text:
Winning Streak (Irish game show)

Winning Streak is an Irish television game show. The show was broadcast weekly in Ireland between 1990 and 2020 on RTÉ One. Typical episodes of the show would see contestants take part in a number of games to win cars, holidays, and cash prizes up to €500,000.

Broadcast as RTÉ's flagship Saturday night show between early September and late May (however from 1990 until 1993 it was aired on Friday nights), the show brought consistently high ratings for the channel, often ranking among the top five in the ratings and at one point held the feat of being Europe's second longest-running game show (behind only Channel 4's Countdown). However, there was a significant drop in viewership during the 2008/2009 series.

The show was normally produced in RTE's Studio 1 at their Television Centre in Dublin.

The show first aired on 21 September 1990 with host Mike Murphy (1990–2001) and Derek Mooney (2001–2008). Prize money for the show is funded by the National Lottery, with entry to the game based on National Lottery scratchcards.

Mooney stepped down as the show's host at the end of the 2007–08 season. The 2008–09 season was rebranded Winning Streak: Dream Ticket and was co-hosted by Kathryn Thomas and Aidan Power. They were the first duo to host the programme and Thomas was the show's first permanent female presenter. Aidan Power stood down, after the 2008/09 season ended on 6 June 2009, because of his commitments to the RTÉ's youth-orientated programme, The Cafe, as well as presenting on The All Ireland Talent Show in early 2010. Marty Whelan stepped into Aidan's shoes, co-hosting the 2009/10 series with Kathryn, which aired from 12 September 2009 (reverting to its original name Winning Streak) until 29 May 2010. Kathryn was later replaced with Geri Maye, who presented alongside Whelan until 2013, when Sinéad Kennedy assumed the role of co-host.

Winning Streak was cancelled in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland. In February 2023, it was confirmed that the show had finished, although RTÉ remained open to a potential reboot in the future, with an updated format for a modern audience.

Format
During each episode, five contestants play a series of chance-based minigames in order to win cash and prizes. Contestants are chosen from a drawing of qualifying Winning Streak scratchcards from a tombola drum.

The specific games played have varied across the programme's run, but each episode had concluded with a competitive round (currently known as the "Wheel Reveal") to determine who will spin the big wheel for a chance at the programme's grand prize. In its present form, each contestant stands at a podium with five numbered tubes—three of them concealing a wheel. A lottery machine (referred to as "the bubble") randomly selects one of the five contestants using a set of numbered balls (with two for each contestant), who then reveals one of their tubes by lifting it up. In some eras of the programme, contestants were given, or could earn free picks from the spaces before the bubble is activated.

The first contestant to reveal their three wheels advances to the big wheel, which contains different segments each with their own prize value. When the wheel is spun, a ball bounces around, and the contestant wins whichever prize the ball rests on.

Mike Murphy era (1990–2001)
The programme was initially presented by Mike Murphy. In its original format, the show began with the "Scratch Card Game", where each contestant got three "scratches" on their card, which won them cars, holidays or cash. This was followed by "Treasure Ireland", where contestants chose from six of Ireland's counties to reveal prizes. One county concealed the "Gold" space, which allowed the contestant to play the "Goldmine" game: a contestant sat before a table with 7 buttons on it. Six of them were worth increasing amounts of money, eventually building up to a final jackpot for getting all six. However, pressing the remaining button, "The Eliminator", ended the game.

This was then followed by the final "Win & Spin" game to determine who would spin the wheel. The contestants initially had to reveal four numbered spaces containing letters from the word "spin". This was later changed to only needing to find three spaces with the letters of the word "win". The jackpot on the big wheel was IR£250,000 (€317,434); the lowest cash prize was IR£10,000 (€12,697). Each time the jackpot wasn't won, another black IR£250,000 segment was added to the wheel the next week. For the 2000–01 series (Murphy's last), a new jackpot was added of IR£500,000 (€634,869), and a new segment added to the wheel. There were no additions made for this amount, but the IR£250,000 rule was still applied.

In later series, the opening game was now a car game, with contestants assigned a specific make of car, and winning said car if they pick a matching space from five options. Treasure Ireland now presented 16 counties, with some concealing cash and prizes as before, but some containing free picks for Spin & Win, and some containing minigames such as the Goldmine, the "Diamond Dilemma" (where the contestant chose from a set of "diamonds", and could either take a guaranteed IR£10,000 prize, or open the diamond to reveal a prize of up to IR£20,000), the "Compass" (a compass-themed wheel with cash prizes), or "Spin the Wheel" (where a contestant spun a wheel twice, winning the highest amount they land on). If unclaimed, Spin the Wheel is played automatically by the player who won the least in the round.

2001–04
In 2001, Murphy left RTÉ to pursue other ventures, and retired from presenting Winning Streak after the 2000–01 series. Derek Mooney became the new presenter of Winning Streak in September 2001, with the programme concurrently receiving a major visual and format revamp.

"Treasure Ireland" remained the opening round of the programme, which now featured the contestants picking Irish locations and landmarks to be visited by Streak—the programme's new animated robot mascot—for a chance to win cash and holidays, as well as collect "bonus wheels". At certain stages, contestants could use a "Lo" option to remove the selection with the smallest prize, or "No" to reject their selection and pick again. Contestants received one bonus wheel for free, and can collect up to three additional bonus wheels during Treasure Ireland. They are redeemed in the second round—"Cash 'Em or Keep 'Em"—to play a minigame awarding cash prizes, choosing from either the Diamond Dilemma (one wheel; worth up to €12,000), the "Ball Drum" (two wheels; contestants launched seven billiard balls numbered 6 to 15 into a swirling drum, and the contestant winning €1,000 multiplied by the value of the ball that finishes in the centre), or the Compass (three wheels, worth up to €25,000).

Also in this series, the "Phoneplay" game was introduced, where three home players (selected from players who entered using a code on the Winning Streak scratchcard were randomly selected to pick from one of three spaces; two contain cash prizes between €1,000 and €2,500, and the other contains the star prize of a new car.

Win & Spin was played almost identically to before (with three winning spaces, now denoted by wheel symbols hidden behind graphics of Streak), except that free picks were no longer given to each contestant before the bubble was activated, and leftover bonus wheels not redeemed in the previous round were turned into additional winning spaces. As this was seen as providing an unfair advantage in a game of chance, the bonus wheels were replaced later in the series by "Golden Euros", which could instead add bonus spaces to Win & Spin that awarded €10,000 cash when revealed. With the switch to the Euro currency, the wheel now contained a top prize of €500,000. If the contestant landed on the lowest €10,000 space, they now received a second spin that was also added to their total, which allowed a contestant to theoretically win up to €510,000.

In the 2003–04 series, the Diamond Dilemma game now cost two Golden Euros to play, and the Ball Drum was removed and replaced by "Roulette", which offered prizes from €3,000 to €10,000; the game cost a minimum of one Golden Euro, but contestants could spend additional Golden Euros to add additional balls, winning the total value of whatever spaces they land in. In the second half of the series, from January to June, all Golden Euros had to be used in Cash 'Em or Keep 'Em. That meant that players with just the one they started with played Roulette, two, Diamond Dilemma, and so on. The player got just two balls to play with in Roulette.

From September to December 2003, three additional players were drawn from the tombola each week to qualify for a New Year's Eve special, Winning Streak: Millionaire, where 45 contestants competed to win a grand prize of €1,000,000. During the second half of the series, contestants were similarly selected for a Fun in the Sun special, where contestants competed to win won a holiday home in Spain. In addition, "The Sliding Door Game" was played before Treasure Ireland, where contestants picked one of five 'sliding doors' on a board to win cash prizes.

2004–08
For the 2004–05 series, the studio was updated to feature a touchscreen, which is now used for selected games (such as Treasure Ireland and the revived Goldmine). In The Sliding Door Game, now only 2 of the doors contain money. One has €5,000, the other has €6,000. Two of them allow the contestant that chooses them to play Diamond Dilemma. They are numbered 1 and 2 to determine who plays that game first. The final door lets that player play the Goldmine. In the second round, which now doesn't have a name. three cars are now also hidden amongst the cash prizes in the Diamond Dilemma, and the cheque value has now been reduced to €6,000. For each week a car isn't won, another is added to the game the next week. In the Goldmine, there are 7 "scuttles" on the screen, and the player gets two free attempts. From the third guess onwards, the Eliminator comes into play. If the player gets to the end without hitting it, they win a car. One player was drawn each week to go through to a special week-long series over the Christmas period, Winning Streak: Winner Takes All.

In 2005, a "Doubler" feature was added throughout the show (mirroring a similar feature on that series' scratchcards), with Doubler spaces in selected games allowing players to double their winnings. The contestant with the least amount of money at the end of the show gets their total doubled if the contestant who spins the wheel lands on one of 25 slots on the wheel with the Doubler symbol.

Winning Streak celebrated 15 years on air with the 2005–2006 series. The format was largely unchanged from the last series, and scratchcards still carried the Doubler for the first half of the series. From 31 December 2005—11 March 2006, Laura Woods served as guest presenter while Mooney hosted RTÉ's music competition You're a Star.

The Doubler feature was removed in 2006. There was now a car available in the Sliding Door Game, but it is no longer available in the Goldmine. Instead avoiding the Eliminator until the end wins the player an extra €25,000. Only one player now plays Diamond Dilemma. There are now 12 silver diamonds and 3 gold diamonds. The silver diamonds contain cash prizes between €3,000 and €10,000, plus one 'Extra'. If the player chose the 'Extra', then they get to choose one of the three gold diamonds, which contain prizes between €25,000 and €50,000. The cheque to walk away from the game with is now worth €7,500. On the wheel, the show returned to placing an additional €250,000 space to the wheel every time said prize was not won.

2008–2020
In 2008, Winning Streak underwent its second major revamp, with new co-presenters Kathryn Thomas and Aidan Power, and being retitled Winning Streak: Dream Ticket for this series. Contestants were now guaranteed at least €20,000 for their participation and one of those had a chance of winning €250,000.

A new series began on 12 September 2009, with Marty Whelan replacing Power (who then landed a job on The All Ireland Talent Show). Near the end of the season, the jackpot of €500,000 was won. Síle Seoige replaced Kathryn Thomas as co-presenter with Marty Whelan for the 16 January 2010 episode while Thomas was filming in Trinidad and Tobago. Marty also took time off for the Eurovision Song Contest, with guest presenters such as John Creedon, Brian Ormond, and Dáithí Ó Sé filling in for him.

On 21 December 2011, Geri Maye was announced as the new co-presenter, alongside Marty Whelan. She had previously presented the Dream Maker Wheel segment. She replaced Kathryn Thomas. She presented until the 2013–2014 season when Sinead Kennedy replaced her.

On 4 January 2014, for the first time ever, a new €1,000,000 slot was introduced on the wheel. On 18 October 2014, Nuala Carey stood in for Sinead Kennedy, who was celebrating her wedding. It was announced in December 2014 that the show would be moved to a "summer slot" instead of the usual autumn to spring slot from 2015 onwards. Instead Nicky Byrne would host The Million Euro Challenge. It was confirmed by Marty Whelan that Winning Streak would be back on RTÉ One on Saturday 20 June 2015 and would run each Saturday night throughout the summer. However The Million Euro Challenge"was axed after one series bringing Winning Streak back to its autumn-spring slot.

As the COVID-19 pandemic hit Ireland, Winning Streak was suspended on 21 March 2020, with RTÉ issuing a statement in January 2021 saying that Winning Streak would remain off-air for 'the foreseeable future'. In February 2022, reports emerged that the broadcaster were considering plans to reboot the show, but it was later confirmed that there was no plans to bring back Winning Streak following its hiatus.

title: Winning Streak (Irish game show)


text:
Talk:Ballistic missile

Definition
This article doesn't make clear to me what differentiates a ballistic missile, like the V-2, from earlier experiments in rocketry. The first liquid-fueled rocket was the one built by Robert Goddard in 1926. Evidently "ballistic missile" means one possessing some characteristics that Goddard's rocket lacked, but the article doesn't explain this point. JamesMLane 15:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The article doesn't explain this point because it would cause a lot of confusion. The expression "ballistic missile" has been misused for so long that it seems impossible to turn the usage of this expression back to what it really means. A "ballistic missile" is a projectile without any propelling system, for example a cannonball made out of solid iron. Its trajectory is a parabola, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ideal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg

 * But the expression "ballistic missile" has been used for so long for weapons which are obvious "non-ballistic" because they are propelled by a rocket or some other kind of motor. A "non-ballistic" weapon like the Nazi V-2 or the modern Tomahawk cruise missile can take many different trajectories towards the target, because it has a motor and direction changing devices. In a world where "non-ballistic" weapons are called "ballistic missiles" there is no easy way to re-form the language back to what it really means, and what it meant before people started building "non-ballistic" weapons and they, for some strange reason decided to call them "ballistic missiles".

 * (The strange reason is probably that the people who calculated ballistic trajectories of old iron cannonballs formed a group of "ballistics experts", and they had already coined the term "ballistics" so later the trajectories of all weapons launched through the air was handled by the ballistics experts group. And once they had formed a group of "ballistics experts" they wanted to control also the new "non-ballistic" projectiles, so they boldly called "non-ballistic" projectiles "ballistic missiles"). This shows how a close-knit group of people, like the "ballistics experts", can change the meaning of words to the opposite when it is in their interest. Human group bonds are stronger than logic and languages. Roger491127 (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What a nonsense!

Mainly the distinction is that ballistic missiles are intended as weapons. Goddard's first rocket was an experiment in propulsion and rocket design; it was not a weapon. There are also a number of features common to all ballistic missiles that had not been figured out yet in the early days of rocketry - putting the rocket engine below the payload instead of above is a notable one. Ballistic missiles also require a sophisticated control system if they are to impact sufficiently near their target; since Goddard's was not a weapon, it lacked such a system. Not that all modern ballistic missiles are great in that area, either - the Scud (basically a modified V-2) is infamous for its inaccuracy in its early variants. --Fasrad 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A ballistic missile is a MISSILE, i. e., by defenition, a guided weapon with internal source of propulsion. Iron cannonballs never was missiles.
 * Ballistic missiles are exactly ballistic in the very same sense iron cannonballs are. The motor and and the guidance devices of a ballistic missile operate only during a short initial period of the flight (and, in some novel designs, during a short terminal period). After burnout (i. e. termination of operation of the motor) a ballistic missile travels exactly like a big cannonball (or an artillery shell). This is the reason why "people who calculated ballistic trajectories of old iron cannonballs" contributed to the theory and design of the new weapon. But most influential group in the field of ballistic missiles was formed by "rocket scientists" like Von Braun, who generally lacked a "cannonball pedegree".46.16.177.18 (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that according to the definition given there were many weapons before the V-2 that were ballistic missiles. Rockets have been used as weapons for a long time (see the article History of rockets), and once the engine had finished firing, they were ballistic. (They were not cruise missiles.) I'm gonna take out the sentence saying that the V-2 was the first. If someone can give a different definition (with reference) then maybe the V-2 will qualify. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture size
Pictures corrected and made to the default size of 250 pix. Additon of Agni-series. --Chanakyathegreat 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Shahab missiles

 * Given that the Shahab-4 & 5 have been cancelled and never actually manufactured what is the point in even mentioning them in the article (as missiles that never existed!)? Kiumars

What does this mean, anyway?
Hi.

I saw this: "These missiles can have an impact on the ground that can cause massive damage. These missiles can make a 35 mile crater and have an effect up to over 1200 km. The explosion may only affect 3/4 of the blast but all people will die in days from radiation."

It's not the impact itself that causes the damage, it's the detonation of the nuclear warheads. Also, how can it affect a 1200-km radius? Is this referring to the nuclear fallout, or the blast itself? Does it have to do with atmospheric focusing? And wouldn't a 35-mile crater require a much bigger explosion than any nuke we've ever built (that is about 1/3 the size of the Chicxulub crater!)? Is there a cite for this? mike4ty4 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This was removed a while ago. It isn't the missile that causes the damage; it's the warhead. The amount of the damage the warhead does depends on the size or power of the device as measured in megatons. Gingermint (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Missile Types
I noticed that someone gave the missile types for all Chinese ballistic missiles, but for most other nations, it either says their country name or nothing at all. It would be useful if someone were to change all that. I would, but some of the linked articles have unsourced statements to what type of missile it is (i.e. France's Hades missile is said to be SRBM but there is no source for that information), and I don't have the expertise myself. Mgraham1985 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

massive vandalism
someone is deleting a lot of articles, using anonmous ip addresses, and one of the administrators protect this article so it can only be edited by registered members.

Flight Trajectory
The "Flight" section defines three stages of flight, the third being to re-enter the atmosphere. But the Intro tells us that some ballistic missiles don't leave the atmosphere. I have modified the text by moving a sentence from another section to clarify the distinction—but an expert opinion would be helpful to ensure that my edit is accurately worded.

india using kn-23 ballistic missiles from north korea
yeah i dont even think i have to explain how stupid this is Kwangila (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

List of missiles used in combat
Does this list already include whatever Yemen fired at Israel over the last few days? 79.181.117.237 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Feel free to ask at Quora or elsewhere. Wikipedia's talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles. — kashmīrī  TALK  09:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kashmiri, the IP editor question was specifically related to this article and discussion of improvements of it. Please don't bite the newcomers. You should note that this article has a section listing ballistic missiles that have been used in combat, and the IP editor was rightly asking whether that list yet includes the types that Yemen (or rather, Houthi movement in Yemen) has fired at Israel. That is a completely correct use of this talk page and a discussion regarding article improvement. Based on our relevant article on Houthi involvement in the Israel Hamas War, the ballistic missiles that they have fired at Israel are not currently the combat use list here, which should be corrected. Please assume good faith in the future, and maybe tone down the snark. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @OuroborosCobra: I don't see it that way. The IP user did not write: "Can you add missile X to the list", which may indeed improve the article. Instead, they came and demanded from Wikipedia editors to be told the model of the missiles fired at Israel from Yemen. This is precisely the type of question that's asked at Quora or other forums, not on Wikipedia talk pages which are dedicated to work on articles. — kashmīrī  TALK  15:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They never even mentioned asking what model missiles were used and did not make any demands at all. The section title directly refers to the list section of this article, and then they asked if a very recently used ballistic missile was on the list. If you cannot handle simple, politely worded requests without treating them as "demands," then perhaps talk page editing on Wikipedia isn't for you? You are being unnecessarily aggressive and attacking. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They were not listed yet, but now are. Thank you. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Ballistic missile


text:
Butt (unit)

The butt is an obsolete English measure of liquid volume equalling two hogsheads, being between 450 and 1060 L by various definitions.

Equivalents
A butt approximately equated to 108 impgal for ale or 126 impgal for wine (also known as a pipe), although the Oxford English Dictionary notes that "these standards were not always precisely adhered to".

The butt is one in a series of English wine cask units, being half of a tun.

title: Butt (unit)


text:
Nonius (crater)

Nonius is a lunar impact crater. It is located in the rugged southern highlands on the Moon's near side. It was named after 16th century Portuguese mathematician Pedro Nunes, Latinized as Nonius. The northwestern side and about half the interior floor are overlain by the rim and outer rampart of the walled plain Walther. About half its diameter to the southeast is the smaller crater Kaiser, and slightly farther to the south lies Fernelius.

The surviving rim of this crater has been damaged by multiple impacts, including the merged pair of Nonius K and Nonius L across the northern rim. The surviving outline is more hexagonal in shape than round. The interior floor has an uneven surface, with low ridges and a crater-formed gouge in the western half.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Nonius.

title: Nonius (crater)


text:
Former

A former is an object, such as a template, gauge or cutting die, which is used to form something such as a boat's hull. Typically, a former gives shape to a structure that may have complex curvature.

A former may become an integral part of the finished structure, as in an aircraft fuselage, or it may be removable, being used in the construction process and then discarded or re-used.

Aircraft formers
Formers are used in the construction of aircraft fuselage, of which a typical fuselage has a series from the nose cone to the empennage, typically perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The primary purpose of formers is to establish the shape of the fuselage and reduce the column length of stringers to prevent instability. Formers are typically attached to longerons, which support the skin of the aircraft.

The "former-and-longeron" technique (also called stations and stringers) was adopted from boat construction, and was typical of light aircraft built until the advent of structural skins, such as fiberglass and other composite materials. Many of today's light aircraft, and homebuilt aircraft in particular, are still designed in this way.

Disposable formers
A former may instead be a temporary shape over which a structure is built, the former subsequently being discarded in whole or part, as follows:
 * Strip-built boat construction uses formers over which thin plank strips are applied and glued. In some cases, some of the formers may be incorporated as structural ribs.
 * In civil engineering, bridge building, and architecture, arches may be built upon a wooden former, which is removed once the keystone is securely in place.

title: Former


text:
Talk:Carol Harris-Shapiro

from Vfd
On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/Carol Harris-Shapiro for a record of the discussion.

How About a Quote from the Book
There is that long quote from the Unitarian Journal which doesn't say anything of significance. We have some noted rabbis dissing the book. How about a well-chosen direct quote from the book?Sam* 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Carol Harris-Shapiro


text: User talk:82.121.191.163

title: User talk:82.121.191.163


text:
Talk:Vortex tube

Plagiarism claim
SEVERE PLAIGERISM!

This entire article, even including formatting, was ripped from. I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but someone should at least cite it...

-Leif

 * Actually, it's the other way around :) Look at the small print at the bottom of the page you referenced. Duk 16:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questionable claim
I question this claim under the references:
 * Van Ness, H.C. Understanding Thermodynamics, New York: Dover, 1969, starting on page 53. A discussion of the vortex tube in terms of conventional thermodynamics, which is able to explain it completely.

For this to be true in 1969 is very unlikely as there are many papers in the 1990s that cannot even claim this. I haven't read the reference in question, however, so I cannot disbute it directly. X2-PB 10:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The following discussion was written by the author of the GAMBLE theory: 24.62.112.163 (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)John G. Gamble jggcmg @Comcast.net

 * "For this to be true in 1969 is very unlikely" Why?  Josef Loschmidt first wrote about the gravito-thermal effect in the 19th century.  The fact that gravity induces both density and temperature gradients in tropospheres of all planets, as well as in the vortex tube, was generally acknowledge in 1969 I understand. I quote from this closing comment here ..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/#comment-909809

''"Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHG’s. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhD’s, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement." '' Douglas Cotton (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The physics is absolutely sound and will be proved by demonstration shortly. 24.62.112.163 (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)John G.Gamble

 * I don't think it's unreasonable to remove the text, at least on the simple grounds that it does not substantially aid the reader in understanding the topic. -- Taral 19:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please give some references that claim it is not understood. The point is that it does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics. GangofOne 00:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is true that it doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics, but those laws do not explain the mechanism behind the temperature separation within the tube. This is the point I was making. The latest authors atribute the effect to a number of different causes and it is likely that it is the result of a summation of different mechanisms all occuring at once. X2-PB 12:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "those laws do not explain the mechanism behind the temperature separation within the tube"

 * Yes they do actually. I came to this conclusion without knowing of the 1969 paper, and I still don't know what it says, but I'm guessing the author followed the same logic as I did. Very briefly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says the state of maximum entropy will evolve. That state thus is isentropic.  Hence (PE+KE) is homogeneous, and so there is a temperature gradient.

101.174.128.251 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

High pressure does not cause high temperature:

The paragraph in the article which wrongly claims high pressure causes high temperature should be removed.

It is the gravitational (centrifugal) force which acts on molecules that causes a density and temperature gradient. There is no direct action by gravity on pressure. Gravity (and centrifugal force) act on matter. Gravity sets up a state of hydrostatic equilibrium by acting on molecules and physically redistributing those molecules so as to form a density gradient with maximum entropy. That state (hydrostatic equilibrium) is also thermodynamic equilibrium because each is the (only possible) state with maximum entropy. So gravity forms both a density and temperature gradient. Then pressure is the result (not the cause) being proportional to the product of density and temperature.

Once you understand this, then it is easy to understand why the temperature gradient between the inner and outer regions is expected to be the (badly named) dry adiabatic lapse rate. Despite the name, it is just a thermal gradient of, in this case, about 20 to 50 million degrees per kilometer, which matches the observed values of around 100 to 250 degrees in about 5mm. There is nothing unexpected in this. If you had given me the data regarding revs/second and diameter of the tube, the temperature difference could have been calculated using the quotient of the acceleration due to the gravitational (centrifugal) force and the mean specific heat, which is about 1.0 for air. You should expect slightly different results with other gases having different specific heat.

So, all this is unsupported guesswork and should be deleted: From "One simple explanation is that the outer air is under higher pressure .... Peltier effect device, which uses electrical pressure (voltage) to move heat to one side of a dissimilar metal junction, causing the other side to grow cold."

Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I question the statement "The adiabatic expansion of the incoming gas, which cools the gas ..." because, if, for example you compress gas in a cylinder by moving a piston slowly half way down the cylinder you double the density but you don't make the individual modules move significantly faster since the slow movement of the piston is at a much slower speed than that of air molecules at sea level, namely about 1,700Km/hr. Even when you fly in plane at a significant fraction of that molecule speed the extra kinetic energy your whole body has does not make you hotter and nor does it make your warm coffee boil. When you let go of the piston the air expands but does not cool significantly. After all, why would your just allowing the molecules to have more space to move in slow down their velocity?  I agree that there may be some increase in the molecular kinetic energy when such fast speeds are involved as in the vortex tube, but I can't say I know that for certain. Does it make the increase in temperature for the hot air to be greater in magnitude than the decrease in temperature for the cool air?
 * However, the overriding process in this force field is the same process that occurs when gravity forms the tropospheric temperature gradient in planets everywhere. It does so at the molecular level because that gradient is the state of maximum entropy (ie thermodynamic equilibrium) and the reason I say that is that in any natural thermodynamic process when entropy has to be increasing in that process (or in a combination of interacting thermodynamic systems) there is a corresponding reduction in unbalanced energy potentials. Such energy includes all forms of internal energy including potential energy due to the force field. At equilibrium, if no other internal energy changes like phase change are taking place then the sum of mean molecular PE and mean molecular KE will be constant at different altitudes or at different distances from the center of the vortex tube. So we can equate PE gain with KE loss getting M.g.dh = -M.Cp.dt so that the temperature gradient dt/dh = -g/Cp and this works also for the vortex tube when we replace g with the centrifugal force, as I explained here in 2014.   Douglas Cotton 2001:8003:26E2:3300:A467:35BF:FBC2:F9E6 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Link to Slashdot discussion?
Is the link to a Slashdot discussion really relevant? I don't think it's "encyclopedical"... or else we would go around adding Slashdot links to Wikipedia articles in whatever subject they discuss there. I suggest removing it. -- LodeRunner 22:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let's archive the link to the Slashdot discussion here. After all, it's just another discussion Quicksilver 05:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

how it works
So, how does it work? --DavidCary 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * the outer vortex spins toward the "hot" end of the tube, picking up energy from the inner vortex which is returning from the hot end and going toward the cold end, there are plenty of theories why the inner vortex loses energy while the outer vortex gains it when the law of conservation of angular momentum means the inner one should gain energy, the easiest to understand is an ultrasonic "hum" forms from the vortices moving at arguably a million RPM, and it is this "hum" that shuffles higher energy molecules out to the outer vortex and lower energy molecules to the inner vortex due to the difference in sound moving through warmer and/or colder materials. But like I said, Theory, in reality.... no one REALLY knows how these damned things work, lot of good ideas, but in the end it's a mystery, especially since the phenomenon doesn't occur with water, although that might be more of an issue with thermodynamics, or viscosity, or a thousand other laws of reality. --Munky--68.124.106.93 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe it does work with water, or atleast there is evidence that it does, but because of the higher viscosity of water it means that a water vortex tube has to be pretty huge.WolfKeeper 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It works with water to a very small extent. I believe the maximum temperature seperation is only a few degrees whereas, with air, a variation of over 60 degrees can be achieved. It is thought that the heating effect reported with water is actually due to a different mechanism altogether. The main reason that the mechanism (for air) is not known for certain is that is is the result of a combination of a number of different mechanisms, some of these are laminar, some are turblent. It is possible, however, to accurately model the effect using CFD codes and so, with enough research, it may be possible to exactly discover the presice mechanism(s) causing the effect. X2-PB 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I didn't see specs on performance (if they exist). What diameter & length would be required to get the 45°C Δt quoted? Trekphiler 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Do you have any citation regarding your "theory" here? It would be better to say there are a number of "hypotheses" but none that you know of can be explained with the laws of physics - or words to that effect, wouldn't you agree. It takes a long time and much evidence before a hypothesis becomes accepted as a theory. Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 * "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" on SSRN, Researchgate and LinkedIn, read by many thousands and linked at http://climate-change-theory.com and never proven wrong by anyone anywhere. 2001:8003:26E2:3300:D03E:7328:1E91:F014 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It works because of the gravito-thermal effect  Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I will add to my comment of 2 April 2014 because there is a serious error in the "explanation" in the article where it reads "The adiabatic expansion of the incoming gas, which cools the gas and turns its heat content into the kinetic energy of rotation." I say this because it is a common misconception (which cannot be supported by the Kinetic Theory of Gases) that expansion of a gas cools it. The explanation in the article is wrong on several counts. You have to consider what happens along a radius due to centrifugal force. This experiment* is relevant because they used centrifugal force to produce temperatures as low as 1K. I quote "They let the molecules of various substances, such as fluoromethane, run up against the centrifugal force on a rotating disk, while being guided by electrodes. The speed of the decelerated molecules corresponds to a temperature of minus 272 degrees." This is the key point: the molecules do indeed lose kinetic energy (because they cool) but the energy loss goes into potential energy due to the centrifugal force field. The same thing happens when you compress air in a cylinder by slowly moving a piston half way down. If you let it go the piston would return to its original position. The air would not have been significantly hotter when compressed if the piston moved much slower than the speed of the molecules, that being about 1,700 Km/hr. The energy you imparted went almost entirely into potential energy associated with the doubling of the density and pressure. This is just like what also happens in the troposphere as any small parcel of air moves upwards the molecules are slowed because they are rising in the gravitational field (with some molecular kinetic energy converted to molecular gravitational potential energy) not because the parcel may be expanding. The hot air in the warmer (and warming) outer region of the vortex tube has acquired kinetic (thermal) energy from the colder (and cooling) inner air. The article is wrong in saying that this outer gas has warmed because of its fast motion. (You don't get warmed in an airplane even though the plane is moving perhaps half the speed of air molecules at the surface below.)  In summary, my original explanation is correct and you may read more about this non-radiative heat transfer from cold to hot that also happens in the troposphere (enabled by gravity) as this is important to our understanding of atmospheric physics also.** That's why it's so important to explain what happens in a Vortex tube correctly in this article.
 * https://scitechdaily.com/new-method-uses-centrifugal-force-decelerate-particles-creates-new-research-opportunities/
 * http://climate-change-theory.com
 * 2001:8003:26E2:3300:1F0:CBE6:688B:CEDC (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains how a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves and has maximum entropy within the constraints of an isolated system. In a gravitational field (such as in Earth's troposphere) thermodynamic equilibrium is also hydrostatic equilibrium because of the fact that each is the state of maximum entropy. When molecules are in free path motion between collisions, kinetic energy (KE) is interchanged with gravitational potential energy (PE). Temperature is based on the mean KE per molecule, as explained in Kinetic Theory. This means that gravity sets up both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. (The pressure is then a corollary, being proportional to the product of density and temperature, and it also has a Pressure-gradient force at hydrostatic equilibrium which is the same state of maximum entropy that is thus also thermodynamic equilibrium.)

Now, by equating KE gain with PE loss, we deduce that the thermal gradient is the quotient of the acceleration due to the gravitational force and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, as derived under lapse rate. For the vortex tube, the effective gravitational force is between about 10^6 and 10^7g, so let's say 5 * 10^6. The approximate distance (internal radius) is about 5mm. The above quotient gives 9.8 * 5 * 10^6 degrees per kilometer, and that reduces to about 250 degrees in 5mm, as is observed according to the article. If a particular tube only generates 10^6g we would expect 50 degree temperature difference. '''So the hypothesis appears to be well supported by the data in this article. ''' Douglas Cotton (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional links added above Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation: Wikipedia - standard physics as linked, and this Vortex tube article for data relating the 250 degrees temperature difference. Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Vortex tube demonstrates heat from cold to hot

If you consider each radius as the air speed is accelerating and the temperature gap widening, there is actually heat from the colder central region to the outer hotter region near the circumference of the tube. This happens because entropy is increasing in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as can easily be seen when you consider the effect upon entropy due to changes in both kinetic energy and potential energy in that force field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.82.244 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Heat Pump
The definition of a heat pump is a device which uses work to move heat from one resevoir to another. The vortex tube, however, uses neither work nor heat transfer in its system. Given this, and the recent modifications to this article, I question whether or not the vortex tube is a heat pump.
 * In order for it to run, it needs a compressor to blow the air into it. That takes work. If you run a tube from the cold pipe leading from the vortex tube, then you can use that tube to cool things. Meanwhile the hot pipe can be used to heat things. Hence it is a heat pump.WolfKeeper 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it, Wolfkeeper. I was about to say the same thing. I'll just add that without a pump to compress the input gas, a vortex tube is just a pipe with a hole in the side. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These arguments show two glaring misconceptions about thermodynamics. One, you claim that the compressed air requires work. This is true, it does require work to compress air. This means that there is a compressor linked up to this tube compressing air, and that the compressor is doing work on the air before it enters the vortex tube. The tube itself exerts no work on the air.
 * Really? So you are seriously claiming that energy due to the pressure of the hot and cold sides of the vortex tube is exactly equal to the energy of the supply? I find that difficult to believe. I think that the hot side of the vortex tube is hotter than the cold side is cold. That's because of waste heat generated due to viscosity in the tube. So work has been done there at the very least. And from the reversibility of the Carnot cycle we know that it cannot exceed the efficiency of the Carnot cycle (otherwise you could build a perpetual motion machine). In practice, the vortex tube is *very* inefficient, so it doesn't get anywhere near that point.WolfKeeper 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Two, you claim that because "the hot pipe can be used to heat things" and the cold pipe can be used to cool things, there is heat transfer. This is not heat transfer into or out of the system. You seem to be mistaking heat with temperature. Yes the temperature at the inlet and the two outlets is different, but the overall heat of all the air in the control volume of the vortex tube remains constant. This is the thermodynamic definition of heat transfer.
 * Also, if the hot air were to heat another system, that would be after it was out of the system of the vortex tube. You can't consider effects of what the mass does once its out of the system (or before it's in the system, from your compressor argument) to be heat transfer or work done while in the system.
 * But we don't have to let the air exhaust to atmosphere and thus leave the system. We just have to pipe it from the ends of the vortex tube (after it's heated/cooled the external reservoirs via conduction through the walls of the vortex tube) and feed it back into the pump inlet. That makes the system much easier to analyse and removes your objection about mass leaving the system. Now only heat and work can enter and leave the system: the former entering/leaving via the cold/hot end walls of the vortex tube; the latter via the pump. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 69.174.226.202 if you want to be really anal about it, the vortex tube isn't in itself, on its own, a heat pump, but you can add the cold sink heat exchanger, the hot source heat exchanger and plumbing to mix the hot and cold airstreams back together again before going through the air pump and the vortex tube, and then it is. But everybody knows all that, "so quit buggin' me man".WolfKeeper 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've revised the into to remove pro/anti heat pump claims. Let's find good references and cite them properly before re-adding (I don't have access the current references or I would look myself). --Duk 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've revised the into to remove pro/anti heat pump claims. Let's find good references and cite them properly before re-adding (I don't have access the current references or I would look myself). --Duk 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Heat transfer issue: Of course there is a transfer of kinetic (thermal) energy across the internal (imaginary) boundary between the inner and outer regions. This is in accord with what the second law of thermodynamics says will happen as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy is approached. This is basic thermodynamics, but not well understood here it seems. The transfer stops only when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained, this being the same as hydrostatic equilibrium in this example. Douglas Cotton (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Real World Observations
Understanding the operation of this device has been an interest to me for quite a while. It is the core device in solving both the energy needs and global warming problems we face. The fluid dynamics of it are quite awesome and deserve much more attention. Some of the observations I have discovered is that the temperatures reached on the high side is in relation to the friction generated against the inner walls of the tube. This was verified by using a floating inner wall. The inner wall was supported by magnets such that it spun with the vortex. The high side outlet temperature tracked the inlet temperature. One other feature is that if the low side is used to pre-cool the inlet gas, along with the magnetic floating inner wall, that the temperature of the cold side drops even more radically. If the inlet temperature id 70F then the outlet tends to be below the condensation point of CO2 and you produce nice chunks of CO2 ice. I am not going to get into my best application for this device, but one that I will throw out there, is that buy using the vortex tube as a second stage device on existing HVAC applications, that you can double the cooling capacity of standard HVAC equipment. This is because HVAC equipment takes a liquid to a gas. As the gas exits from the primary cooling coil on return to the compressor, you pass it through a vortex tube stage. This stage is placed in front of the primary cooling coil much like an econimizer on boilers. ( Thank You USS Constellation for my education on 1200PSI Steam ) There is a balance of the high side and low side that must be set via valves. The high side is run through a secondary cooling coil, and the low side on my next experiment is still cold enough to cool the high side outlet of the compressor. But this may be abandoned if I get trenching done to my AG well to use it as an energy well to draw off the unwanted heat. The end result is 10 tons of cooling on a 5 ton compressor, and the compressor runs at a cooler temp and lower load even on hot days. [ Vance L. Turner - San Andreas, CA ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.187.128.41 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actual applications
Units - is BTU being used here to talk about power (BTU/h but with /h left off to keep things short?) if so then this needs to be converted to kW rather than kJ. I don't want to make the change my self as I'm british, and we havn't used BTU's for 30+ years and so i'm out of my depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.111.84 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a section on Proposed applications, but I don't see any mention of its actual use in the Helikon vortex separation process despite the fact that this article links to that page in the See also section.
 * And hasn't South Africa also used this technology to provide relatively cool air for workers in deep mines to breathe? I was led to believe that this was where they got the idea for the enrichment plant. Andrewa (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Valindaba and South African Nuclear Energy Corporation. Andrewa (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed '...a temperature drop of about 26.6 °C (80 °F).' to '...a temperature drop of about 26.6 °C' (48 °F)'. 26.6 °C = 80 °F on a thermometer but in absolute terms 1°C = 1.8°F. Pawprintoz (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. Unless of course the 80 °F is correct and the 26.6 °C was wrong. This may be true in light of the lengthy quote in italics under 'Questionable claim' above. Please correct it if I'm wrong. Pawprintoz (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

These are incorrect statements in the article
''(a) It is also usually agreed upon that there is a slight effect of hot air tending to "rise" toward the center, but this effect is negligible — especially if turbulence is kept to a minimum.

(b) One simple explanation is that the outer air is under higher pressure than the inner air (because of centrifugal force). Therefore the temperature of the outer air is higher than that of the inner air. ''

Reasons:

(a) Whilst in the Earth's troposphere convection appears slow, the rate at which thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy is approached in this vortex tube is almost instantaneous because we have a radial gravitational force field (created by centrifugal force) which is several orders of magnitude greater than Earth's gravitational force. Molecules that happen to move towards the outside gain very significant kinetic energy, whilst those that move towards the center lose much of their kinetic energy as they gain equivalent (and huge) gravitational potential energy. So, rather than being "insignificant" this does in fact explain the whole observed temperature difference, and no other valid physics can.

(b) High pressure is not what causes or maintains high temperatures, because this is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the ideal gas law or any other physics. The onus is upon the author of this statement to establish this claim, which is impossible to do using valid physics.

Recommendation: In that there probably is not as yet any suitably reviewed and published explanation, I suggest this article should either ..

(a) just state the observations of different temperatures and explain the mechanism, or

(b) do as in (a) and then discuss what are clearly called "hypotheses" that the editor(s) can also explain using valid physics, not "guesses" as in these two paragraphs.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For (a), I agree that this seems dubious. It is also unsourced in the article. I went ahead and removed the sentence. Adiabatic processes do indeed change the temperature of a gas, but the sentence is unreferenced and at a minimum seems an oversimplification. Note that the onus is not on the author to "establish" this claim; we need sources, not logic or original synthesis. I tagged it as needing sources, which of course the entire section on the tube's operation needs. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment: Basically I agree, but as I said there will be no "sources" until the world of science comes to grips with the reality of the gravito-thermal gradient (which the vortex tube demonstrates so well with observations matching the expected "dry adiabatic lapse rate" of -g/Cp) and the consensus accepts that Josef Loschmidt was right after all. I'll be spending the rest of my life submitting papers on this until some editor recognizes the validity of the physics, which of course rebuts the greenhouse conjecture that is based on isothermal assumptions with unbalanced energy potentials, contrary to what the Second Law says would be the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Yes, 99.9% don't understand thermodynamics: I happen to be in the 0.1% who do. Douglas Cotton (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 * In the mean time, please follow the relevant policies and consider me for mention in your Nobel Prize acceptance speech. VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very mistaken if you think this to be my original concept. The brilliant physicist, who was the first to estimate the size of molecules, also thought about how those molecules responded to gravity, and he did so in the 19th century. Loschmidt's hypothesis was accepted in the early 20th century I gather, but had to be "forgotten" or quashed when the greenhouse guesswork took over.  Every attempt to debunk Loschmidt (including Verkley et al) is easily refuted, as I have done elsewhere.

101.174.128.251 (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

picture
the inner spiral is screwed up. If you look at it from the leftmost part it looks like it spins in the same direction as the outer spiral, otherwise it looks to spin in the opposite direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.196 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Generalized Application
The vortex cooling tube provides empirical evidence that a force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions causes an interchange of molecular potential energy (relative to that force field) and kinetic energy. This creates a temperature gradient in the plane of the force field because only the kinetic energy component affects temperature. That temperature gradient in a steady force field represents the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will tend to evolve autonomously. We note that specific heat (Cp) appears in the denominator of the temperature gradient, just as it does in expressions for the temperature gradient caused by the force of gravity in all planetary tropospheres. Such temperature gradients continue in sub-surface regions of Earth even down to the core. Because the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, any additional thermal energy supplied at the ccoler (outer) end will disturb that state. The Second Law tells us a new state will evolve and this obviously entails some thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection towards the warmer regions as explained in our group's website http://climate-change-theory.com and therein lies the explanation as to how thermal energy from the Sun makes its way to the core of any planet or satellite moon, including our own Moon where core temperatures are over 1300°C. Chairman Planetary Physics (group of persons qualified in physics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.226.179 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It would be much, much better to see a scholarly treatment of the energy theory of the vortex tube, published in a scientific journal. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What we have stated follows directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because when the sum of that potential energy and kinetic energy is homogeneous then, and only then are there no unbalanced energy potentials and thus entropy will not increase further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.226.179 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sunilchhimpa95, welcome to wikipedia, here is why I undid your additions
You seem to be new here, thanks for your contributions, but I had to revert them since they seem to be copied verbatim from some other work. This is not allowed on wikipedia. If you want to rewrite some of that information that would be great. I left your references in, after some reformating, because they are relevant. Cheers. GangofOne (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

the efficiency section is so vague it's almost pointless having it.
also the "substantianted" claim that vortex tubes are _less_ efficient than air conditioners is wrong if the cited soure is used. the cited paper claims COP values from 2.5 -> 20, where as air conditioner units have a COP of around 2.5 - 3.5 (source wiki), whilst the world's best is around 10 or 12 (source 2 min google search) 151.230.210.63 (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vortex tube


text:
Bass trombone

The bass trombone (Bassposaune, trombone basso) is the bass instrument in the trombone family of brass instruments. Modern instruments are pitched in the same B♭ as the tenor trombone but with a larger bore, bell and mouthpiece to facilitate low register playing, and usually two valves to fill in the missing range immediately above the pedal tones.

History
The earliest bass trombones were pitched in D, E, F or G below the tenor, which was then pitched in A. They had a smaller bore and less flared bell than modern instruments, and a longer slide with an attached handle to allow slide positions otherwise beyond the reach of a fully outstretched arm. These bass sackbuts were sometimes called terz-posaun, quart-posaun, and quint-posaun (Old German,, referring to intervals below A), though sometimes quartposaune was used generically to refer to any size of bass trombone. The earliest known surviving specimen is an instrument in G built in France in 1593. Other late 16th and early 17th-century specimens of basses survive by Nuremberg makers Anton Schnitzer, Isaac Ehe, and Hans and Sebastian Heinlein. These instruments match descriptions and illustrations by Praetorius from his 1614–20 Syntagma Musicum, by which time he only described basses a fourth or a fifth below the tenor, in E or D. By the late 17th century, the bass sackbut was mainly in D; German scholar and composer Daniel Speer only saw fit to mention the quint-posaun in his 1687 Grundrichtiger Unterricht treatise.

The octav-posaun referred to a very large and unwieldy predecessor of the contrabass trombone. Praetorius called this instrument very rare, and described two types, one being a large double-length instrument a full octave below the tenor in A. Canadian trombonist and early music specialist Maximilien Brisson proposes that the other type was a particularly large-bored quint-posaun with an extra whole-tone crook, resulting in an instrument in C (capable of playing down to G$1$, the lowest open string of the G Violone).

Bass sackbuts were used in Europe during the Renaissance and early Baroque periods. By the 18th century the F and E♭ bass trombones were used in Germany, Austria and Sweden, and the E♭ bass trombone in France.

The "tenor-bass" trombone
German instrument maker Christian Friedrich Sattler in 1821 created an instrument he called the Tenorbaßposaune, a tenor in B♭ built with the larger bore and mouthpiece from the F bass trombone. It facilitated playing bass trombone parts in the low register, but was missing notes below E$2$. Treatise author Georges Kastner and other contemporary writers described a dissatisfaction with bass instruments in F or E♭, due to their slow and unwieldy slides. The invention of valves was quickly applied to create valve trombones in the 1830s which replaced the slide altogether; these became popular in military bands and Italian opera.

In 1839 Sattler invented the quartventil (lit. 'fourth valve'), a valve attachment for a B♭ tenor trombone to lower the instrument a fourth into F. Intended to bridge the range gap of the tenor trombone between E$2$ and B♭$1$, it was quickly adopted for bass trombone parts, particularly in Germany. These instruments in B♭/F gradually replaced the larger bass trombones in F and E♭ over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Late Romantic German composers specifying Tenorbaßposaune in scores intended a B♭/F trombone capable of playing below E$2$; Arnold Schoenberg called for four in Gurre-Lieder (1911).

The bass trombone in Britain
From about the mid-nineteenth century, the bass trombone in G enjoyed a period of extended popularity in Britain and throughout most of the British Empire, and also a limited uptake in France. In British military and brass bands, the G bass trombone became standard, built largely by makers Besson, Boosey & Co., and Hawkes & Son (and later, Boosey & Hawkes) with no valves and a slide handle for reaching the longer sixth and seventh positions. The sight of the G bass trombone in the front rank of marching bands, with the player extending the long-handled slide, led to its "kidshifter" nickname, as if clearing a path for the band through the crowds.

Instruments were made as early as 1869 in France with a quartventil valve attachment in D, which extends the low register below D♭$2$, the lowest (non-pedal) note in seventh position. British orchestras began to employ them from the early twentieth century. In 1932, Boosey & Hawkes introduced a "Betty" model, named after Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra bass trombonist William Betty, with a D valve and a second longer tuning slide for C (to obtain the low A♭$1$ above the first pedal G$1$). While British composers, writing for a G bass trombone without a valve, avoided writing below D♭$2$ between 1850 and 1950, the D (or C) valve allowed British orchestral players to play European repertoire written with bass trombones in F or E♭ in mind.

The G bass trombone remained in use in orchestras until the 1950s, when London orchestral players began importing larger bore American instruments in B♭ particularly by Conn. The G trombone lingered on in some parts of Britain and former British colonies well into the 1980s, particularly in brass bands and period instrument orchestras.

British organologist Arnold Myers suggests that the G trombone's small bore of around 12.35 mm, or 13.35 mm for the "Betty" D valve models, lends a distinctive and uniquely British character to its sound, and historically informed performances of British works from this period should recreate this sound by employing small-bore tenor trombones and a G bass trombone.

Recent developments
The modern bass trombone evolved largely in the United States, from the German large-bore B♭/F tenor-bass trombones in use by the late 19th century. In the early 20th century, manufacturers attempted to solve the problem of the missing low B$1$ on such instruments by adding a second valve. In the 1920s, manufacturers Conn and Holton made B♭/F bass trombones with a Stellventil that could lower the F tubing to E when manually set. The first true double-valve trombone, where the second valve can be operated while playing, was made by Los Angeles manufacturer F. E. Olds in 1937, using a second dependent valve to lower the F attachment a semitone to E.

In the 1950s, some American orchestral players had double-valve instruments custom-built, and these designs were eventually adopted by manufacturers. In 1961, American maker Vincent Bach released their double-valve "50B2" model with a second dependent E valve (later E♭ and D), based on an instrument modified in 1956 for the bass trombonist with Minneapolis Symphony. In the late 1960s custom instruments appeared using a second independent valve that lowered the instrument to G, and to E♭ when engaged together with the first valve. The first commercially available trombone using this configuration was the Olds "S-24G" model in 1973. Although new to the bass trombone, this idea was anticipated in Germany in the 1920s by Ernst Dehmel's design for a contrabass trombone in F with two independent valves.

The early 1980s saw the emergence of the axial flow valve, known as the "Thayer" valve after its American inventor, Orla Thayer. Trombonists frequently cite its more free-blowing, open-feeling playing characteristics and sound. It was gradually adopted on high-end trombone models from US manufacturers by the 1990s, particularly from Edwards, S. E. Shires and Vincent Bach. This sparked further innovation in free-blowing valves; Conn patented its own CL2000 valve developed with Swedish trombonist Christian Lindberg, and the Swiss Hagmann valve was adopted by European manufacturers.

Construction
The modern bass trombone uses the same 9 ft length of tubing as the tenor trombone, but with a wider bore, a larger bell, and a larger mouthpiece which facilitate playing in the low register. Typical specifications are a bore size of 0.562 in in the slide with a bell from 9 to 10+1/2 in in diameter.

Dependent and independent valves
The bass trombone has typically two valves that lower the pitch of the instrument when engaged, to facilitate the register between the B♭1 pedal in first position and the E2 second partial in seventh. The first valve lowers the key of the instrument a fourth to F. The second (when engaged with the first) will lower the instrument to D (or less commonly, E♭).

The second valve can be configured in one of two ways, referred to as either "dependent" or "independent" (sometimes also called "in-line"). In a dependent system, the second valve is fitted to the tubing of the first valve, and can only be engaged in combination with the first. In an independent system, the second valve is fitted to the main tubing next to the first valve, and can be used independently. The second independent valve typically lowers the instrument to G♭, and D when engaged in tandem with the first valve. Less commonly the second valve is tuned to G (combining to give E♭), or has a tuning slide that can tune the valve to either G or G♭ as desired.

Single-valve instruments
Before the appearance of double valve models in the mid-20th century, bass trombones in B♭ had one valve in F. On such an instrument with a standard slide, the low B1 note immediately above the pedal range is unobtainable. To solve this, bass trombones from the 19th and early 20th century were sometimes made with a valve attachment in E rather than F, or with an alternative tuning slide to lower the pitch to E♭. Today, single-valve bass trombones have a tuning slide on the valve section that is long enough to enable access to the low B1 by lowering the pitch from F to E.

Range
The range of the modern bass trombone with two valves is fully chromatic from the lowest pedal B♭$0$ with both valves engaged (or even A$0$ with valve slides extended), up to at least B♭$4$. Although much of the established orchestral repertoire infrequently strays below B♭$1$ or above G$4$, and is typically written in the lower registers, there are some exceptions. French composers in the 19th century and early 20th century wrote third trombone parts for tenor trombone, writing as high as A$4$ (Bizet L'Arlésienne, Franck Symphony in D minor), and omitting notes below E$2$ except for occasional pedal notes (Berlioz in the 1830s used pedal B♭$1$ and A$1$ in Symphonie fantastique, and G♯$1$ in his Grande Messe des morts ). English composers in the same period were writing for a bass trombone in G, and avoided writing below D♭$2$, even though instruments were made with a valve attachment in D by around 1900.

The 20th century saw further extensions of the bass trombone range, such as the fortissimo pedal D$1$ in Berg's Drei Orchesterstücke (1915), and the high B$4$ in Kodály's 1927 Háry János suite. Contemporary orchestral and solo classical pieces, as well as modern jazz arrangements, often further exploit the wide tonal range of the bass trombone.

Repertoire
Since the Romantic period, the trombone section of an orchestra, wind ensemble, or British-style brass band usually consists of two tenor trombones and at least one bass trombone. In a modern jazz big band, at least one of the trombonists will play bass trombone, often serving as the anchor of the trombone section or doubling the double bass and baritone saxophone.

George Roberts (affectionately known as "Mr. Bass Trombone") was one of the first players to champion the solo possibilities of the instrument. One of the first major classical solo works for the instrument was the Concerto for Bass Trombone by Thom Ritter George.

title: Bass trombone


text:
Move Your Car

"Move Your Car" is a song by Swedish punk rock band Millencolin from the album Life on a Plate. It was released as a single on 26 October 1996 by Burning Heart Records, including two B-sides from the album's recording sessions, "Entrance at Rudebrook" and "An Elf and His Zippo". These two tracks were re-released, the former in 1997 on the band's next recording For Monkeys, the latter in 1999 on the compilation album The Melancholy Collection. An accompanying music video for "Move Your Car" was filmed and included in Millencolin and the Hi-8 Adventures. A Creature from the Black Lagoon pinball game inspired the song's title and the cover art.

Track listing

 * 1) "Move Your Car"
 * 2) "Entrance at Rudebrook"
 * 3) "An Elf and His Zippo"

Millencolin

 * Nikola Šarčević - lead vocals, bass
 * Erik Ohlsson - guitar
 * Mathias Färm - guitar
 * Fredrik Larzon - drums

title: Move Your Car


text:
Talk:Donna Upson

from Vfd
On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/Donna Upson for a record of the discussion.

Second AfD with Merge conclusion
I ran into an edit conflict with the closer of the AfD as a Merge. I had written this:

 * Comment Many of the delete votes here seem to assume that Upson is notable only for the 2003 mayoral candidacy. That's not the case. She was the subject of major media coverage in 2000 and 2001. There was also at one time available much more source from 2003 that doesn't show up in Google now, because the Ottawa Citizen doesn't have public archives that far back (or that I could find, and the Wayback machine doesn't go back to 2003 for them), and apparently there was CBC stuff on her too, see [this blog from 2003], which provides 5 links to what would have been RS which are now dead. Cornflakes-are-great is certainly an SPA, registered to vote here (immediately upon registration), but we should take this for what it is: a report, unlikely to be utterly false, that there has been significant television coverage, which seems reasonable, given the print coverage. The previous AfD was heavily Keep. Perhaps this reflected the better sources available then? Those sources could be tracked down if someone wanted to go to a library in Ottawa, for the Ottawa Citizen articles. She is not notable merely as a "politician," if it were the candidacy alone it wouldn't be a blip on our radar, so WP:POLITICIAN as mentioned above doesn't apply. But from that guideline: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We have a subject who has received major media attention, we have reliable sources for the information in the article (and more, if someone digs to back up what is in that blog). I don't see anything in the guideline about recent coverage, which is an issue raised by some who have commented. So what, exactly, is the problem with this article?--Abd (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll object to a Merge, however, and if someone insists, I'll go to DRV. Here is the reason: there is RS for information about this woman that has too little to do with the election to be included there. A Merge would result, then, in loss of reliably sourced information. Many of the Delete votes clearly made assumptions that the woman was notable only for her Ottawa candidacy, and then misapplied WP:POLITICIAN. Likewise many votes assumed that recent coverage would be more important than older coverage. In my original comment, I noted that I thought a Merge would be acceptable. At that point I was laboring under the same incorrect idea, that she was notable only for the mayoral candidacy. Instead, that candidacy was merely the last straw, so to speak, that greatly expanded her coverage. (I don't actually know that, a lot of sources have disappeared, there may have been more extensive earlier coverage). But she had major media coverage before that, as I noted in my comment, and as is still accessible. If this AfD had resulted in Delete, I'd be going immediately to WP:DRV, but since Merge is an advisory decision, I'm just waiting.--Abd (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to be difficult, I'm more than happy to send this to another afd. GreenJoe 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be "difficult," I'm going to follow procedures. I'd not personally mind if you'd send it to another AfD, I'd predict it would result in a clear Keep, because the clearest arguments would be given first, though I have no personal attachment. The Merge decision was incorrect, it's that simple. It seems you think it should have been Delete. I'd argue it should have been Keep or No Consensus would have been more accurate. Either one of us could take it to DRV, at this time another AfD would be wildly inappropriate, I'd argue for speedy close. After some lapse, yes, that would be okay. The article as it stands is reliably sourced, I don't see a single problem with it. There is additional material, probably, based on what I found, in newspapers that don't have on-line archives; they've been quoted on at least one blog, but we can't use them except as an indication for where to look, and I'd say that, pending such a search, we can assume that they exist. Delete is sometimes appropriate when it is reasonable to assume that additional material cannot be found. The reverse is true here.
 * Let me give a procedural hint: If GreenJoe does the Merge, I'd revert it. Once, no more. Someone else could do it again if they think it proper. I would, instead, if anything like edit warring emerges, take it to DRV, for a reversal of the Merge conclusion, I expect. No Consensus would have been the proper conclusion given the comments, and my own last comment, with a summary of the arguments and some new facts, missed the closure by a few minutes. Reopening the AfD would be another possible path that could be taken. I aim for efficiency, for minimum wikifuss, which is why I'm not going to DRV first. I'll only go there if it is necessary. I'd urge GreenJoe to consider the arguments I gave above, and decide if he wants to pursue this. --Abd (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert by User:Killerofcruft
KC reverted my undoing of the Merge without, apparently, taking notice of the discussion here, with the summary: Why are you going against the consensus established at AFD?. Merge is an editorial action, and the AfD certainly establishes a legitimacy to the Merge, absent objection. But there is objection, and, in particular, no discussion in the Election article, which is going to suffer from a dump of material that violates WP:UNDUE. The AfD did not consider the details, and there was no consensus for Merge. Look at it! I was hoping that discussion here would avoid the need to go to DRV, but unless KC reverts himself or some other editor intervenes, I'll be going to WP:DRV with, I believe, a high chance of getting the result changed to No Consensus (accurate as to the AfD) or Keep, based on clear guidelines. I thought we might avoid the fuss. When all the evidence is examined, this isn't a marginal case, and it satisfies WP:POLITICIAN, if you read the quote from that above. Upson is only partially notable for being a politician. In fact, I wouldn't call her a politician at all.... She was an activist. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you head off to DRV and get it overturned. --Killerofcruft (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for suggesting that I do what I already said I'd do if the Merge isn't reverted again. I'll probably wait a day or so.--Abd (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing admin for AfD has agreed that the article may be restored.
Instead of going for WP:DRV, I realized that I should first discuss the matter with the closing administrator. I did so, and I also did more research on Upson, see User:Abd/Donna Upson for what I found, so far. There is a lot more source than some of us realized. It's just that it isn't in places which can be found with Google. In any case, Shereth agreed that the article could be restored, improved, and then, if anyone still wants to do it, be presented for AfD again. I'm going to restore the article; if anyone disagrees with this, please discuss it here.

See for my discussion with Shereth.

Meanwhile, there is no harm in having redundant content, for a time, in the Ottawa municipal election, 2003 article. We were already seeing loss of content resulting from the Merge: the "Baby Hitler" nickname, for example, was removed as not appropriate for that article, though with a comment which was incorrect: there is reliable source for this. I do agree that the Merge resulted in too much material on Upson in the Election article; there really wasn't much of an election controversy, nor even much real controversy at all: a fringe candidate ran for office, generated quite a bit of comment from media and in letters to the Ottawa Citizen, and elsewhere around the world, and got so many votes. Exactly how much about Upson belongs in that article, I'm not sure, but probably not all of it! I'm going to focus on bringing in what sourced information I found, here, consistent with BLP policy. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SHE IS NOT NOTABLE. GreenJoe 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The edit summary for GreenJoe's response was "reply to moron." I had started to suspect that there was something odd going on with the AfD nomination for this article, that's been confirmed now. GreenJoe has been warned (by another user, not by me); in spite of the agreement of the closing administrator to renominate after a time, so that a better informed consensus could be formed, GreenJoe went ahead and renominated today. I predict speedy close as Keep, without prejudice against a later nomination. But I also predict that a consensus for Keep will become quite clear. Please see the new AfD and the RS that has been found on this woman. It is more than ample to show notability and to warrant an article. Is some personal animosity involved here? It wouldn't be surprising, Upson is, shall we say, "controversial," and certainly has said and done plenty to warrant animosity. Our job here, however, has nothing to do with that.

 * GreenJoe, if you continue on this path, you could be blocked. I'm actually a neutral editor, I never touched the article before, and I only happened to come across the AfD and noticed something off about the arguments being made. So I did the research, ultimately putting about four hours into it. Problem was, most of the sources aren't googleable, I think that threw some off. She was quite notable, and notability, once established, doesn't expire; it is based on the existence of sufficient reliable source, from any time, not on what she's been doing recently. (I found reference to her, however, as late as 2006. She's been "noticed" and "remembered.") --Abd (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I never agreed to that, I was never invited to join this secret discussion you had, Abd. Oh, are you making threats, Abd? That's also a blockable offense. GreenJoe 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that I'm not an administrator, I cannot "threaten" to block. I can warn, and did, properly. I've never seen anyone blocked for that. That's correct, GreenJoe was not invited, I should have done that. I had, in fact, attempted to discuss the matter here, and he abstained from any serious consideration of the issues. It wasn't "secret," it was open, on the admin's Talk page, however. And the proper remedy for disagreement with the conclusion of that would have been to discuss the matter with Shereth, not renom and then DRV. Nothing was irrevocable. But GreenJoe, from the beginning, has made misleading arguments. Below, DoubleBlue gives a much more balanced opinion. I think it's incorrect, but we'll come to that, and I strongly suspect he will agree. GreenJoe appears to have an agenda here, it comes out in his retirement announcement: he appears to think that not deleting this article is somehow supporting Upson. However, evil does not go away because we close our eyes. And seriously revolting topics can sometimes be notable practically because of that, if it causes RS attention. --Abd (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

3rd deletion nomination
I have speedily closed the recent renomination of this article as unquestionably premature. I would very strongly advise against doing this again until the editors have had some time to make the requested changes to the article. If there is no significant improvement in, say, one week I could understand throwing it into a debate but not before then (unless Abd indicates that he has finished making the requested changes to the article, and then I will relist it for discussion. Thank you. Shereth 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: although I !voted to delete or merge in the previous AFD, I do want to stress that I agree with Shereth's actions here. If additional WP:RS can be added to make a stronger case for genuine notability than the article previously did, then I'd be more than happy to support keeping the improved article. But we do need to give people time to make those improvements, AFD #2 didn't really result in much of a consensus one way or another, and a renom within 24 hours just because the nominator didn't get the result they personally wanted is never an acceptable approach on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Abd requested I clarify my comment from Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination) that I endorsed the merge decision from the 2nd AfD but would support keeping an article that met the objections of that second AfD.

I did not make a suggestion (!vote) in the 2nd AfD because I was pretty ambivalent about the article despite my assisting in sourcing it. The major objection I see in the AfD is that it is primarily a person notable for a single event and I share that concern. Yes, she was convicted of a hate crime for making threats and she ran for mayor of Ottawa, which raised her profile and Klu Klux Klan association further but is that enough for an encyclopedia article? I think few would argue that strictly the arrest and conviction falls under NOT or that her run for mayor is WP:BIO1E but does the confluence of those meet WP:BIO guidelines that ensure a V, NPOV, NOR article? I've thought some about it and I've finally come to a borderline no decision. An article that demonstrates more ability to meet those content requirements would change my position. Double Blue (Talk) 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-opened the AfD, and if it gets speedy closed again, I'll be taking it to DRV. GreenJoe 00:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what you should have done. (i.e. take it to WP:DRV) Double Blue  (Talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I quit. Do whatever the frig you want. GreenJoe 01:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At least I can say with a clear conscience that I don't support this woman. GreenJoe 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think anybody involved in this discussion can't say the same thing? Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

disgusting abuse of process
As soon as the DRV finishes, I will AFD this article unless it's merged - the way that abd had tried to strongarm people is disgusting. --Killerofcruft (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I would reconsider strongly. If the DRV closes with endorsement, and you immediately open another AfD, that can't be interpreted as anything but a bad-faith nomination, which should be speedy kept. A far better path would be to wait, let the issue calm down, and then start discussion on the talk page about whether the subject is notable. That will give some of the editors on the fence about deletion a chance to review the issue further, consider sources, look at the big picture, whatever. (Personally, I have reservations about whether the subject is notable, and I could be convinced through rational discourse that she's not, but 47 AfD nominations of "she's not notable" is not rational discourse.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Why should I wait? I feel she's not notable and would make a reasoned argument to that case in my afd - there is absolutely no reason to wait. --Killerofcruft (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 * As I noted in the DRV, KoC can tilt at windmills if he likes, but at some point, it can be considered disruption. I'm not making threats, I have no power to "strongarm," the only power I have is to suggest. If I'd been "trying to strongarm" GreenJoe, I'd have warned him on his Talk page, and I'd have taken the incident to WP:AN/I. I find the intensity of response to this rather odd. It appears that what is going on is, for some, not a mere editorial decision on an obscure article on Wikipedia.

 * Now, that you mention it, something odd about KoC. New account, first edit June 19, after the Upson AfD was open. New accounts, if they are actually new, normally aren't even aware of AfD process.... --Abd (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a returned user after a break. I made use of my "right to vanish" last year and then came back recently, some IP edits first and then an account. I'm generally more concerned with the fictional side of wikipedia but do keep an idea on places like AFD (which I will be getting more heavily involved in). If you have some accusation to make - make it, don't speak snidely out of the side of your mouth. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Killerofcruft, you just confirmed my suspicion. I have no other accusation to make. But what you confirmed does raise other suspicion. For example, last time I encountered this explanation that a user was a legitimate returned account, it was a lie. The user was a banned editor. Am I accusing you of being a banned editor? No, I don't have sufficient evidence for that, just some reasonable level of suspicion based on the evidence in front of me. "Snidely," by the way, is a personal attack. Given the leaning toward incivility that I'm seeing, I'd highly recommend that Killerofcruft stay away from AfDs, editors unable to refrain from incivility tend to immolate themselves there. Now, let's return to editing Donna Upson. The loss of GreenJoe is regrettable, but he, too, seems to have had serious difficulty refraining from incivility, see a comment I just placed on his Talk page.. I'm actually opposed to the AfD process: it's an editor-killer. There are better ways to satisfy the legitimate needs behind article deletion.--Abd (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some double speak but that takes the biscuit, first of all you say you don't have an accusation to make and then you imply I'm a banned user! thus trying to poison the well! I suggest you keep your unwarranted insinuations to yourself or I'll be asking for admin action. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 * No, I did not "imply" that Killerofcruft is a banned user, though his continued uncivil response (directly imputing bad faith) tends to make the likelihood higher. It's still not at a level that I think it probable. If I did, I'd be filing an SSP report. Banned users are usually banned for incivility. As to "poisoning the well," what well? What Wikipedia process has been damaged by the "implication"? Killerofcruft barges in here with accusations of "strong-arming," when I simply followed Wikipedia procedure when I disagreed with an admin closing: I discussed it with the administrator. Who agreed to change his decision. Take a look at the subsequent process: a renomination that is snowing Keep when closed as premature, and a DRV that is likewise snowing Endorse. No doors have been closed, and the worst thing that happens is that an allegedly marginal article exists for another month, having been around for many years. My question is, "What's the rush?" Why is this so important that User:GreenJoe "retires" over it? I can speculate: an external agenda. But nothing, yet, worth taking this to AN/I over, in my opinion. Someone else may disagree! --Abd (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to nominate again.
I'm busy with other things, but the rescinding of the result of the second AfD (merge with 2003 Ottawa municipal election) was unwarranted. It's still clearly a case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. One arrest for a minor crime and a failed fringe mayoral candidacy don't add up to long term notability of any kind. She hasn't been in the news since 2003, she never was important even back then (only sources are local papers and CBC news briefs). Who wants to start the nominating process?--Boffob (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it, per my previous discussion on this matter. Details are here. Shereth 19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, not true. She's been mentioned in the news, 2007 I think it was, in Canada. This is too soon for a renomination.

 * As to the substance, have you looked at User:Abd/Donna Upson and the changes made to the article? This is by no means a complete compilation of RS on this (there is also some material there which is not RS, but which was useful at finding RS). This wasn't merely a local news report for a minor crime. It made national news in Canada, the first incident, and there is lots of sourced material available on Upson that is not appropriate for the Ottawa election article. And then this is not merely a "failed fringe mayoral candidacy." Those don't make wide and repeated coverage in national news. So, if you waste everyone's time filing a new nomination, I predict speedy close on the grounds that it is too soon, and if speedy close doesn't happen, it will be a Keep decision. No other conclusion seems reasonable to me, now, the matter is different from the last AfD. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, Shereth, you were the closing admin previously, and you said you'd renominate, so maybe some argument should be made that you should be allowed to do that. --Abd (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The point of the renomination is not an attempt to get it deleted per se but to subject the new version to community scrutiny. 2 weeks is sufficient time to find reliable sources.  From a purely technical standpoint, the last (valid) AfD was closed as a merge and I allowed for that to be overturned and give it a second chance; the arrangement we made was to allow for discussion to proceed in this manner in lieu of deletion review, and therefore cannot be argued as "too early". Shereth 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, it seems it has turned into a debate over what constitutes notability and what is not news between myself and Abd more than a new community discussion (maybe we should contact those who voted in the second nomination to see if this "new evidence" Abd proposes convinces them to at least revote, if not change their mind about their previous vote). I still stand by the WP:BIO1E guidelines. Minor mentions of her criminal conviction 6 years after the fact, unrelated to the Ottawa election (the one Wiki noteworthy event for Donna Upson) do not add up to something that goes beyond WP:NOT. It's not significant coverage that has long term notability. My comparison with Julie Couillard is also valid. Julie Couillard is undoubtedly more notable than Donna Upson (much wider coverage), but she's a clear cut case of WP:BIO1E: she's only notable because of the political scandal of which she was a central part. The scandal itself is a news event more than anything, so it doesn't deserve its own Wiki article, by extension, she doesn't, so she and the scandal are just part of the Maxime Bernier article. Bernier was a cabinet minister, thus notable in the Wiki sense, enough to have his own article. Donna Upson has a couple of convictions and a failed fringe candidacy. She made the news to some extent, so maybe the material in her article can be part of the 2003 Ottawa election article (a line or two). She could possibly be mentioned in other Wiki articles relating to hate crimes as well if appropriate, but there's no way she's somehow notable enough to have her own article.--Boffob (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not hearing any objective basis for this opinion. How do we tell the difference? As I noted, the hate crime incident is cited six years later as a rare example, by a reliable source. That strongly implies notability. The very unusual character of it makes it notable. Sure, it's possible that this event could then become part of a hate crime article, particularly hate crimes in Canada, and, indeed, such an article, if it is specialized to Canada, should have, at least, a reference to her. But how to connect the two events? -- and they should be connected, I'd say. The answer is obvious: her own article. Brief mention in the Ottawa election article, brief mention in a hate crimes article (or more extensive mention if it is an article about hate crimes in Canada, and then details in her own article. I do not hear any arguments against this other than a repeated opinion, unsupported by evidence, often with incorrect presentation of the facts. The policies and guidelines I look at, very simply interpreted, would seem to support her having an article. I haven't found one that doesn't. What's the basis for this objection, specifically, in guidelines;? I'm sensing that this is simply Boffob's opinion, which is fine, he has a right to his opinion, but ... we need more objective sources than that. In another AfD that I saw end in Delete, there were several Wikipedia editors, very early registration, who happened to know the topic, and their opinion was that the topic was actually important, not merely the marginally notable thing it seemed to be from RS. And the AfD ended with Delete (even though the editors !voting were about equally divided), and this was a reasonable outcome because the opinions of editors as to notability aren't actually the standard. What I've usually seen is that if there is sufficient reliable source to justify more than a sentence, from independent sources, and not just about one incident, then an article is appropriate, provided that there is not a more notable subject where it would all fit as a merge. This, in fact, then relieves the more notable article of dealing with material that is undue weight there. This is how, in fact, Wikipedia works; otherwise the flat structure would be intolerable. We do not like to remove RS verifiable material (RS implies notability) from articles if there is no better place for it.--Abd (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donna Upson. 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/20080621150107/http://www.canada.com/toronto/features/municipalelections/ottmayor.html to http://www.canada.com/toronto/features/municipalelections/ottmayor.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donna Upson


text:
Proctor (lunar crater)

Proctor is the remnant of a lunar impact crater that is located to the southeast of the prominent crater Tycho. It lies just to the north of the huge walled plain Maginus. To the north is the crater Saussure and to the northwest, just to the east of Tycho, lies Pictet. Proctor is 52 km in diameter and its walls are 1300 m high. It is from the Pre-Imbrian period, which lasted from 4.55 to 3.85 billion years ago.

The outer rim of this crater has become heavily worn and eroded, and now forms a low, irregular rise around the interior floor. Much of the northwestern half of the rim is marked by a number of small craters, including Proctor D. The interior floor is somewhat level and is marked only by a few tiny impacts.

The crater is named after the 20th-century American astronomy writer Mary Proctor.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Proctor.

title: Proctor (lunar crater)