not all of them that accurately...

The Prandtl-Glauert singularity is not really about the pressure of a shock wave, it's about the forces experienced by an aircraft traveling at high-subsonic or supersonic speeds. The subsonic speeds, the Prandtl-Glauert transformation predicts that the lift and drag forces on an aircraft are proportional to the inverse of the square root of one minus the Mach number squared. At Mach 1, this would indicate that the force on the body is infinite. This is the Prandtl-Glauert singularity (and the reason why some engineers of the early 20th Century thought of the "sound barrier" as impenetrable).

The section on "Pressure Profile" all appears to be accurate enough, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Prandtl-Glauert singularity. This would belong much more in an article on the N-Wave. My one complaint is that the region of expansion behind a shock wave where the pressure might be reduced below the dew point is not "part of the shock wave." In an inviscid flow, shock waves are discrete, discontinuous phenomena of infinitesimal thickness. In a real, viscous flow, they are only slightly more thick than that. This region of rarefaction is more properly referred to at the "expansion region."

The images of vapor cones again have nothing whatsoever to do with the Prandtl-Glauert singularity. They're not even really all that connected to supersonic flow, though they do frequently occur at high-subsonic and low-supersonic speeds. Vapor cones are the result of regions of extremely low pressures around an aircraft (such as the lower peak of an N-Wave). This can potentially happen at any flight condition. The region right behind a shock wave is a region of extremely high pressure.

--VallWoodshadow (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In the process of making some changes, but I think all of the vapor cone material should be moved into a separate page, as it is really not the same phenomenon. It may be a common perception that vapor cones are related to the Prandtl-Glauert singularity, but that's really not true.

--VallWoodshadow (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I absolutely agree with this. The vapor cone images should be removed entirely, and we should make an attempt to remove references to the Prandtl–Glauert singularity from other articles relating to vapor cones. Dziban303 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost 10 years has passed since your comment, but the article is still in the same misleading state. The current state of affairs (correct me if I am wrong) is that there are the following 3 things:

-There is PG singularity, which a prediction of an incorrect theory and is not an observable phenomenon;

-there is condensation happening in the regions of low pressure, both in low-speed regime (above the wing) and in supersonic regime (in a cone). None of that has anything to do with PG singularity;

-there is a "PG effect", sometimes also called "PG singularity", which is apparently just an urban myth, coming from the confusion of the above two things, and to my understanding "PG effect" is not mentioned in books on fluid dynamics. Yet, this term seem to live its own life on the internet, usually accompanying blog posts, pictures, and videos with planes and vapor.

Because of this confusion, it could make sense to make a section, or even a separate article, about this urban myth with explanation.24.17.214.179 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)anon

Prandtl-Glauert Singularity vs. vapor condensation from maneuvering?
It would be nice to see an explanation in the difference between the Prandtl-Glauert Singularity and the vapor condensation that is formed over a wing that is at a high angle of attack. I see many people confusing the two, and I believe that the picture of the F-16 in the "transonic" Wiki article is actually demonstrating vapor condensation and not a Prandtl-Glauert Singularity. (75.65.220.204 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

title: Talk:Prandtl–Glauert singularity


text:
List of laws

This is a list of "laws" applied to various disciplines. These are often adages or predictions with the appellation 'Law', although they do not apply in the legal sense, cannot be scientifically tested, or are intended only as rough descriptions (rather than applying in each case). These 'laws' are sometimes called rules of thumb.

See List of legal topics for 'laws' in the legal sense.

See List of scientific laws for falsifiable laws that are said to apply universally and literally.

General

 * Benford's law
 * Hilt's law
 * Stigler's law of eponymy
 * Goodhart's law

Astronomy and cosmology

 * Hubble's law
 * Titius–Bode law
 * Dermott's law

Technology

 * Amdahl's law (maximum possible speed-up to a parallel program when adding more computing power)
 * Bell's law of computer classes (corollary to Moore's law for computer class formation)
 * Brooks's law
 * Conway's law
 * Dennard scaling
 * Engelbart's law
 * Eroom's law
 * Godwin's law (Prediction of internet debating patterns)
 * Grosch's law
 * Gustafson's law
 * Haitz's law – analog to Moore's law for LEDs
 * Hick's law
 * Kryder's law
 * Koomey's law
 * Landauer's principle
 * Linus's law (software development)
 * Metcalfe's law
 * Moore's law (hardware development)
 * Neven's law
 * Reed's law
 * Swanson's law
 * Wirth's law
 * Wright's law
 * Zimmerman's law

Economic

 * Laws of supply and demand
 * Gresham's law
 * Say's law
 * Law of diminishing marginal utility
 * Ricardo's law
 * Okun's law

Linguistic
See also Glossary of sound laws in the Indo-European languages
 * Aitken's Law - synchronic rule in Scottish varieties of English
 * Bartholomae's law - regarding historical sound changes in Indo-Iranian
 * Bartsch's law - regarding historical sound changes in French
 * Brugmann's law - regarding historical sound changes in Indo-Iranian
 * Dahl's law - synchronic rule in Bantu languages
 * Dorsey's law - synchronic rule in Winnebago
 * Grassmann's law - regarding historical sound changes in ancient Greek and Sanskrit
 * Grimm's law – regarding historical sound changes in Proto-Germanic
 * Hirt's law - regarding historical sound changes in Balto-Slavic
 * Osthoff's law - regarding historical sound changes in Indo-European
 * Pedersen's law - regarding historical sound changes in Balto-Slavic
 * Philippi's law - regarding historical sound changes in Biblical Hebrew
 * Verner's law - an exception to Grimm's law
 * Wackernagel's law - regarding position of clitics in syntax
 * Whorf's law - regarding historical sound changes in Proto-Uto-Aztecan
 * Winter's law - regarding historical sound changes in Balto-Slavic

Mathematical

 * Associative Law of Addition
 * Associative Law of Multiplication
 * Commutative law of addition
 * Commutative Law of Multiplication
 * Distributive laws
 * Law of large numbers

Science fiction authors

 * Clarke's three laws
 * Niven's laws
 * Sturgeon's law
 * Three Laws of Robotics (Isaac Asimov's fictional set of laws)
 * Wizard's First Rule (law)

Biological

 * Bergmann's rule
 * Llinás' law
 * Briffault's law
 * Kleiber's law
 * Rensch's rule
 * Rubner's law

Related lists

 * List of eponymous laws
 * List of scientific laws named after people

title: List of laws