text:
Front ensemble

In a marching band, drum and bugle corps, or indoor percussion ensemble, the front ensemble or pit is the stationary percussion ensemble. This ensemble is typically placed in front of the football field, though some designers may use atypical layouts (such as having the front ensemble split into pods on the field). Some high school marching bands opt not to march any percussion instruments but instead have a "full" front ensemble.

Originally, the front ensemble consisted of keyboard percussion and timpani, the marching versions of which are heavy and awkward. Groups began adding more and more traditional percussion instruments to the pit, and in its modern form, the ensemble may contain any type of percussion instrument.

The main emphasis of the front ensemble are the mallet instruments: marimba, vibraphone, glockenspiel, chimes, crotales, and xylophone. Some marching band circuits also allow non-standard instruments (such as the violin) or electronic instruments (such as synthesizers and bass guitars) in the pit.

The term "pit" comes from musical theater, where the accompanying orchestra sits in the orchestra pit.

History
The front ensemble was developed by member corps of Drum Corps International before being adopted by other marching ensembles. Under the original rules Drum Corps International used with its founding in 1972, all instruments had to be marched without exception. Originally, timpani were the only pitched percussion instruments allowed to be marched. Later, keyboard percussion instruments were allowed to be marched: glockenspiels and xylophones were permitted in 1974, and marimbas and vibraphones were permitted in 1977.

Over time, people began to realize the physical strain of carrying these large, awkward instruments, and they were allowed to be placed on the ground in 1978. This allowed for the use of extended techniques (such as Stevens grip) and higher quality instruments (such as pedal timpani and extended range marimbas). The last year marching pitched percussion instruments were commonly used in competition was 1982.

The use of electronic instruments in marching band is controversial and divisive within the marching band community and was prohibited outright by Drum Corps International until 2008 when it was passed in an 11–4 vote.

Instrumentation
Instrumentation for the front ensemble is not completely standardized, and not all ensembles have access to certain instruments; high schools may not have even one of each mallet instrument. The three main voices of the front ensemble are the wooden instruments (marimba and xylophone), the metallic instruments (vibraphone, glockenspiel, crotales, and tubular bells), and the auxiliary instruments (synthesizers, timpani, and non-pitched percussion). A typical front ensemble is made up of about 13–18 players:

Pitched Percussion

 * 4–6 marimbas
 * 4–6 vibraphones
 * 1 glockenspiel
 * 1 xylophone
 * 1 set of timpani (4 or 5 drums)

Non-Pitched Percussion

 * 0–1 drumset
 * 0–2 racks

Electronic Instruments

 * 1–2 synthesizers/samplers

title: Front ensemble


text:
Mark Levinson ML-3

The Mark Levinson ML-3 was a 200 watt per channel dual monaural Class AB2 power amplifier that uses two Avel Lindberg toroidal transformers in its powersupply and four huge Sprague Series 36DX, 36.000uF, 100 Volt capacitors. Produced between 1979 and 1987, the ML-3 consisted of two electrically separate amplifiers in one chassis, hence the name "Dual Monaural". It also featured discrete circuit construction; no integrated circuits were incorporated to keep the signal pure. The design was by the late Thomas P. Colangelo.

The ML-3 constituted the archetype of an American highend, highpower amplifier. MLAS differentiated three types or versions of the ML-3. The first version had smaller Callins 18.000uF main filtercaps and no decoupling for the driver stage. The second version added 1.700uF decoupling caps for the driver stage and WW Fischer Camac system in- and output connectors. The latest version got a anti buzz circuit, double AC fuseholders and two dampingswitches (for each channel) at the back for optimizing output impedance of the amplifier towards the used loudspeaker. These could be later retrofitted on earlier versions.

Specifications

 * 200 W/channel at 8 ohms, 400 W/ch at 4 ohms, 800 W/ch at 2 ohms
 * Maximum output: 45 volts 30 amperes
 * Two 1.2 kVA Avel Lindbergh toroidal transformers, 4 Sprague 36,000 μF, 100 V capacitors and 40 output devices (20 per channel)
 * Range: 20 Hz to 20 kHz with less than 0.2% total harmonic distortion
 * Gold-plated CAMAC input connectors
 * Adjustable AC voltage: No, factory set.
 * Adjustable output damping toggle switches (one per channel) (in later models only)
 * Weight: 116 lb (53 kg)

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

title: Mark Levinson ML-3


text:
Copper–copper(II) sulfate electrode

The copper–copper(II) sulfate electrode is a reference electrode of the first kind, based on the redox reaction with participation of the metal (copper) and its salt, copper(II) sulfate. It is used for measuring electrode potential and is the most commonly used reference electrode for testing cathodic protection corrosion control systems. The corresponding equation can be presented as follow:
 * Cu2+ + 2e− → Cu0(metal)

This reaction characterized by reversible and fast electrode kinetics, meaning that a sufficiently high current can be passed through the electrode with the 100% efficiency of the redox reaction (dissolution of the metal or cathodic deposition of the copper-ions).

The Nernst equation below shows the dependence of the potential of the copper-copper(II) sulfate electrode on the activity or concentration copper-ions:

E=0.337 + \frac{RT}{2F} \ln a_{\rm Cu^{2+}} $$

Commercial reference electrodes consist of a plastic tube holding the copper rod and saturated solution of copper sulfate. A porous plug on one end allows contact with the copper sulfate electrolyte. The copper rod protrudes out of the tube. A voltmeter negative lead is connected to the copper rod.

The potential of a copper–copper sulfate electrode is +0.314 volt with respect to the standard hydrogen electrode. Copper–copper(II) sulfate electrode is also used as one of the half cells in the galvanic Daniel-Jakobi cell.

Applications

 * Copper coulometer

title: Copper–copper(II) sulfate electrode


text:
Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime

Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhabenen) is a 1764 book by Immanuel Kant.

The first complete translation into English was published in 1799. The second, by John T. Goldthwait, was published in 1960 by the University of California Press.

Section One
Of the Distinct Objects of the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime

Kant states that feelings of enjoyment are subjective. In this book, he describes his observations. His interest is not in coarse, thoughtless feelings or in the other extreme, the finest feelings of intellectual discovery. Instead, he writes about the finer feelings, which are intermediate. These require some sensitivity, intellectual excellence, talent, or virtue.

There are two kinds of finer feeling: the feeling of the sublime and the feeling of the beautiful. Kant gives examples of these pleasant feelings. Some of his examples of feelings of the beautiful are the sight of flower beds, grazing flocks, and daylight. Feelings of the sublime are the result of seeing mountain peaks, raging storms, and night.

In this section, Kant gives many particular examples of feelings of the beautiful and the sublime. Feelings of the beautiful "occasion a pleasant sensation but one that is joyous and smiling." On the other hand, feelings of the sublime "arouse enjoyment but with horror."

Kant subdivided the sublime into three kinds. The feeling of the terrifying sublime is sometimes accompanied with a certain dread or melancholy. The feeling of the noble sublime is quiet wonder. Feelings of the splendid sublime are pervaded with beauty.

Section Two
Of the Attributes of the Beautiful and Sublime in Man in General

Kant described the relationship between these finer feelings and humanity. The feelings are not totally separate from each other. Beauty and the sublime can be joined or alternated. Kant claimed that tragedy, for the most part, stirs the feeling of the sublime. Comedy arouses feelings for beauty. The personal appearance of humans prompts these feelings in various cases. A person's social position also affects these feelings.

Human nature has many variations of the feelings of the beautiful and the sublime. Some variations of the terrifying sublime are the adventurous and grotesque. Visionaries and cranks are persons who have fantasies and whims. The beautiful, when it degenerates, produces triflers, fops, dandies, chatterers, silliness, bores, and fools.

True virtue is different from what commonly is known about these moral traits: goodheartedness, benevolence and sympathy or compassion and also good-natured agreeableness are not true virtues, in accordance to Kant's view. The only aspect that makes a human truly virtuous is to behave in accordance with moral principles. Kant presents an example for more clarification; suppose that you come across a needy person in the street; if your sympathy leads you to help that person, your response does not illustrate your virtue. In this example, since you do not afford helping all needy ones, you have behaved unjustly, and it is out of the domain of principles and true virtue. True virtue is the quality of raising the feeling of humanity's beauty and dignity to a principle. When a person acts in accordance with this principle, regardless of inclination, that person is truly and sublimely virtuous. Kant applies the approach of four temperaments to distinguish truly virtuous people. According to Kant, among all people with diverse temperaments, a person with melancholy frame of mind is the most virtuous whose thoughts, words and deeds are one of principles.

"A profound feeling for the beauty and dignity of human nature and a firmness and determination of the mind to refer all one's actions to this as to a universal ground is earnest, and does not at all join with a changeable gaiety nor with the inconstancy of a frivolous person." With this observation, Kant will attempt to fit the various feelings of the beautiful and sublime, and the resulting moral characters, into Galen's rigid arrangement of the four humours or human temperaments: melancholic, sanguine, choleric, and phlegmatic.

Kant asserted that the human temperaments or dispositions are fixed and separate characters. An individual who has one frame of mind has no feeling or sense for the finer feelings that occur in a person of another temperament. As a whole, human nature in general is a combination of these virtues. As such, it is a splendid expression of beauty and dignity.
 * A person who has a constitution that is melancholic will have a predominating feeling for the sublime. That person may possess genuine virtue based on the principle that humanity has beauty and worth.
 * One who has a sanguine nature will mostly have a feeling for the beautiful. This results in an "adoptive" virtue that rests on goodheartedness. This person's compassion and sympathy depend on the impression of the moment.
 * A choleric human will have a feeling for the splendid or showy sublime. As a result, this person will possess an apparent virtue. Kant calls it "a gloss of virtue." This includes a sense of honor and concern for outward appearance.
 * Phlegmatic people have apathy or lack of any finer feeling. They therefore may have an absence of virtue.

Section Three
Of the Distinction of the Beautiful and Sublime in the Interrelations of the Two Sexes

In Section Three, Kant asserts that women predominantly have feelings for all that is beautiful. Men, on the contrary, have mostly feelings for the sublime. Any other feelings that are only for the enhancement of the main feeling. Kant admits, though, that the distinction is not absolute. Since "we are dealing with human beings; we must also remember that they are not all alike."

Kant helps to root notions of inequality in the Western social structure. For example, Kant argues that "a woman is little embarrassed that she does not possess high insights; she is beautiful and captivates, and that is enough ... Laborious learning or painful pondering, even if a woman should greatly succeed in it, destroys the merits that are proper to her sex."

Women's mental ability and understanding, then, refer to the beautiful. Men's deep, noble understanding is not suitable for women. Women have beautiful virtues such as kindness and benevolence. Men's virtue is noble and has to do with principles and duty. Because a woman is concerned with the beautiful, the worst that can be said against her is that she is disgusting. A man's greatest defect, however, would be that he is ridiculous, as this is the opposite of the sublime.

In sexual selection, a woman demands that the man have noble and sublime characteristics. A man wants a woman to possess beautiful qualities. In a marriage, the husband and wife unite their disparate attributes to form, as it were, a single moral person. The man's understanding combines with the wife's taste to constitute a union.

Section Four
Of National Characteristics, so far as They Depend upon the Distinct Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime

Here Kant describes the different ways that various people have finer feelings. He qualifies his remarks by stating, "[W]hether these national differences are contingent and depend upon the times and the type of government, or are bound by a certain necessity to the climate, I do not here inquire."

The Italians have a strong feeling for the beautiful with some mixture of the thoughtful sublime. The French have mostly a feeling for the beautiful, but with the addition of the joyful sublime. The feeling of the Germans is an almost equal blend of both the beautiful and the splendid sublime in that they are much concerned with outward appearances. The feeling of the noble sublime predominates with the English, whose actions are guided by principles rather than impulses. With their cruel autos-da-fé and harsh conquests, the Spaniards have feeling for the terrifying sublime. Dutch people in Holland have no finer taste and are concerned only with what is useful. Arabs are like the Spaniards. Persians resemble the French. The Japanese are the Englishmen of the Orient. West India displays its love of the grotesque sublime, as also do the Chinese. African Negroes possess no finer feelings. North American Indians, however, have a feeling for the sublime in that they are adventurous, honorable, truthful, proud, brave, and valorous.

In antiquity, the ancient Greeks and Romans had remarkable feelings for both the beautiful and the sublime. However, with the Caesars, this decayed into a love of false glitter. The subsequent barbarian Gothic civilization had an overpowering feeling for the grotesque. Kant claimed that his time witnessed "the sound taste of the beautiful and noble blossoming forth both in the arts and sciences and in respect to morals." He declared that it is necessary to educate the younger generation so that they will have noble simplicity, high morals, and finer feelings.

Editions

 * Kant, Immanuel. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. Trans. John T. Goldthwait. University of California Press, 1961, 2003.


text:
User:EthanVox

Hi, i am ethanvox. I do very sparse editing - mostly obvious corrections - when i get the chance. Feel free to contact me.

title: User:EthanVox


text:
Carolyn Murphy

Carolyn Murphy (born August 11, 1974) is an American model.

Career
In 1998, Murphy was named VH1/Vogue's Model of the Year. She played Dubbie in Barry Levinson's film Liberty Heights. She was one of the 'Modern Muses' on the November 1999 millennium cover of American Vogue and was chosen to represent Calvin Klein's perfume, Contradiction. She was featured on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue in 2005 and 2006.

Murphy has shot campaigns for Missoni, Versace and Tiffany & Co.

In July 2012, Murphy was hired to replace Angela Lindvall as host of Project Runway All Stars on Lifetime, after Rosie Huntington-Whiteley dropped out for a film project. In 2012, Murphy was ninth on the Forbes top-earning models list, estimated to have earned $3.5 million in one year.

Personal life
As of 2015, Murphy practices Transcendental Meditation.

title: Carolyn Murphy


text:
KSBY

KSBY (channel 6) is a television station licensed to San Luis Obispo, California, United States, serving the southern Central Coast of California as an affiliate of NBC and The CW Plus. The station is owned by the E.W. Scripps Company and maintains studios on Calle Joaquin in southern San Luis Obispo, with an additional studio on Carmen Lane in Santa Maria. Its main transmitter is located atop Cuesta Peak; the station also has a translator, K10PV-D, in Santa Barbara.

Channel 6 was the first station to go on the air in the market; it launched on May 25, 1953, as KVEC-TV, the radio sister station to KVEC. Originally affiliated with the DuMont Television Network, it gained access to additional network programming in 1955. The station became linked to KSBW-TV in Salinas in 1957, changing its call sign to KSBY-TV; they continued to share programming into the 1970s, and the two outlets were co-owned for the next 38 years. In 1969, the station became a primary affiliate of NBC.

After being owned by Elisabeth Murdoch and her husband from 1994 to 1995, the station was acquired by Montecito–based SJL Broadcasting in 1996. SJL moved KSBY from its original studios in a residential area on Hill Street to the present hilltop site on Calle Joaquin; the station also began broadcasting a digital signal under its ownership. Scripps acquired KSBY in 2018 from Cordillera Communications. The station has generally been the news leader in the southern Central Coast market.

Early years
On February 17, 1948, the Valley Electric Company, owner of San Luis Obispo radio station KVEC, applied to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for permission to build a new television station on channel 3. However, the application was not acted on by October 1948, when the commission instituted a freeze on new TV station grants to sort out possible changes to television broadcast standards. The freeze was lifted in April 1952; Valley Electric had to modify its application to specify the newly assigned channel 6.

The FCC granted the application on March 11, 1953. Construction proceeded on the station, which was half-built as of August 1952—months ahead of the grant. The original studios were shared with KVEC radio at Mountain View and Hill streets; when the facility was constructed in 1949, space was set aside for a future TV station. KVEC-TV put out its first test pattern on May 13, 1953, and it aired its first regular programming on May 25. This made it the first post-freeze new station in California. The station was originally affiliated with the DuMont Television Network, but in 1955, the station was approved to build a microwave relay to bring in ABC and CBS programs from the networks' stations in Los Angeles. The DuMont network wound down operations later that year.

Ownership with KSBW
In 1956, John Cohan, the lead stockholder in KSBW radio and television in Salinas, agreed to acquire the KVEC stations for $450,000. KVEC-TV changed its call sign to KSBY-TV on June 14, 1957. The new designation coincided in a major change for channel 6; it was now receiving its programs by microwave from KSBW-TV. While the pairing maintained studios in Salinas and San Luis Obispo, the combination was promoted as the Gold Coast Stations, and they began carrying the same mix of CBS, ABC, and NBC network programming.

The Salinas Valley Broadcasting Corporation, parent company of both stations as well as KSBW radio in Salinas, agreed to be purchased in 1960 by Paul Harron and Gordon Gray, who together owned radio and television properties in upstate New York. The deal never materialized; instead, president and general manager John Cohan and three associates took control of the station in a transaction announced that October. KSBW and KSBY were no longer ABC affiliates by 1962; in the Salinas portion of the market, KNTV in San Jose was carrying the CBS and NBC shows that could not be fit on KSBW–KSBY's schedule, while KEYT in Santa Barbara became a full-time ABC affiliate in September 1963. In 1964, a second station went on the air in Santa Maria: KCOY-TV (channel 12), which in 1965 sought to force KSBY to become an exclusive CBS affiliate so as to protect its NBC affiliation. The opposite would take place four years later: on January 12, 1969, KSBY became a primary NBC affiliate and KCOY-TV a primary CBS affiliate. The ownership consortium, later known as Central California Communications Corporation, also owned the cable systems in Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The FCC ordered Central California Communications Corporation to file for operation of KSBY on a standalone, non-satellite basis in 1975, on account of its financial condition; the order stemmed from a dispute with Gill Industries, owner of KNTV, over the combination of KSBW and KSBY viewership figures for ratings purposes in the Salinas–Monterey market, where the stations' competition—KNTV and KMST in the north and KCOY-TV in the south—did not serve the same area.

KSBW and KSBY were acquired in 1979 by John Blair & Co., a New York firm that represented TV and radio stations to national advertisers. The company owned two radio stations but no TV stations. By this time, KSBY was already dominating its market, leading KCOY and KEYT in evening news ratings even though its signal did not reach Santa Barbara directly. In 1986, Blair fended off a hostile takeover attempt by Macfadden Acquisition Corporation by accepting a competing, higher offer from Reliance Capital Group, led by financier Saul Steinberg.

Reliance, however, did not buy Blair intending to keep its three English-language TV stations: KSBW, KSBY, and KOKH-TV in Oklahoma City; rather, it was interested in the Spanish-language stations in Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico, which were used to launch the Telemundo network in January 1987. As a result, Blair sold KSBW, KSBY, and KOKH-TV to Gillett Communications for $86 million in November 1986.

Gillett financed its ventures by issuing junk bonds and became burdened by a heavy debt load. The parent company, Gillett Holdings, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in 1991; the next year, many of its subsidiaries, including KSBY, filed their own bankruptcy cases to protect the station from possible legal issues in the Gillett case. The companies emerged from bankruptcy in October 1992 with ownership having been assumed by Gillett's debtholders. In 1994, KSBW and KSBY went on the market as a package, with Gillett Holdings seeking between $30 and $40 million and receiving multiple offers.

EP Communications ownership
Gillett announced on March 25, 1994, that KSBY and KSBW would be sold to EP Communications, a new company formed by Elisabeth Murdoch—daughter of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Fox network—and her husband, Elkin Pianim. The Los Angeles Times reported a month before the announcement that Rupert Murdoch was interested in giving his daughter and son-in-law hands-on experience running a business. Elisabeth Murdoch had previously worked at Australia's Nine Network and Fox, including a stint as the programming manager of Fox's station in Salt Lake City, Utah, KSTU. There was also speculation that the stations could switch to Fox: at the time, Fox had no affiliate on the southern Central Coast. However, Elisabeth Murdoch was also reported to be taking pains to separate the running of the Central Coast stations from her father's media empire. EP Communications paid $35 million for the pair; the transaction was primarily financed by Commonwealth Bank of Australia, a longtime banker for Rupert Murdoch's media ventures, and was personally guaranteed by Rupert Murdoch.

The ownership tenure of EP Communications was characterized by multiple changes in management and personnel. The general manager was fired, months after he was promoted; several news department employees departed for positions in other markets or out of TV news, while Elisabeth Murdoch wrote to the San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune, decrying its coverage of changes at her station as "a commercially motivated attempt to embarrass a competitor for advertising dollars". The highest-profile change Murdoch made was to fire Rick Martel, who had been the station's lead news anchor for nearly 15 years. The two—38 years apart in age—clashed, and Martel told Murdoch he was not comfortable working for her; Murdoch stayed at the station until 1 a.m. to personally take or return phone calls from irate viewers. Martel then briefly anchored the news at KCOY-TV between 1995 and 1996.

The situation stabilized after four months, when Murdoch—who had been splitting her time between Salinas and San Luis Obispo—hired a manager to run KSBY and devoted her time to running KSBW. In hindsight, observers noted that Murdoch brought to KSBW and KSBY a larger-market style that was at odds with the stations' prior image, but it was more aggressive and professional with fewer on-air errors. The stations were able to quickly improve their financial positions on account of reduced program costs and a 50-percent increase in network compensation from NBC. In a year when advertising sales were flat, cash flow increased 42 percent.

SJL ownership and studio move
In September 1995, EP Communications announced the sale of KSBW and KSBY to separate owners. Smith Television—owner of KEYT in Santa Barbara—acquired KSBW, while KSBY was purchased by SJL Broadcasting, which was based in Montecito in Santa Barbara County. Murdoch and Pianim claimed in a statement that consolidation in the TV station industry forced them to either get bigger or sell, though a station employee claimed they were told a good unsolicited offer resulted in the sale. The acquisition and sale of KSBY and KSBW after just 18 months resulted in a net gain of $12.25 million for Murdoch and Pianim. The key priority of SJL's ownership tenure was to move KSBY out of the Hill Street studios it had occupied for more than 40 years. The location, in a residential area, limited future expansion; as early as 1986, when Gillett purchased channel 6, a relocation was identified as necessary for the station. In 1996, SJL purchased a hilltop property at the end of Calle Joaquin that had housed a parade of nightclubs since 1975 but had sat vacant for more than two years. Construction began in 1998, and the station relocated in 1999. The Calle Joaquin site, at 17000 ft2, was twice as large as the former quarters at 8000 ft2.

KSBY expanded by launching the cable-only The WB 100+ Station Group virtual station "KWCA" in April 2002; the service replaced Los Angeles' KTLA on local cable. In September 2002, SJL sold KSBY to the second incarnation of New Vision Television. Jason Elkins, founder of New Vision, had previously owned and sold a group of stations under that name in the 1990s; KSBY and KVII-TV in Amarillo, Texas, were the second incarnation's first acquisitions. They believed there was still money to be made in small-market TV, particularly because viewer loyalty to network affiliates was higher in smaller markets.

Recent history
Evening Post Industries (through its Cordillera Communications subsidiary) acquired the station in 2004 for $67.75 million. The station closed its Santa Barbara news bureau in January 2008, focusing its energies on news coverage in the San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria areas; however, it continued the practice of offering separate weather segments for all three areas.

Cordillera announced on October 29, 2018, that it would sell most of its stations, including KSBY, to the E. W. Scripps Company. The sale was completed on May 1, 2019.

On April 19, 2024, Nexstar Media Group, majority owner of The CW, announced that the network would not renew its affiliations with Scripps-owned stations, including KSBY.

Subchannels
The station's signal is multiplexed:

Analog-to-digital conversion
KSBY began broadcasting a digital signal on July 2, 2002. shut down its analog signal, over VHF channel 6, on February 17, 2009, the original target date on which full-power television stations in the United States were to transition from analog to digital broadcasts under a federal mandate. The station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 15, using virtual channel 6.

title: KSBY


text:
William Molyneux, 2nd Earl of Sefton

William Philip Molyneux, 2nd Earl of Sefton (18 September 1772 – 20 November 1838), also known as Lord Dashalong, was a sportsman, gambler and a friend of the Prince Regent.

Personal life
Born in 1772, Lord Sefton was the only son of Charles Molyneux, 1st Earl of Sefton and Lady Isabella Stanhope, daughter of the Earl of Harrington. In 1792, he married the Hon Maria Craven, daughter of William Craven, 6th Baron Craven. He had four sons and six daughters. He succeeded to the title in 1795 and it passed in turn on his death in 1838 to his eldest son Charles William Molyneux, 3rd Earl of Sefton.

Charles Greville wrote of him:
 * "He was absolutely devoid of religious belief or opinions, but he left to all others the unquestioned liberty of rendering that homage to religion from which he gave himself a plenary dispensation. His general conduct was stained with no gross immorality, and as he was placed far above the necessity of committing dishonourable actions, his mind was habitually imbued with principles of integrity. They sat, however, lightly and easily upon him as regarded the conduct of others, not so much from indifference as from indulgence in those particular cases where a rigid and severe application of high principle would have interfered with his own convenience or enjoyment."

Political career
Educated at Eton College and at the University of Oxford, despite an unsuccessful attempt to be MP for Liverpool in 1818, he sat as MP for Droitwich, Worcs between 1816 and 1831. Sefton opposed the surveyance of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway line, in 1824 and did his utmost to prevent it. Ultimately, he was not successful in preventing the railway's construction in 1830.

On 20 June 1831, he was created Baron Sefton of Croxteth in the Peerage of the United Kingdom which allowed him to sit in the House of Lords. He also accepted the Stewardship of the manor of East Hundred, in the county of Berkshire.

Sporting life
Sefton was an enthusiastic gambler and sportsman whose main sporting success was in the founding and governance of sports events.

He was the third man to be appointed Master of The Quorn (1800–1805). In 1836, he founded the Waterloo Cup for coursing at Great Altcar in Lancashire, an event which was very popular in its heyday and attracted large crowds. The last Waterloo Cup took place in 2005. Over the years, Aintree had been the site of private races between the Molyneux family and their friends, including the Stanleys. Lord Sefton leased land at Aintree to the Waterloo Hotel (a hotel in Liverpool's Ranelagh Street) to help establish what is now Aintree Racecourse, home of the Grand National Steeplechase, of which he was one of the principal sponsors and a committee member.

In London, he acquired the nickname 'Lord Dashalong' because of his fondness for racing through the streets in a carriage with four horses; along with Lord Worcester, Lord Barrymore, Sir John Lade, Colonel Berkeley and Charles Buxton, Lord Sefton was a founding member of the Four-in-Hand (also known as Four-Horse) Club.

He was a member of White's club in London. His wife, Lady Molyneux, was a Patroness of Almack's club, of which his mother had been a Foundress; she is a minor character in several novels of Georgette Heyer.

His ancestral seat was Croxteth Hall in Liverpool. He also resided at Stoke Farm, Berkshire and at 21 Arlington Street, London.

title: William Molyneux, 2nd Earl of Sefton


text:
Cruise-O-Matic

Ford-O-Matic was the first automatic transmission widely used by Ford Motor Company. It was designed by the Warner Gear division of Borg Warner Corporation and introduced in 1951 model year cars, and was called the Merc-O-Matic when installed in Mercury branded cars and Turbo-Drive when installed in Lincoln branded cars. In contrast to Detroit Gear Division's three band automatic originally designed for Studebaker which became superseded by this unit, a variation of Warner Gear's three-speed unit named Ford-O-Matic continued to evolve later into Cruise-O-Matic named transmissions in 1958 and finally the FMX named transmissions in 1968. This line continued in production until 1980, when the AOD was introduced. Like Ford, variations of this same Borg Warner design were used by other automobile manufacturers as well, such as AMC, International Harvester, Studebaker, Volvo and Jaguar, each of them having the necessary unique adaptations required for the individual applications.

Ford-O-Matic
In 1948, Ford realized it was late in introducing a fully automatic transmission to its automobile lineup. Ford initially approached Studebaker to purchase rights to use the DG-series automatic developed by the Detroit Gear division of Borg-Warner. The Studebaker board of directors was agreeable, but stipulated that Studebaker would have one year exclusive use of the design before Ford could use it. Since the DG was available in Studebaker cars in mid-1950, this meant that Ford would have to wait until mid-1951 to introduce an automatic. The wait was unacceptable, so Ford went a different direction.

Ford Engineering Vice President Harold Youngren, recently hired away from Borg-Warner, recommended that Ford license and build a transmission using a design he was working on at his previous employer. Ford and the Warner Gear division of Borg-Warner signed a contract in 1948 which entered B-W into a supply agreement wherein they would build half of Ford's transmissions for five years, with the other half either being built by Ford or by a different supplier. Because of this agreement, Ford licensed the design themselves and broke ground immediately on an assembly plant to build the remaining transmissions. The new plant, called Fairfax Transmission Plant, was dedicated in 1950.

The original Ford-O-Matic accomplished two things that Ford's two previous automatic transmissions failed to do: Through the use of an integrated torque converter and planetary gearset, Ford's automatic shifted smoothly without an interruption in torque from the engine. The other was the shifting pattern, revised from PNDLR to PRNDL, which served to reduce "shift shock" when changing gears and reduce "torque shock" when trying to rock a stuck car back and forth.

The original Ford-O-Matic, while capable of three forward speeds, started out in second and shifted to third, with first only being used when selecting L on the gear shift column. However, if floored from a standing start, it would immediately shift from second to low then shift back to second and then third as the vehicle accelerated.

The Ford-O-Matic was manufactured from 1951 until it was replaced by the C4 in 1964. Ultimately the transmission Ford licensed to build from Warner Gear/B-W was less expensive to build than the Detroit Gear/B-W unit that Ford had initially sought to license from Studebaker. When Studebaker ran into financial difficulty in the mid-1950s, Studebaker turned to Ford and licensed the less expensive Ford-O-Matic, rebranded it as the Flight-O-Matic, and dropped the DG transmission from its line-up.

Merc-O-Matic "Keyboard Control/Multi-Drive"
For 1957, Mercury offered mechanically activated pushbutton transmission controls in response to the Chrysler TorqueFlite pushbutton controls introduced in 1956. The Mercury control buttons initially offered five buttons and was called "Keyboard Control", with a long button on top labeled "Drive" with four smaller buttons below labeled "Brake", "Neutral Start" which would allow the engine to start with the ignition key, "Hill Control" and "Reverse" with later versions separating the "Drive" button to "Performance" and "Cruising" for 1958 and relabeled as "Multi-Drive Keyboard Control". A separate push/pull lever was included below the control buttons labeled "Park" which would lock out the control buttons until the Park button was pulled to release it. The control panel was installed to the left of the steering wheel. In 1959 the keyboard control was discontinued and used a steering column gear selector lever.

MX/FX
In the mid-1950s, cars began to grow in size, and in response to heavier vehicles, more powerful engines were being developed. The original Ford-O-Matic was used as a template when developing the next automatic transmissions for Ford; in fact, many of the gear sets are interchangeable. The new transmissions arrived for model year 1958 which coincided with the release of Ford's new FE and MEL engines. Although marketed as Cruise-O-Matic, the new transmissions were known internally as the MX (larger) and the FX (smaller). They were a three-speed design using a Ravigneaux planetary gearset like the original, but moved the pump from the rear to the front of the transmission, while also using a different valve body so the transmission would start in first gear as opposed to second. The MX was built in the Livonia Transmission Plant in Livonia, Michigan and was placed behind the more powerful engines in Mercury, Lincoln, and select Ford models. The smaller FX was built alongside the Ford-O-Matic at the Fairfax Transmission Plant and was put in midrange Ford and Mercury models. Because the original Ford-O-Matic started in second rather than first, it was marketed as a two-speed after the new three-speed transmissions were introduced. Production continued until it was replaced by the C4 in 1964 in smaller Ford and Mercury vehicles.

Ford-O-Matic two-speed
The Ford-O-Matic two-speed transmission was introduced in 1959. A simplified version of the Cruise-O-Matic, it combined a torque connector and a compound planetary gear set. A front unit (multiple-disc) clutch provided high gear, a front band on the clutch drum provided low gear, and a band on the rear unit internal gear drum provided reverse. This transmission was offered on Ford models Falcon, Fairlane, and Galaxie, Mercury models Comet, and Meteor and Edsel cars with differences in the torque converter, valve bodies and clutch plates to accommodate differing engine torques.

FMX
In 1966, Ford introduced the C6 automatic, which left them with three heavy-duty automatic transmissions and crowded conditions at Livonia Transmission plant. Ford decided to combine the best attributes of the MX and FX transmissions and ended up with an improved version of the "X" called FMX. This transmission used the stronger MX-type rotating parts in the smaller FX style case. This cut down on both weight and the number of transmission components Ford needed to make. This transmission was manufactured at the Fairfax Transmission Plant, freeing up capacity at Livonia for the new C6. The FMX was manufactured from 1968 to 1979, when the Fairfax Transmission plant was closed.

Although the FMX was phased out in the United States in 1979 in favor of Ford's then-revolutionary Automatic OverDrive (AOD) transmission, the FMX was sold for another four years for use in V8 Ford Falcons built in Australia. The FMX ceased production when Ford Australia phased out the V8 engine in 1983.

Gear ratios

 * First: 2.40:1
 * Second: 1.47:1
 * Third: 1.00:1
 * Reverse: 2.00:1

XT-LOD
In 1962, Ford began working on a new type of automatic transmission to emphasize fuel economy and driveability. The new transmission was built around the Ravigneaux planetary of the "X" transmissions. Where many transmissions had a fourth gear added as an afterthought, Ford's new transmission was designed with a fourth gear already integrated into the gearset. Because it was based on the X transmissions, its gear ratios from 1-3 were the same, with the fourth being .67:1. The transmission featured a split-torque application for third gear, as well as a lockup in the torque converter. The project was shelved with a design that initially lacked a dampener in the torque converter, but after the project was revisited, a dampener ultimately made its way into the final design before Job 1. The XT-LOD was initially abandoned in 1966, but revisited in 1974 as a result of rising gas prices. The transmission was introduced when Ford downsized its full size line for 1979. Initially called XT-LOD (Extension Lock-Up Overdrive), its name was changed when revisited in 1974 to FIOD (Ford Integrated Overdrive) and then to its final name in 1979, the Ford AOD transmission.

GAZ copy
Despite the Cold War, the Soviet Union, in developing its automotive industry, would often base its products on western technology, from whom it would either purchase a full licence (the GAZ factory was designed by the Ford Motor Company, later the Lada factory would be built by Fiat etc.) or make an indigenous copy by reverse engineering. In the 1950s, as the GAZ plant was preparing to launch its new generation of cars, that comprised the mid-size GAZ-21 Volga sedan and the full-size GAZ-13 Chaika limousine, it was specified that both vehicles feature the automatic transmission. Having evaluated many models, Borg-Warner's Ford-O-Matic and Cruise-O-Matic were selected.

Despite very closely resembling the American transmissions, GAZ's copies did have distinctive differences. First of all – their components were adopted to the metric units. Their gear ratios – to the car's engines. Both cars' handbrake actuated a central drum between the housing and the drive shaft, instead of the rear wheels. Thus a parking pawl was deemed redundant. Volga's transmission, based on the Ford-O-Matic, required additional adaptation to the air-cooled torque converter, as it was driven by a 65 hp 4 cylinder engine. Controlled by a steering column mounted lever, it had four regimes: Зх-Н-Д-П (R-N-D-L). In Drive the car would start in second and automatically shift to third depending on throttle position (the valve was regulated by a lever linked to the accelerator pedal). A kick-down feature was also present. First gear could only be engaged manually in Low (though it could be engaged if the car was in motion, but would only downshift) and was used for engine braking or rapid starts. Gear ratios were: 2.4 – 1.0 for the torque converter, 2.84 for first gear, 1.68 for second, third was direct and reverse was 1.72.

Chaika's Cruise-O-Matic copy required fewer adaptations, due to its mating with a 195 hp V8 engine. The transmission was controlled by a dial-button panel with four regimes: Зх, Н, Д, Т corresponding to Reverse, Neutral, Drive and "Braking". In Drive the car was would start in first and sequentially shift to third and back. In "Braking" (i.e. engine braking), third gear would be locked out, and the first gear would be engaged by the rear band immobilizing the planetary carrier, rather than the one-way sprag clutch (absent on Volga's transmission). The more powerful engine and thus torque required a liquid cooling system. Gear ratios were identical to GAZ-21, except for the torque converter, which had a maximum multiplication of 2.5.

Both transmissions made a début in 1958 and 1959 respectively. Initially, it was planned that all of the privately owned Volgas be produced with the automatic, whilst a more Spartan trimmed taxi version featured the three-speed manual. However, most of these cars were given as prizes to workers of distant regions for excellent results, instead of being kept in large cities, where they would be more practical. The "lucky" customers had great difficulty in obtaining adequate spare parts, qualified service and most of all, transmission fluid. As a result, many chose to simply convert their transmission to the common three speed manual (that was a common universal model used in the GAZ-69 jeep and Volga's predecessor, the GAZ-M20 Pobeda). Although the option was formally discontinued in 1964, most of the 700 cars were produced in the 1958 MY. As of 2017, only six such survivors were known.

Chaikas, on the other hand, were available only with the transmission, and in 1962 it received a slight upgrade in number of clutch packs and piston shapes. Never available for private ownership, the car was produced in small scale all the way until 1981. In 1963, GAZ introduced the third Soviet type of a KGB Q-car, the GAZ-23, by transplanting the large V8 engine and the powertrain of the Chaika into the unibody Volga. This car was used as a motorcade escort by the KGB's ninth directive (responsible for personal security of the party leadership) as well as surveillance teams of the 7th directorate.

In 1970 GAZ-21 Volga was replaced by GAZ-24 and the V8 adoption followed soon, dubbed GAZ-24-24. As the sedan's standard gearbox was now a four on the floor manual, the selector lever was accordingly altered. Unofficially these cars were called "Chasers", and despite their novelty, the engine torque was disproportional to the chassis ability. This meant a low service life and also required very professional driving. For concealment reasons the select indicator externally resembled a manual transmission gearshift lever, and the cars even lacked a single brake pedal, instead having the "clutch"/brake pedal layout that dubbed each other. The GAZ-24 had the common cord-actuated parking brakes, thus the central shaft brake was removed and replaced by an extension housing to fit the shorter driveshaft of the GAZ-24. GAZ-24-24 would be produced alongside standard GAZ-24 until 1985. That year the car got a major facelift and internal modernisation with engine and chassis elements from the GAZ-3102 Volga, resulting in the GAZ-24-10 model. The Chaser became GAZ-24-34 and was produced until 1993.

In 1977 GAZ launched its successor to the GAZ-13, the GAZ-14 Chaika. The new limousine had a more powerful engine, 220 hp, and its transmission was revised. Like for the GAZ-24, the central transmission brake was removed, but unlike the sedan, it now had a parking pin. The floor-mounted selector got an international P-R-N-D-2-1 lettering. Regime "1" now operated first gear only, via the rear band, whilst regime "2" locked out the first gear (like on the original GAZ-21 Volga). Gear ratios were now 2.35 – 1.0 for torque converter, 2.64 for first gear, 1.55 for second, third remained direct, and reverse became 2.0. The car was produced from 1977 until 1989. In 1981 GAZ launched what was to be a successor to the GAZ-24, but separated into a separate model and built alongside the -24, the GAZ-3102 Volga. It too gained a "chaser" modification – GAZ-31013 with the 220 hp engine from the GAZ-14, and its transmission, adapted to Volga's body. This model was built until 1996 in tiny numbers, for the VIP security detail only.

As only partial statistics have been published, it is difficult to count the total number of transmissions built (including replacements). What is known that 3189 GAZ-13 Chaikas, 1120 GAZ-14 Chaikas, 608 GAZ-23 Chasers were built, in addition to the ~700 original GAZ-21 Volgas. Anywhere between 2 and 2.5 thousand GAZ-24-24, 24-34 and 31013 Chasers can be added. Thus approximately 8000 vehicles were manufactured by the plant from 1958 to 1996 featuring a Cruis-O-Matic based transmission.

title: Cruise-O-Matic


text:
File:PolaritonImaging.jpg

Figure 3: Frames from a phonon-polariton movie of broadband phonon-polariton generation and propagation in lithium niobate taken with real-space imaging. The first frame shows the initial phonon-polaritons at the time of generation. Immediately afterwards, wavepackets travel away from the excitation region in both directions. The second frame, taken 30 ps after generation, shows two phonon-polaritons traveling to the right. The first (left) is the reflection of the initial left-going wavepacket and the other was initially traveling to the right.

title: File:PolaritonImaging.jpg


text:
Forelimb

A forelimb or front limb is one of the paired articulated appendages (limbs) attached on the cranial (anterior) end of a terrestrial tetrapod vertebrate's torso. With reference to quadrupeds, the term foreleg or front leg is often used instead. In bipedal animals with an upright posture (e.g. humans and some primates), the term upper limb is often used.

A forelimb is not to be confused with a forearm, which is a distal portion of the human upper limb between the elbow and the wrist.

All vertebrate forelimbs are homologous, meaning that they all evolved from the same structures. For example, the flipper of a turtle or of a dolphin, the arm of a human, the foreleg of a horse, and the wings of both bats and birds are ultimately homologous, despite the large differences between them.

Specific uses of the forelimbs may be analogous if they evolved from different sub-structures of the forelimb, such as the flippers of turtles and dolphins, and the wings of birds and bats.

Evolution of forelimbs
Evolution of the forelimb may be characterized by many trends. The number of digits, their characteristics, as well as the shape and alignment of radius, ulna, and humerus, have had major evolutionary implications.

Changes in body size, foot posture, habitat, and substrate are frequently found to influence one another (and to connect to broader potential drivers, such as changing climate).

Shape
A number of factors can influence the evolution of forelimb long bone shape, such as body mass, lifestyle, predatory behavior, or relative prey size. A general pattern is for heavier species to have more robust radii, ulnas, and humeri.

Musteloid carnivorans that have an arboreal lifestyle tend to have long and slender forelimb long bones, which allow for improved movement and flexibility. Semi-fossorial and aquatic musteloid species tend to have short and robust forelimb long bones to deal with the strain from digging and swimming.

In the order Carnivora, felids, which usually ambush and grapple with their prey, have shorter and more robust limbs. Their forelimbs are used for both short sprints and grappling, which means that they need to be flexible and durable. In contrast, canids, which often pursue their prey over greater distances, have longer, more gracile limbs. Running is pretty much the only use for their forelimbs, so they do not need to be adapted for anything else and can be less flexible.

Predators hunting prey that is half their body weight or greater evolved shorter and more sturdy radii, ulnas, and humeri to decrease the likelihood of the bone breaking or fracturing while hunting. Predators hunting prey less than half their body weight tended to have longer and more slender forelimb long bones to improve energetic efficiency.

Polydactyly
Tetrapods were initially understood to have first developed five digits as an ancestral characteristic, which were then reduced or specialized into a number of uses. Certain animals retained 'primitive' forelimbs, such as pentadactylous (five-fingered) reptiles and primates. This has mostly held true, but the earliest tetrapod or "fishapod" ancestors may have had more than five digits. This was notably challenged by Stephen Jay Gould in his 1991 essay "Eight (Or Fewer) Little Piggies".

Polydactyly in early tetrapods should be understood as having more than five digits to the finger or foot, a condition that was the natural state of affairs in the very first tetrapods. Early groups like Acanthostega had eight digits, while the more derived Ichthyostega had seven digits, the yet-more derived Tulerpeton had six toes.

Tetrapods evolved from animals with fins such as found in lobe-finned fishes. From this condition a new pattern of limb formation evolved, where the development axis of the limb rotated to sprout secondary axes along the lower margin, giving rise to a variable number of very stout skeletal supports for a paddle-like foot.

Digit specialization
Digits may be specialized for different forms of locomotion. A classic example is the horse's development of a single toe (monodactyly). Other hooves, like those of even-toed and odd-toed ungulates, and even the hoof-like foot of extinct hadrosaurs, may be regarded as similar specializations.

To bear their immense weight, sauropods, the most derived being titanosaurs, developed a tubular manus (front foot) and gradually lost their digits, standing on their metacarpals. The stegosaurian forelimb has evidence for a sauropod−like metacarpal configuration This was a different evolutionary strategy than megafaunal mammals such as modern elephants.

Therapsids started evolving diverse and specialized forelimbs 270 million years ago, during the Permian.

Opposable thumbs
Modern humans are unique in the musculature of the forearm and hand, though opposable thumbs or structures like them have arisen in a few animals.

In dinosaurs, a primitive autonomization of the first carpometacarpal joint (CMC) may have occurred. In primates, a real differentiation appeared perhaps 70 mya, while the shape of the human thumb CMC finally appears about 5 mya.

 * Primates fall into one of four groups:
 * Nonopposable thumbs: tarsiers and marmosets
 * Pseudo-opposable thumbs: all strepsirrhines and Cebidae
 * Opposable thumbs: Old World monkeys and all great apes
 * Opposable with comparatively long thumbs: gibbons (or lesser apes)

Pandas have evolved pseudo-opposable thumbs by extension of the sesamoid bone, which is not a true digit.

Pronation and supination
The ability to pronate the manus (hand) and forearm in therian mammals is achieved by a rounded head of the radius, which allows it to swivel across the ulna. Supination requires a dorsal glide of the distal radius and pronation a palmar glide in relation to the distal ulna.

Pronation has evolved multiple times, among mammals, chameleons, and varanids. However, the more basal condition is to be unable to pronate. Dinosaurs were not capable of more than semi-pronation of the wrist, though bipedal origins of all quadrupedal dinosaur clades could have allowed for greater disparity in forelimb posture than often considered. Monotremes have forearms that are not as dexterous as therians. Monotremes have a sprawling posture, and multiple elements in their pectoral girdles, which are ancestral traits for mammals.

In birds, the forearm muscles supinate, pronate, flex and extend the distal wing.

Wings
All tetrapod forelimbs are homologous, evolving from the same initial structures in lobe-finned fish. However, another distinct process may be identified, convergent evolution, by which the wings of birds, bats, and extinct pterosaurs evolved the same purpose in drastically different ways. These structures have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups.

Bat wings are composed largely of a thin membrane of skin supported on the five fingers, whereas bird wings are composed largely of feathers supported on much reduced fingers, with finger 2 supporting the alula and finger 4 the primary feathers of the wing; there are only distant homologies between birds and bats, with much closer homologies between any pair of bird species, or any pair of bat species.

Flippers
Marine mammals have evolved several times. Over the course of their evolution, they develop streamlined hydrodynamic bodies. The forelimb thus develops into a flipper. The forelimbs of cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sirenians presents a classic example of convergent evolution. There is widespread convergence at the gene level. Distinct substitutions in common genes created various aquatic adaptations, most of which constitute parallel evolution because the substitutions in question are not unique to those animals.

When comparing cetaceans to pinnipeds to sirenians, 133 parallel amino acid substitutions occur. Comparing and contrasting cetaceans-pinnipeds, cetaceans-sirenians, and pinnipeds-sirenians, 2,351, 7,684, and 2,579 substitutions occur, respectively.

title: Forelimb


text:
Veronika Vařeková

Veronika Vařeková (born 19 June 1977) is a Czech model. Her name in the English language press is often given as Veronica Varekova.

Biography
A native of Olomouc, Czech Republic, Varekova moved to New York City at the age of 19 to attend the Parsons School of Design. Upon arriving in Manhattan, she met with Next Models, and was signed immediately.

Varekova appeared on the covers of several magazines, including the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. She took part in shoots by photographers including Patrick Demarchelier, Gilles Bensimon, Ellen Von Unsworth, Greg Kadel and Peter Lindbergh, and appeared in campaigns for Gap, Chanel, Guess, Nivea, Escada, Chopard, Pantene, Ungaro, Patek Philippe, Hublot, Victoria's Secret, and Newport News. She has also appeared on TV shows including The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, CNN, Charlie Rose, and Fox and Friends.

Varekova has appeared in the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated a total of eight times: 1999-2002 and 2004–2007. She appeared on the cover in 2004. She has appeared on the cover of Marie Claire, Vogue, Harpers & Queen, Maxim, and Cosmopolitan.

Personal life
In 2004, Varekova married Petr Nedvěd a Czech Canadian professional ice-hockey player. Their marriage was short lived and the couple separated in 2006.

Varekova climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in 2008. During this trip she met the African Wildlife Foundation team in Tanzania, and in October 2009 she became a Goodwill Ambassador for the organisation. She is also a patron volunteer at the SZPD Orphanage in her home town of Olomouc.

Veronica resides in New York City, but also spends time in Prague to be close to family and friends.

title: Veronika Vařeková


text:
Talk:BMT 63rd Street Line

Stub
I don't agree that this article should be a stub; given the limited nature of the topic there's very little left about it to say. Niffweed17 02:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article isn't a stub. The "background" section is a stub. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's definitely more to say about the background, like the origins of the Broadway Line stubs that it was connected to. --SPUI (talk) 03:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wooded Up?
Wasn't the line wooded up north of the 57th Street/7th Avenue station? I Am Ri¢h!  ''' My Rich Contributions/ My Wealthy Talk |undefined

Lack of clarity about line's definition
The current edit says that the line....

 * runs from a connection with the BMT Broadway Line at 57th Street and 7th Avenue north and east to Lexington Avenue–63rd Street, where it connects to the IND 63rd Street Line and ends.

But further down, it says that there is a station at Lexington Avenue-63rd Street, with transfers available to various other lines. I believe this is incorrect. The BMT half of the station is incomplete, has never opened, and is walled off. A train on the BMT 63rd Street Line cannot stop there. Only trains on IND 63rd Street Line can stop at Lexington Avenue. (There are, however, switches west of the station, so trains on either line can move to the other.)

I've revised it to indicate that trains on the BMT side of the line cannot stop at the station. Marc Shepherd 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge with IND 63rd Street Line?
I would suggest that this article be merged with IND 63rd Street Line. There is very little to be said about this line on its own. There is currently a tag on the "Background" section of this article. Were it to be filled in, it would be largely the same background as for the IND 63rd Street Line, since the whole project was constructed at one time.

Moreover, there is now a single page for Archer Avenue Line, even though that line's two levels — unlike the 63rd Street Line — have no interconnection whatsoever. On the edit history for List of New York City Subway lines, Larry V suggested the other day that there should be only one article on Archer Av; there is not enough material to write two legimate articles, one for each division.

Surely if that's true of the Archer Avenue Line, it is true here too, for much the same reason. Marc Shepherd 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It should not be merged into a single article. The lines have separate origins, and will have separate destintions. They also have different chaining letters. The BMT line is chained BMT G and the IND line is IND T. All they share in common is a single station. Same deal with Archer Avenue Line. One originates at from the QB line and is chained IND D and the other originates on Jamaica Avenue and is chained BMT J. If they arer ever extended where they're supposed to go they will also take off in two completely different directions. -- Cecropia 21:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That's all certainly true, and by no means should the two be considered one line. But surely it wouldn't be difficult to have one article that makes the separation abundantly clear? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That's what I was thinking. Marc Shepherd 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with IND 63rd Street Line to become 63rd Street Line?
What the title says. --Epicgenius  My Epic Contributions/''' My Genius Talk 19:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Update: It's been done. --Epicgenius  My Epic Contributions/''' My Genius Talk 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:BMT 63rd Street Line


text:
Talk:Metamathematics

obsolete term?
The term 'metamathematics' is obsolete? Hmm... Maybe I've been reading way too many old texts on math, but I've certainly come across it more often than this article seems to state. Just because mathematical logic has more google hits means nothing in this circumstance. Anyway, metamathematics does not have to be mathematical, does it? But mathematical logic does. I would think this means that mathematical logic is actually a subset of metamathematics. Eric Herboso 02:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, metamathematics does have to be mathematical. It is (in my not-at-all-humble opinion) a subset of the intersection of mathematics and logic. 86.132.220.143 (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Googlefight
Is using Googlefight in the way the article does really necessary and/or encyclopedic? --Aioth 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
There seems to be no difference between metalogic and metamathematics. At least, all the examples in metalogic are or should be in metamathematics, and everything in metamathematics fits the definitions in metalogic. If metalogic were to discuss the meta-theory of non-mathematical logic, that could be different, but that would seem to require a formal theory of non-mathematical logic — which would make that aspect mathematical logic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose strongly the suggested merger :The above is quite incorrect: for example metalogic also includes many-valued logic, MV-logic algebras, \{}Lukasiewicz logics ,LM-logic, etc., that most ( e.g. >> 99.999 percent of today's mathematicians would not consider as metamathematics; thus one can study metacategories and multicategories without many-valued logics. The two entries should not be merged, It simply means that the metalogic authors' suggestions are not based on mathematical reality as published today. Furthermore, metalogic may also include various quantum logics that most mathematicians quite correctly would not regard as metamathematics, but as logical foundations of quantum physics theories that can also be considered under metalogics, but not under metamathematics. Nu 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Bci2Nu 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)WP:Mathematics Project{WP: Physics Project}; 3rd March 2009 [UTC.]

 * The people I know who are doing what is described as "metalogic" consider themselves (and are called by others) logicians, not metalogicians – as for example those in Category:American logicians – and the field they are working in is known as "(mathematical) logic", not "metalogic". The latter term does not even occur in the AMS Mathematics Subject Classification. I don't think these logicians are particularly concerned with the "truths-of-logic", whatever that may be. (The term is not explained.) --Lambiam 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Metalogic and metamathematics do not seem to be the same subject, though there appears to be some overlap in the matters considered and studied. Metamathematics appears to study many of the foundational problems in formal logic and seems geared towards system analysis. Metalogic seems much more narrowly focused on the advantages and shortcomings of formal language, rather than taking the systemic approach. Vassyana (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Thinking about it, metalogic seems just to be what is commonly known in mathematical circles as model theory and proof theory. Although Britannica (online) has an article on it, the article metalogic has no secondary sources (the current reference being a primary source), and the article at present has nothing distinguishing it from other better known concepts in mathematical logic.  I think, perhaps, I should withdraw the merge request in favor of changing it to a quasi-disambiguation page, unless sources can be provided that people doing it use the term.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Assuming (I can't find an explicit statement to the effect) that the author of Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First-Order Logic equates metalogic with "the metatheory of logic", the definition offered is:
 * "The metatheory of logic is the theory of those formal languages and systems that for one reason or another matter to the logician."
 * There is a chapter with the title "Metalogic" in Hao Wang's From Mathematics to Philosophy, p. 166. It defines the notion as follows:
 * "Metalogic may be defined as the study of the syntax and the semantics of formal languages and formal systems."
 * I agree that this covers the areas of model theory and proof theory within mathematical logic, and the article should indeed point that out.  --Lambiam 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Metalogic straddles mathematics and philosophy. Just doing a quick Google search, UC Berkeley offers Metalogic as a course in the Philosophy Dept. UC Irvine offers it as a joint course of the Logic & Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy Departments. Compare Philosophy with Metaphilosophy. Chet Ubetcha (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, UCI is not really known for having a first-class logic or philosophy department, but that's beside the point.  I attempted to withdraw the merge request above, but others have said it should be merged somewhere, so it seems improper just to delete the request.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Both those courses are based on the book Metalogic, not necessarily on the subject.  Odd, isn't it.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not the first to argue this. The players were Tarski versus Carnap, who were so important that I don't have to pipe their names to get the links to work. Chet Ubetcha (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * off-topic remark I have to take exception to Arthur's comment about UCI. I don't know about their philosophy department in general, but in philosophy of math specifically it is extremely strong (that's where Penelope Maddy is), and they have a whole department of "Logic and Philosphy of Science", which I believe is the first of its kind. In math logic, on the other hand, they have Matthew Foreman, so not hurting on that score either. --Trovatore (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Metamathematics is not the same as metalogic. Furthermore, metamathematics is different enough (and important in its own right by enough) to warrant its own article in wikipedia. By the way, how many official votes do we need before we can take that merge tag down? — Eric Herboso 09:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question If the two topics are different enough to warrant distinct articles why is the distinction not made clear?
 * Comment Neither article is very long, detailed or clear. They seem to refer to each other, I'd say that the topic is almost circular. I have no doubt that the two subjects are different and that if you had two experts, one from each field, they could tell you how the subjects are related but that they look at different ASPECTS of the theory.  I'm a math person myself, and it seems to me that 'metamathematics' is a specific field of study within the larger on context of 'metalogic'.  I think that if you want to keep the two articles disjoint then you should probably ADD enough context in both articles to warrant a distinction and disjoint articles; otherwise they should be merged and put into correct context of one another. Jka02 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Shouldn't we prove that mathematics = logic before merging the articles at the metalevel? Pouring oil on burning waters. RJBotting 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is metamathematics?
Hibbert spoke about metamathematics and mathematics, about synthesizing complete systems by using rules to manipulate arbitrary symbols, and using these rules to manipulate the symbols such that their completeness is shown. My question is, what qualifies mathematics and what qualifies metamathematics? Is the statement "x is x" mathematical, or metamathematical? What about "'x' is 'x'"? That is to say, are the rules that define the manner in which the symbols manipulated mathematical or metamathematical? How can mathematics be derived from metamathematical rules while metamathematics is defined as being about mathematics? Shouldn't it be the other way around if any formal mathematical system is derived from rules that lie in the domain of metamathematics?

 * NOTE: I assume you meant "Hilbert" not "Hibbert" (?!), as one does not recognize any "Hibbert" as any kind of authority in metamathematics, or metalogics for that matter.

 * Furthermore, metamathematics is just one field of science, whereas metalogics are many distinct fields, different from metamathematics in both methodology and fundamental concepts.

Turing
Shouldn't there be mention of Alan Turing as a key contributor to metamathematics? His work on decidability, which gave rise to the notion of the Turing machine, was prompted by the Hilbert programme -- The Entscheidungsproblem (the "decision problem"): Hilbert's tenth question of 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.101.2 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, the Entscheidungsproblem should be mentioned, as well as the problems from Hilbert's problems that had a foundational aspect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed
I trimmed the article some today. User:Bci2 expanded it some, and some of the new content was good, but much of it seemed to make the article hard to read (to my eye) or to diverge into ruminations about the difference between metamathematics, logic, mathematics, and metalogic. I do think that we can expand this article quite a bit, and I added a "milestones" section to start that. I also found a nice article on JStor about Tarski's use of the term metamathematics.

The main difficulty I see with expanding this article is the disuse of the term "metamathematics" by many contemporary mathematical logicians. It may be hard to document more contemporary mathematical viewpoints, but we want to ensure that we don't write an article from the point of view of 1960 either. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply on your update
You also need a non-circular definition of metamathematics!

 * The present definition is not circular: the study of mathematics itself using mathematical methods. Could you explain what circularity you see? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add the metatheory category
This is to propose adding the metatheory category to this article. I just undid my last revision because it seemed that someone wasn't very happy about it. Thanks for your attention. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Metalogic
I'm proposing that Metalogic be merged into Metamathematics, although there is some justification for the reverse merge. As far as I can tell, there's been no discussion since it was proposed in 2009, nor any distinction given between Metalogic and Metamathematics. If we can't distinguish them, they should both be in the same article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see I proposed this before. If both articles were to include the distinction (if any), I would withdraw the merge request, although both articles are basically stubs at this point.  Perhaps an article "Foundations of logic" which includes both?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please ignore the tags, to some extent. After refreshing my memory of the previous discussions, I think Metalogic and Metamathematics should be merged somewhere.  They have a lot in common, but the name of the merged article would be the subject of heated debate, probably only of interest to those on the metalogic side.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they should both be merged into foundations of mathematics, and then split on a different basis if enough can be found to be worthy of a split. Foundations of mathematics is a long article, but neither of these is much more than a stub.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose I strongly oppose this repeated proposal, and I do question the motivation. I believe it is an excuse to delete valid material. There does exist a hypothetical universe, where I would support the creation of an article Metalogic and metamathematics, however, the political environment here is not it. Arthur originally believed and claimed that it is a neologism, which just shows where he is at, in terms of understanding the issue. I even showed him a university course schedule where Metalogic is still currently being taught. So this proposal is completely inappropriate, and I would like the issue closed for good this time.Greg Bard (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I pointed out the course was about the book (or at least drew its title from the book), rather than necessarily being about the topic. It still seems that "metamathematics" and "metalogic" are never used in the same context, so it is difficult to assert that they are different.  If you (after 4 years) have been unable to describe the difference, isn't it possible that there isn't one.
 * As far as I'm concerned, this article (metamathematics) is defective; since I can't think of sources for improvement, it seems a merge somewhere is in order. "Metalogic" may be worse, consisting primarily of examples of topics within the field of "metalogic", with no unifying theme.
 * (And, for what it's worth, the previous discussion did not have a formal resolution, so writing "result=keep" is somewhat questionable; one could easily justify a delete of both articles on the grounds of notability.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur, your statement is so full of falsehoods, presumptions, and wrong analysis, that it is hard to know where to begin, where to end, or if there is any hope that you will understand or respect the decisions of those who do. No. Neither the article, nor any courses taught are "about the book." Metalogic is the title of chapters of books, used in the titles of scholarly articles, and is a term well used in the literature. You need to face the fact that you are late to the party in that regard. It isn't up to me to prove that the terms are the same or different. If you are proposing to merge them, it's up to you to prove they are the same, as there are sources for the use of each, and you, yourself state explicitly that they are used in different contexts. You state your opinion that you see no "unifying theme" in the article metalogic. Being able to see the conceptual connections between things is a function of intelligence. I cannot help you there beyond the explicit and specific organization of the article metalogic itself. Furthermore, your claim that the previous discussion did not have a formal resolution is so disingenuous, as to call it question your integrity. There was a very clear consensus to oppose your proposal, by any reasonable standard. It wasn't "questionable" AT ALL. Greg Bard (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose: I fail to understand the reasoning behind this proposal. Metalogic is NOT metamathematics, though they are definitely intertwined. Metamathematics has to do with proof theory and deals with how we describe and justify what we use as mathematical rules. Meanwhile, metalogic deals with how we use describe and justify what we use as logical rules of inference. These are separate issues. Sure, metalogic contains metamathematics within it, and so the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. But they refer to separate concepts. Logics need not necessarily use mathematical reasoning within them, and so there are some issues in the field of metalogic that would not be included in metamathematics. As one example, see this sentence in |one encyclopedia's entry for metamathematics: "Thus, these metatheorems, strictly speaking, do not belong to metamathematics and are therefore often said to belong to metalogic or to what is called set-theoretic predicate logic." — Eric Herboso 04:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you, perhaps read the heading of that entry. "From The Great Soviet Encyclopedia" ....  Even if the entry were not ideologically based, it is translated from Russian.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The English translation of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is quite good, as the wikipedia article on it shows, so your claim of possible mistranslation seems unlikely. As for your claim of ideological bias, should we also refuse to use the Academic American Encyclopedia, the New American Cyclopedia, or the New American Desk Encyclopedia? What about Encyclopaedia Britannica? After all, it has Great Britain right there in the name. Of course, I take the point that every encyclopedia has inherent bias of some kind. But I fail to understand how the ideology of the Soviet Union at that time would cause it to say something incorrect about metalogic and metamathematics. If you seriously think that the article is ideologically biased in this respect, does this mean you are suggesting that there was a Soviet conspiracy to undermine the field of metalogic through surreptitious encyclopedia entries? — Eric Herboso 00:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
One should also note a statement in the (current) version of metalogic:
 * Today, metalogic and metamathematics are largely synonymous with each other, and both have been substantially subsumed by mathematical logic in academia.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Russell?
What contributions to metamathematics did Russell make? I ask because /Principia Mathematica/ has no discussion of such metamathematical topics as redundancy of axioms, decidability, completeness. Can anyone cite a work were Russell indicated an interest in any such matters? 86.132.220.143 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Error
I hope it's not impolite to say so, but whoever wrote "Gödel's incompleteness theorem: proof that given any finite number of axioms for Peano arithmetic, there will be true statements about that arithmetic that cannot be proved from those axioms." doesn't know what they're talking about. There is an axiomatization of PA that unavoidably has infinitely many axioms - the first-order axiomatization. And there is an axiomatization of PA that has finitely many axioms - the second-order axiomatization. Both are incomplete. But Gödel's incompleteness theorem isn't really about PA (2nd or 1st order), it is about a broad class of arithmetics. Shall I delete the offending sentence? 86.132.220.143 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metamathematics. 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/20100607132453/http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?eadid=C0948&kw= to http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?eadid=C0948&kw=

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) 16:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Gentzens' Cut-Theorem and Lorenzen?
I've read the German edition of this article and there is a reference to the philosopher and mathematican Paul Lorenzen and a work about Genzens' Hauptsatz. Would it be a good Idea to put this in the article, too? 2A02:908:424:9D60:0:0:0:4A03 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Metamathematics


text:
User talk:Nai

Chaos Xenosaga
I hope you don't mind I changed the location of your chaos article form Chaos (Xenosaga Character) to Chaos (Xenosaga) its what all the other Xenosaga articles are like. Thanks for contributing to the Xenosaga section! -- Revolver Ocelot

Chaos(Xenosaga Character) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chaos(Xenosaga Character). Since you had some involvement with the Chaos(Xenosaga Character) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nai


text:
Module talk:Infobox military conflict

Useful links
 * Link to Template:Infobox military conflict
 * Link to Template:Infobox military conflict/doc (Documentation)
 * Link to Template:Infobox military conflict/testcases (Testcases)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2021
Add custom header options for the other sections, and not just for combatants/belligerents Halo FC (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the module's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've made what I thought were the right changes. I next made a custom infobox on my user sandbox page. Though when I previewed my user sandbox page with the edited module, I couldn't see any changes, none of the desired changes, the custom header text, I'm not sure what I need to do, hope you can help out, thanks Halo FC (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry for the delay in responding, your ping attempt didn't work (pings only work when adding a whole new comment, not editing an existing one, see Help:Fixing failed pings). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Documentation Transclusions Readability
Are transclusions of other documentation really the preferred practice on the Template:Infobox military conflict/doc page? A glance at the TOC shows three subheadings for "Parameters", and two each for "Usage", "Microformat", "TemplateData" and "See also". The hierarchy of headings offers no further clues either since the names of transcluded pages don't show up there at all. I understand how co-locating this information could be a convenience if you know how the documentation is organized in advance but otherwise using this as a reference tool is cumbersome. There's no clear way to distinguish which section is which without a bunch of scrolling around - at which point it might as well be a click into the actual template documentation being transcluded. --N8 07:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding strength of only one belligerent
If information on only one belligerent is available and not the second one or strength of second one is only partly available like strength under one of the commanders of second belligerent then how to write in Infobox? Whether remove strength column altogether for both or keep one blank or write N.A. in one? Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I would need more information (ie a specific case with details) but we don't have to populate the strength fields in the infobox - particularly if there is any nuance to the information that is best left to prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Campaignboxes causing infobox to stay above first paragraph
See Template talk:Infobox military conflict. At Battle of Bakhmut (for example) the mobile transform that moves the lead paragraph above the infobox is failing. Moving the campaignbox outside the infobox fixes the issue, so it doesn't seem to be the fault of either the campaignbox template or Military navigation but rather the problem lies here somewhere. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of map_type= without coordinates causes script error to display instead of infobox
Please see this test case for an example of the infobox being replaced entirely by a script error when map_type is used without coordinates. That condition should result in an error-tracking category, not a giant red error message. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I fixed it by adjusting the if statement to check for both map_type and coordinates before rendering a map. Why is this talk page separate from the Template's talk page? That is not the usual practice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Module talk:Infobox military conflict


text:
User talk:Zephyrgrrl

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia Signpost.

You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zephyrgrrl


text:
User talk:Alex Weeks

Hi Alex, I have a question concerning the photo of a mbira in a calebash that you posted here 3 years ago. Please let me know if my question reaches you in this way. Best Klarinetten-Piel (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your work at Shona music. Looks great, and I see you've been working on mbira as well! I just wanted to let you know what I decapitalized a bunch of things in Shona music because they weren't proper nouns, and I also made some changes to the section headers. If you haven't seen it yet, you may be interested in WikiProject_World_music, which is marked as inactive but has some new rumblings on the talk page. Thanks for your work, and let me know if you have any questions. Tuf-Kat 05:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Yeah, I'm planning on adding content to other Zimbabwean and Shona music-related articles as well, and try to get some people I know who also know about those subjects to contribute.  I'll also look at the World Music project page, also, thanks again. Alex Weeks 05:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Mbira players and keyboardist-stubs
In my opinion there isn't a more appropriate stub available at this time for mbira players. It does use a keyboard, even if it isn't the 88 keys of a piano. If we had a percussionist-stub (and we may have one soon, as it has been proposed) there would be a strong argument to use that stub instead, but it doesn't exist yet. Since you seem to be the primary person working on articles about mbira players right now, I'll defer to you as to which stub would be preferable if you have a preference. Caerwine 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mbira & religious belief
I agree with your comments on the mbira talk page. Things that are religious belief do not belong in the encyclopedia. Those things are not verifiable via written documentation. Dogru144 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject World music invitation
-- TimNelson 10:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cosmas magaya.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cosmas magaya.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alex Weeks


text:
User:Revolver Ocelot

My faverite video game/video game series of all time is Xenosaga, so I decided to make a big Wikipedia section on it! My second faverite video game/video game series is Metal Gear Solid, as my name suggest. I am currently play Xenosaga Episode II so I am sadly not producing as many Xenosaga articles as I would like, but after I beat XeBo II hopefull I will be able to contribute even more! YAY!!!

Articles I first created:

 * Jin Uzuki
 * Shion Uzuki
 * Gaignun Kukai
 * Joachim Mizrahi
 * Juli Mizrahi
 * Shelley and Mary Godwin (Xenosaga)
 * Wilhelm (Xenosaga) / Wilhelm
 * Galaxy Federation
 * Kukai Foundation
 * S.O.C.E.
 * U-TIC Organization
 * Gnosis (Xenosaga)
 * U.M.N.
 * U.R.T.V.

Articles I plan to first create:

 * Second Miltia
 * Old Miltia
 * Margulis (Xenosaga)
 * Pellegri
 * Dmitri Yuriev
 * Miltian Star System
 * Logic Drive System
 * Song of Nephilim
 * Zohar (Xenosaga)
 * Zohar Emulator

Articles I plan to fix up:

 * Jr. (Xenosaga)
 * Albedo (Xenosaga)
 * U-DO
 * MOMO
 * Ziggurat 8
 * T.C.
 * Elsa Crew
 * Yuriev Institute
 * Canaan (Xenosaga)
 * Joachim Mizrahi
 * Helmer (Xenosaga)
 * Durandal (Xenosaga)
 * Allen Ridgely
 * Cherenkov (Xenosaga)
 * Dämmerung

title: User:Revolver Ocelot


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrant (German band)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 15:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Warrant (German band)
Non-notable. Unless I did this wrong, I see 0 Google hits. --Woohookitty 02:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found a few relevant pages:  . The band meets the standards laid out at Notability and Music Guidelines, even though this article is poorly written and not very informative. – flamurai (t) 03:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, defunct band. Article does not establish notability. Megan1967 09:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per flamurai Kappa 09:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is a POV, therefore invalid reason to delete. Norman Rogers\talk 12:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Notability", as we use the word on this page, is not a statement of Point of View.  It is, rather, a proxy for a judgment call about the community's ability to maintain this particular article - to keep it NPOV and verifiable and to protect it for all time against subtle vandalism.  Articles on extremely obscure topics of popular culture are unlikely to draw the necessary critical mass of informed reader/editors to protect the article.  This is, of course, a judgment call.  However once that judgment has been made, it is a very valid reason to delete an article.  (no vote) Rossami (talk) 04:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per guidelines for musical notability. But just barely. HyperZonktalk 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per flamurai. GRider\talk 00:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article in question does not establish that the band meets the WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. The external links provided by flamurai also do not establish notability (unless I'm missing something everyone else saw).  Thus, I vote weak delete . Tuf-Kat 02:26, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Tuf-Kat 02:02, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Band did a German tour according to which meets point 2 of Notability and Music Guidelines. I tried to flesh out the article a bit. Tradnor 09:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The external link you provided crashed my browser (after the ad), so I can't verify it. But I'll assume good faith and change my vote. Tuf-Kat 02:02, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

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


text: User talk:70.18.51.32

title: User talk:70.18.51.32


text:
Automatic Drive

Automatic Drive was the trade name for Studebaker Corporation's first automatic transmission, designed in conjunction with Borg-Warner's Detroit Gear division. Studebaker was one of two independent American auto manufacturers to invest in development and tooling for automatic transmissions, the other being Packard with its Ultramatic product.

Automatic Drive, which combined a three-speed planetary gearset and a lock-up torque converter, debuted in early 1950 as a $201 option on all Studebaker models. Ford, which was without an automatic transmission in 1950, approached Studebaker about buying Automatic Drive units. Studebaker's management refused and thereby lost out on what could have been significant "plus" business.

By 1955, Studebaker was forced to abandon the Automatic Drive because of high production costs, replacing it with a less-expensive Borg Warner unit based on Ford's Ford-O-Matic, which Studebaker called Flight-O-Matic. Borg-Warner continued to build Studebaker's Automatic Drive and market the unit overseas. It was used on British marques including Jaguar, Daimler, Humber and Ford Zephyr/Zodiac.

title: Automatic Drive