text:
Constanza Manuel

Constanza Manuel of Villena (c. 1318 – 27 January 1349), was a Castilian noblewoman who by her two marriages was Queen consort of Castile and León and Infanta of Portugal.

Early years and first marriage: Queen of Castile
Born in Castillo de Garcimuñoz in 1318, Constanza was the daughter of Castilian nobleman and writer Don Juan Manuel (1282–1348), Duke of Peñafiel, "powerful and hardworking magnate of Castile" and his second wife, Infanta Constance of Aragon, Princess of Villena, daughter of King James II of Aragon. She was the only surviving child of her parents' marriage: her two full siblings, Beatriz and Manuel, both died young; in addition, Constanza had several half-siblings from her father's third marriage and several extramarital affairs, including Juana Manuel (later wife of King Henry II of Castile).

After the death of King Ferdinand IV of Castile in 1312, Don Juan Manuel was one of the tutors of his son and successor, King Alfonso XI when he was still a minor. Upon reaching the legal age of majority in 1325, the King prescinded from his tutors and began his personal rule. It was then that Don Juan Manuel, not wanting to lose his power, formed an alliance with the recently widowed Lord of Biscay, Juan de Haro, nicknamed "el Tuerto" (the One-eyed), and tried to marry his daughter Constanza -who was then about nine years old-, with him. This union never took place, because King Alfonso XI (fearful of the union of two of the most powerful vassals of his Kingdom) asked for himself the hand of Constanza in marriage, and ordered the assassination of Juan de Haro.

The betrothal of Constanza and King Alfonso XI was ratified by the Courts of Valladolid on 28 November 1325, but given the bride's minority, the marriage was never consummated, although Constanza became to use the title of Queen consort of Castile and as such she wrote her letters to her grandfather King James II of Aragon. Two years later, in 1327, Constanza was repudiated, as the Castilian monarch was more interested in marrying with his double first-cousin Infanta Maria of Portugal, daughter of King Afonso IV, in order to strengthen ties with the Lusitan kingdom.

Second marriage: Infanta of Portugal
King Afonso IV quickly learned that his daughter Maria was being mistreated by her husband King Alfonso XI of Castile. Don Juan Manuel had "an opportunity to being compensate for the procedure of his sovereign", and made an alliance with the Portuguese monarch (who felt as though his daughter was being dishonored), sealed with the marriage of Constanza to the heir of the Portuguese throne, Infante Pedro.

The contract for the wedding, signed in 1335 stipulated, among other things, that: Constanza would maintain the manors and the free disposition of the lands delivered for the sustenance of her house; her father could visit her as many times as he wanted; the first son of the marriage would inherit the crown of Portugal while the second son would succeed to the House of Manuel but, if this second-born son was not born, the House of Manuel would be inherited by the Infante Pedro or his heir; and, that under no circumstances would the lands of Don Juan Manuel join those of the Crown of Castile.

This agreement was not to the liking of the Castilian monarch who did everything possible to prevent Constanza from traveling to Portugal and imprisoned her at the Alcázar of Toro to pressure Don Juan Manuel to desist from this marriage. Don Juan Manuel claimed his daughter but King Alfonso XI refused to give her up. However, the marriage by proxy was celebrated, first in Portugal, on 28 February 1336 at the Convent of São Francisco in Évora with the presence of Infante Pedro, his parents and several bishops, and, as proxies of Constanza, Fernão and Lopo Garcia. Although the bride and groom were 2nd cousins (being both great-grandchildren of King Pedro III of Aragon), it did not take long to obtain the papal dispensation.

The Portuguese King felt offended by the fact that King Alfonso XI still held Constanza in Toro, as well as by the humiliating treatment of the Castilian monarch towards his wife, María of Portugal, while King Alfonso XI reproached his father-in-law for not lending him the promised help in the fight against the Moors. This led to a war between the two kingdoms that lasted three years and raised the concern of other Christian kingdoms and Pope Benedict XII, who played a crucial role in ending this conflict. Peace between the Kingdoms of Castile and Portugal was agreed in Seville in the summer of 1339. Don Juan Manuel gave 800,000 doblas as a dowry for the marriage. A year later, in October 1340, King Afonso IV helped the Castilian sovereign and had an outstanding participation in the Battle of Salado.

Finally, Constance was able to travel to Portugal, in whose entourage was her relative, the Galician noblewoman Inês de Castro, with whom Infante Pedro of Portugal ("an impassioned man, brutal and with a hint of vesanic" ) quickly fell deeply in love. King Afonso IV complied with the agreement he had with Don Juan Manuel and he gave his daughter-in-law the arras that included the towns of Montemor-o-Novo and Alenquer as well as the city of Viseu as other Queens of Portugal previously received. This letter of arras was issued in Lisbon on 7 July 1340, and the following month, on 24 August, the official wedding was celebrated at Lisbon Cathedral.

The love relationship between Infante Pedro and Inês de Castro caused some discomfort among the members of the Royal Council. They were faced with the circumstance that Inês was the sister of two powerful Galician noblemen, Álvaro Pérez de Castro and Fernando de Castro, whose influence in Portugal was felt through their sister. As a way to end the affair of her husband and her relative, when Constanza gave birth her first son, Infante Luiz, she invited Inês to be his godmother. According to the precepts of the Catholic Church at the time, the relationship between the godparent and a parent of the person being baptized was one of moral kinship, and their love would be almost incestuous; however, the child would die within a week, which increased suspicions about Inês de Castro. The adulterous romance would continue and intensified with time, until King Afonso IV exiled the Galician noblewoman to Alburquerque, on the Castilian border, in 1344. This second attempt to separate the lovers did not end the relationship, and Infante Pedro and Inês began living together in secret.

Death and burial
The traditional date for Constanza's death is 13 November 1345, about two weeks after the birth of the infante Fernando, born on 31 October. However, according to the chronicler Rui de Pina and the Crónica dos Sete Primeiros Reis de Portugal, she died after giving birth to the infanta Maria. The Portuguese writer, bibliographer and genealogist, Antonio Caetano de Sousa, in his work Historia Genealógica de la Real Casa Portuguesa, cites a document from the archive of the Royal Monastery of Lorvão where it is stated that Constanza was still alive in 1347 and that in that year she was Lady of Alenquer, as well as what he had found of what ancient chroniclers had written about the time of her dealings with Inês de Castro. The historian Frederico Francisco Stuart de Figanière e Morão in his work Memórias das rainhas de Portugal, based on the obituary of the Church of San Bartolomeo in Coimbra, indicates that she died in 1349, a year corroborated by other more recent historians, including Salvador Dias Arnaut, A. H. de Oliveira Marques and Joel Serrão. According to Dias Arnaut, it is most likely that Constanza would have given birth to another daughter, María, named after her older sister, four years after the birth of the infante Fernando, and she died from postpartum consequences. The historian Ana Rodrigues Oliveira says that the most likely date of her death is 27 January 1349. This implies that the relationship between infante Pedro and Inês de Castro began before Constanza's death.

Constanza was initially buried in the Church of Santo Domingo in Santarém and later her son, King Fernando I, ordered that her tomb be transferred to the Monastery of San Francisco in the same city. At the end of the 19th century her tomb could have been transferred to the Archaeological Museum of Carmo in Lisbon. However, it is possible that the one identified as that of Constanza is the one destined for Isabel of Aragon, as part of the royal pantheon project devised by her husband King Denis of Portugal in the Monastery of São Dinis in Odivelas, although in the end the remains of the Holy Queen were buried in the Monastery of Santa Clara-a-Velha.

Issue
Constanza and infante Pedro of Portugal had the following children:

 * Maria (6 April 1342 – 1377 ) who married on 3 February 1354 infante Fernando of Aragón, Marquis of Tortosa and Lord of Albarracín (son of King Alfonso IV of Aragon and his second wife, Eleanor of Castile).
 * Luís (born in 1344, lived eight days).
 * Fernando I (31 October 1345 – 22 October 1383).
 * A daughter, possibly named Maria (born in 1349, died shortly after).

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

title: Constanza Manuel


text:
User talk:Jay-W

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of film production companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Pit and the Pendulum (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent Academy Award for Best Picture edits
By no means am I an expert on the subject, but I think some of those edits were questionable. To verify some of your edits, I went to the Academy website. For example, this page on the Oscars website lists both Selznick and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer as the producers. You removed one of them which either means that you are confused, or you're purposely removing information from the page. I for one think its just a minor error, but I will keep looking into all the edits you did. If most of them are also erroneous, I will be rollbacking your massive number of edits. Feed back  ☎ 15:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You also removed United Artists from Around the World in 80 days when the Academy also lists it as a production company. Listen, I don't think you're vandalizing, but I'm going to revert the edits. I know your edits were in good faith, but you're engaging in a weird version of accidental vandalism here. I'll be rollbacking these edits shortly. Please don't redo the changes. Find some sources for the ones you got right (if any) and then re-add them along with the sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, the Academy website would do fine for such basic information. Thank you, Feed  back  ☎ 15:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 * If you want to question individual changes then that's fine, but please don't just revert the whole lot based on guesswork. The changes I made were valid and accurate. The Academy website is a primary source for information on the Academy and the Oscars, but it's not the last word on the films themselves. The credit for MGM on Gone with the Wind is actually "in association with". I removed MGM as a production company, as this is in line with the other entries which list only the principal companies. Jay-W (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're asking me to trust all 10 edits after finding out 3 of them were incorrect. Look, I can't sit here and evaluate them all day to make sure which ones are correct and which aren't. You should check them before you added them, and even then, you should have added rs's to back up your claims. I told you to please not revert the edits. For the record, the Academy has the final say on who is listed in the nominations. Most of the time, some producers aren't officially nominated. As a show of good faith, I'm going to take 10 minutes to check their records and review your edits, but frankly, I feel like a sucker for doing this for you. If I find at least 3 more incorrect, I'm re-reverting it. You can't add a bunch of information and defend it by saying "not all of it is wrong".  Feed  back  ☎ 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously the Academy has the final say on what the nominations are, but that's not what we're talking about. I looked at the Oscars website, and the reason you are confused is because it lists both production companies and distributors. The production companies come first, then after the semi-colon it lists the US distributor. Jay-W (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, I'm not going to make believe I'm an expert on the subject, but some of your edits are just odd. For example, you added Dino De Laurentiis as a Production Company even though the man is most certainly not a company. As of right now, it's the only instance where you put a man in the "Company" section. What gives? The Academy website makes no mention of him anyway. Could you not provide reliable sources for this giant heap of information? Where are you getting it from anyway? Feed  back  ☎ 16:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the 1960s Romeo and Juliet or the 1930s one? De laurentiis is a person obviously but it's also the name of his company. This company is the Italian one so it's Dino de Laurentiis Cinematografica. I just shortened it to save space. It is listed on the oscars site - []. Jay-W (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cary Grant
A few years ago you participated in a discussion at Talk:Cary Grant about his citizenship. A recent RFC has begun on Cary Grants citizenship reference in the lead paragraph. Please feel free to add a comment at Talk:Cary Grant.-- JOJ Hutton  22:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish independence referendum, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 * John, the material was not unreferenced or poorly referenced. You are taking that line about “tabloid journalism” out of context. The policy applies only to contentious material. The views of Gordon Brown and George Robertson on Scottish independence are well known and are a matter of public record, the material is not contentious. And an article written by Gordon Brown himself is definitely a reliable source for his own views. You need to use some common sense.The BLP policy doesn't justify you deleting information just because the source is a tabloid newspaper. If you think the article breaches the policy then you can raise the issue on the Talk page or on the BLP noticeboard. Jay-W (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Please don't threaten me and plaster my talk page with your stupid logos. I have already explained to you why the material is not in breach of the policy. But if you think there has been a breach of BLP policy then you can use the BLP noticeboard and raise your concerns there. Jay-W (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Enough of your nonsense. I have not violated the policy and you are a fool if you think I have. You are ignorant, aggressive, threatening and disruptive. You appear to think being an administrator is just a convenient way for you to win an argument by blocking anyone who disagrees with you. And you don't even understand Wikipedia's policies. You are clearly not a suitable person to be an administrator and you should resign your position immediately. Jay-W (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked for one week for repeated violations of WP:BLP. If you wish to appeal you should post, but you should read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Block review
I am reviewing this block. Do I correctly understand that the only dispute here concerns the propriety of quoting from a column written by Gordon Brown himself and from an interview with George Robertson, attributing to each of them views that it is undisputed they hold? I will ask the blocking administrator to comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly. As you can see, the user has repeatedly, and following several warnings, added lengthy quotations attributed to prominent living people, using a Scottish tabloid and a blog as a source. Rather than try to find a better source, or discuss centrally, the user has insisted that they understand WP:BLPSOURCES better than I do. There is no support for using tabloids in this way. I'll be happy to unblock if they can demonstrate that they properly understand WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And actually, on reviewing this matter myself, I see that I had edited the article in a non-admin capacity, technically putting me into the involved category. This I had forgotten before making the block. I will unblock you and defer to another admin's view on the matter. I see Brad is already reviewing this and perhaps he will have a view. I still very strongly maintain that restoring BLP material sourced only to tabloids or other weak sources is a blockworthy offence, but I see that I should not have made the block. --John (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I share your (John's) concern about the undesirable overuse of "tabloid" sources, particularly for BLP material. However, in the context of these specific edits, I also see Jay-W's point that the particular use he was making of the material might be considered unproblematic; it certainly is not the sort of gossip-mongering that is at the core of the concern about tabloid sourcing. There seems to be no dispute that Brown and Robertson have precisely the views on Scottish independence that the disputed edits attribute to them; and I certainly see no basis for disputing the attribution of views to Brown based on an article that he wrote. Unless there is some aspect to this situation that I am missing entirely, I disagree with this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the EC there. I make no dispute about the views that the two prominent politicians hold, as I cannot read their minds. The obvious remedy for someone wishing to include this material in the article would be to find a better source, as policy requires. If none can be found, we cannot include it, as policy states. But I shall take this down a different administrative path than blocking. --John (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you raise this on a noticeboard, would you kindly link to that discussion here? Regards, 00:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jay-W


text:
Gtkpod

gtkpod provides a graphical user interface that enables users of Linux and other Unix operating systems to transfer audio files onto their iPod Classic, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle, iPod Photo, or iPod Mini music players. Although it does not support some of the more advanced features of iTunes, gtkpod still performs the role of an iPod manager for Linux. Album art and videos are now supported, and preliminary support for jailbroken iPhones and iPod Touches is available.

Most digital audio players permit the user to browse and access their content via an interface closely related to the underlying file system. iPods, on the other hand, employ a proprietary database file for managing all the metadata associated with their content. Because of this, an iPod cannot recognize files that have been copied directly into the low-level file system unless its music database has been appropriately modified. This task is usually performed by iTunes, but since Apple has only released versions for Mac OS X and Windows, gtkpod provides the needed support for other operating systems.

Starting with version 0.93, the code that handles the iPod access has been separated as libgpod, a shared library that allows other projects to provide iPod support as well. It is currently used by popular players such as Rhythmbox and Amarok.

title: Gtkpod


text:
Anti-submarine warfare carrier

An anti-submarine warfare carrier (ASW carrier) (US hull classification symbol CVS) is a type of small aircraft carrier whose primary role is as the nucleus of an anti-submarine warfare hunter-killer group. This type of ship came into existence during the Cold War as a development of the escort carriers used in the ASW role in the North Atlantic during World War II.

Role
After World War II, the main naval threat to most Western nations was confrontation with the Soviet Union. The Soviets ended the war with a small navy and took the route of asymmetric confrontation against Western surface ship superiority by investing heavily in submarines both for attack and later fielding submarine-launched missiles. Several nations who purchased British and US surplus light carriers were most easily able to accommodate slow-moving, less expensive, and easy-to-land anti-submarine aircraft from the 1960s forward, such as the S-2 Tracker, which flew from the decks of US, Canadian, Australian, Dutch, Argentine, and Brazilian carriers, or Alizé, which flew from French and Indian ships, allowing these ships to still remain useful especially in the framework of NATO even as newer fighter and strike aircraft were becoming too heavy for the equipment designed for World War II aircraft.

Improvement in long-range shore-based patrol and conventional ship-based ASW helicopter capability combined with the increasing difficulty maintaining surplus WWII carriers led to most of these ships being retired or docked by smaller nations from the 1970s to the mid-1980s. This trend in ASW force draw-down only accelerated with the massive reduction in the operational Soviet/Russian submarine fleet, which rarely went to sea in large numbers in the 1990s. Ships that could be called dedicated ASW carriers are now only found within the Japan MSDF, which operates helicopters and no fixed-wing carrier-based aircraft of any kind. Even the United States Navy, the last nation to regularly operate a dedicated fixed-wing carrier-based ASW aircraft, the S-3 Viking, on its mixed-role super carriers had already removed most ASW equipment in the 1990s from this aircraft and has now removed this type from service as of January 2009 without replacement. The Argentine Navy, currently without much hope of a replacement CATOBAR carrier of its own, trained several times a year landings and takeoffs of their S-2 Turbo Trackers aboard the BRAZILIAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER São Paulo until this carrier was also retired.

Much easier to operate from small decks than fixed-wing aircraft were ASW helicopters, which flew from the decks of nearly all allied conventional carriers to this day and most LPH or STOVL carriers operated by the Soviet, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, British, and Thai navies.

Active

 * Italian Navy

 * ITALIAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER Giuseppe Garibaldi one ship, ASW helicopter carrier 1985–1988, STOVL fighters and ASW helicopters carrier 1988–.

 * Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

 * Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer (2009–). ASW, utility, and sea mine clearing helicopters
 * Izumo-class helicopter destroyer (2013–). ASW, utility, and sea mine clearing helicopters

 * Thailand

 * HTMS Chakri Naruebet
 * United States Navy

 * Wasp-class amphibious assault ship

Retired

 * Soviet/Russian Navy

 * Kiev-class aircraft carrier cruiser/carrier; guided missile cruiser/limited air defense/ASW STOVL and helicopters (Sold to India, renamed INS Vikramaditya.)

Retired and scrapped

 * Argentine Navy
 * ARA Independencia – (ex-Colossus class) ASW fixed-wing CATOBAR S-2 and helicopters
 * ARA Veinticinco de Mayo – (ex-Colossus class) ASW fixed-wing CATOBAR S-2 and helicopters

 * Brazilian Navy
 * BRAZILIAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER Minas Gerais – (ex-Colossus class) ASW fixed-wing CATOBAR and helicopters

 * French Navy
 * FRENCH AIRCRAFT CARRIER Arromanches – (ex-Colossus class) ASW fixed-wing CATOBAR and helicopters

 * Royal Navy
 * HMS Bulwark (R08); Centaur-class aircraft carrier recommissioned in 1979 from reserve as a helicopter ASW carrier.
 * HMS Hermes (R12); Centaur-class aircraft carrier converted to helicopter ASW in 1976. (Sold to India, renamed INS Viraat (R22), then scrapped 2021.)
 * Invincible-class aircraft carrier – three ships Strike/ASW/Amphibious Assault STOVL and helicopters. These ships were originally designed as "through-deck cruisers" for the ASW role and command, but ended up also equipped with Harrier STOVL fighters for fleet defence against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft. After the Falklands War they were used as conventional, albeit light, fleet aircraft carriers in the power projection role. HMS Invincible (R05) and HMS Ark Royal (R07) retired/scrapped, HMS Illustrious (R06) converted to amphibious assault ship, then scrapped 2016.

 * Royal Australian Navy
 * HMAS Melbourne (R21) – (Majestic class) strike/ASW fixed-wing CATOBAR and helicopters

 * Royal Canadian Navy
 * HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22) – (ex-Majestic class) ASW fixed-wing CATOBAR and helicopters

 * Royal Netherlands Navy
 * HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) – (ex-Colossus class) ASW (sold to Argentina as Veinticinco de Mayo, scrapped) fixed-wing CATOBAR and helicopters

 * Soviet/Russian Navy
 * Moskva-class helicopter carrier; ASW helicopter support ship, large rear deck landing pad and hangar for 18 helicopters Helicopters only

 * Spanish Navy
 * SPANISH AIRCRAFT CARRIER Dédalo – (ex-Independence class) ASW helicopter carrier 1967–1976, STOVL carrier 1976–1989. Strike/ASW STOVL and helicopters
 * SPANISH AIRCRAFT CARRIER Príncipe de Asturias one ship STOVL fighters and helicopters 1988–2013

 * United States Navy
 * Essex-class aircraft carrier – ASW carriers with fixed-wing and helicopter anti-submarine aircraft and AEW aircraft, although occasionally carried an A-4 Skyhawk detachment (4 aircraft) for daytime combat air patrol fixed-Wing CATOBAR and helicopters
 * Tarawa-class amphibious assault ship – the LPH amphibious assault ships was given secondary roles of sea control meaning they would deploy with a modified air complement consisting of ASW helicopters and a STOVL fighter group for air defense.

title: Anti-submarine warfare carrier


text:
Nemesis (rap crew)

Nemesis is an American hip-hop group formed in Dallas, Texas in the 1980s. Members of the group included MC Azim, DJ Snake, Big Al, Joe Macc and Ron C. They are considered the first rap group from Dallas to enjoy popularity in the US and world-wide, thanks to their label, Profile Records. This label was well known for bringing out many popular East Coast hip hop releases including Run-DMC, Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde, and Dana Dane. Originally, Nemesis was called "Something Fresh" with group members including rappers MC Azim (a.k.a. Azim Rashid), Bhumble Bee (a.k.a. Bill Jackson) and Eazy Roque (a.k.a. Charles Roquemore). They were later joined by DJ Snake (a.k.a. Don Brown), Big Al (a.k.a. Al English), Casanova Rock (a.k.a. Sean Lett). The rappers from Hamilton Park and the DJs from Oak Cliff, both neighborhoods in Dallas, became part of the Dallas, Texas underground rap scene in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Known for their funk-structured compositions and loud bass lines, the group debuted with the single "Oak Cliff" in 1987, and followed up with several albums on Profile Records from 1989-1995.

History
Something Fresh, a hip-hop group, gained local acclaim in Dallas by regularly appearing on KNON FM 90.9. Initially featured on "Nippy Jones Freaky Fresh Friday afternoon show," their collaboration with DJ Snake led to regular spots on the "All Hardy Def Party" radio show. Hosted by DJ Snake, Big Al and Casanova Rock, this show became a key platform for young hip-hop enthusiasts in Dallas, lacking alternative outlets for rap music. Every Wednesday night, the show highlighted local artists and underground music.

The group's rising popularity prompted a name change to Nemesis, influenced by member Bumble Bee's desire for a tougher image. DJ Snake, a pioneering hip-hop producer in Dallas, co-founded Get Off Me Records in 1987 and released his first single "Oak Cliff / Snake Beats". He began producing for Nemesis in 1988, contributing to their first album, "To Hell and Back", on Get Off Me Records. However, creative differences led to Bumble Bee's departure after signing with Profile Records, followed by Eazy Roque. MC Azim remained the sole MC, with Big Al stepping up as a producer/DJ and shifting the group's sound towards bass-heavy beats.

Azim left prior to the 1993 release of "Temple of Boom," with Ron C replacing him. DJ Snake departed in 1995, but the group continued, releasing "The People Want Bass." Their last known recording was in 2000, "Munchies for Your Bass, Da Return (Out tha Trunk)," featuring artists like Mabooda and Trill Gatez. The lead single "Hold Up" garnered regional attention. Big Al passed away in 2001 from natural causes.

Nemesis' style was influenced by gangsta rap, Miami bass, metal, and Islamic spirituality. Post-Nemesis, DJ Snake became a prominent figure in the Dallas-Fort Worth hip-hop scene, producing for various artists. He later collaborated with Too Short in Atlanta, contributing to acts like Lil Jon, T.I., and E-40. After a stint with DJ AK in the mid-90s, he continued to shape the local hip-hop landscape and released new music with Nemesis in 2016.

Discography

 * 1988 To Hell and Back (Get Off Me Records)
 * 1989 To Hell and Back (Profile)
 * 1991 Munchies for Your Bass (Profile) (Re-release in 1995)
 * 1993 Temple of Boom (Profile)
 * 1995 The People Want Bass (Profile) (Re-release in 1997)
 * 2000 Munchies for Your Bass, Da Return (Out tha Trunk) (Mack Time Records)
 * 2006 Greatest Hits (Mack Time Records)
 * 2016 This Is Hip Hop (Get Off Me Records)

title: Nemesis (rap crew)


text:
Talk:Frame rate

Accuracy
The flicker fusion section is very good and accurate. It conflicts though with an innacruate introductory paragraph for the topic:

The top says, "Frame rate...is the measurement of how quickly an imaging device can produce unique consecutive images called frames. The term applies equally well to computer graphics, video cameras, film cameras, and motion capture systems." We need to change "equally well", find something truthful to allow for the unusual and significant reality of interlaced video, wherein the term "frame" means something different than it does in film.

Here's the issue. It has everything to do with the "look" of video versus film, and is important imformation in regards to conversions between film and video. Traditional interlaced video, NTSC PAL and SECAM (all the major formats still in use, though HD is taking over) has "frames" in video. However, each "frame" actually contains two unique consecutive images, each called a field. So the definition above is not true. For instance, PAL has a "frame" rate of 25 "frames" per second. BUT, it has 50 unique images every second. Video is very strange, thanks to interlacing, full resolution only happens on the unmoving parts of images over the span of two fields. So full resolution sometimes resolves at 25 times per second (on unmoving or overlapping parts), but movement always resolves at 50 times per second. That's why interlaced video looks so hyper-real compared to film.

Film movement is abstract, often considered pleasing for it, because it is on the congitive perceptal edge of discreet images versus animation, between 15 to 25 images every second; but video is on the other cognitive edge, just beyond the brain's the ability to perceive simulated movement versus real world movement, between 50 and 60 images every second. So we have to find a way to address this in this topic. The following statement in the flicker fusion section hints at the basic issue: "...since a conventional television camera will scan the scene again for each field, in many circumstances it may be useful to think of the frame rate as being equal to the field rate."

Cheers! worldpoop.com 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The recent addition
An anonymous editor just added a bunch of good information to the article, but it really could use tighter integration with what was already here rather than simply being tacked-on at the bottom. Some of the new information is redundant and all of it could be better "factored" into the article. Volunteers? If no, I'll eventually get to it.

Atlant 13:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing was pasted in from here whatis.com. I'll revert it. You can still add any facts from there to the current article. --Dtcdthingy 14:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frame rate conversion
How difficult is it to convert between different frame rates? The article should answer that.

In the particular case of increasing frame rates by 2.5 times, we have 3:2 pulldown. And also the reverse of that. But how about going from 25 or 50 fps to 30 or 60 fps, or the other way around? It's often done, of course, but how?

-- ABostrom 20:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * That whole topic area is called Standards conversion, and encompasses scaling video between resolutions as well. There are lots of different ways to do it: Merging adjacent frames; dropping and doubling frames, intelligent motion compensation; etc etc. It's a big topic. --Dtcdthingy 22:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Generally it is fairly easy to make LARGE changes in frame rate, but smaller ones create problems. 24 to 60 works well, 24 to 30 can be jerky. Algr (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

24.976 and 29.97 vs 24 and 30
I have done a lot of work with interlaced video, and I am pretty sure that the correct frame rates for interlaced TV are 23.976 24.976 for PAL and 29.97 for NTSC. The numbers 24 and 30 are used for simplicity. I may be wrong about this, please correct me if this is so. If I am not corrected, and if nobody has done it, I will change it tommorow. HighInBC 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Afterthought, since this technical detail is not directly related to the subject matter perhaps putting the word aproximatly should be put infront of it instead of using akward numbers. HighInBC 00:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * well No. Wikipedia should use the actual data at least once, then the rest of the article could simply state "approx 24".-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * (Presumably, you mean 24.976 or some such. Atlant 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Yes, I meant 24.976. oops. HighInBC 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Though 60i and 50i are accurate aswell(I think) HighInBC 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well this is further confused by the 24 vs 25. PAL MPEG-2 (PAL DVD) is 25 fps, period.  But NTSC MPEG-2 is either 29.97 or 23.976 (with 3:2 pulldown), or about 24.  The 3:2 pulldown allows a match with cinema standards and simplify dvd mastering (i assume).  The ~30 (vs 25) is originally derived from the differing power standards in different countries (e.g. 50Hz vs 60Hz current).  NTSC used to be exactly 60i (vs current approx 59.94, or to be exact, 60/1.001 which is 59.940059...), half of which is (about) 29.97.  But all this stuff is written about extensively elsewhere on Wiki, so I think this page should (a) be technically correct and (b) have some suitable links to more details.  I will adjust accordingly.  --Psm 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If you divide 25 by 1.001 you get 24.9750249... not 24.976. Where 24.976 comes from? (PS I know this does not prove things, but...) 91.124.41.18
 * I believe you meant multiplying 25 by 0.999, in which case it would 24.975. Multiplying 24 by 0.999 becomes 23.976. ZtObOr 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Found it! See Telecine, it sais:
 * $$ \frac{23.976}{29.97} = \frac{4}{5}$$
 * So, HighInBC was actually right there about 23. 91.124.41.18

This whole section of the article needs to be revised, because it's highly inaccurate. Here's a frame rate section from the Final Cut documentation. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Important: Many people round 29.97 fps to 30 fps, but this can lead to confusion during post-production. Today, it is still very rare to use a frame rate of 30 fps, but very common to use 29.97 fps. When in doubt, ask people to clarify whether they really mean 30 fps, or if they are simply rounding 29.97 fps for convenience. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another explanation for "choppiness"
Should something like this be appended to (or replace) the discussion of "choppiness?"

Choppiness can also occur if the rendering rate is not the same as the monitor's frame rate. For example, assume the video card is redrawing a scene depicting a smoothly moving object 65 times per second, and the monitor's refresh rate is 60Hz. Every 13th frame will be dropped, resulting in the object appearing to jerk forward 5 times per second. Limiting the redraw rate to the refresh rate helps to eliminate this source of "chop."

However, the graphics card redraw rate will fall below the monitor's refresh rate if the scene is complex enough, raising the possibility of choppy motion again. This is where double buffering and triple buffering come into play. Display output is delayed by one or more frames. Thus the graphics subsystem can draw one or more frames in advance, so if extra time is needed to draw the frame it is still ready when it should be displayed. The rendering software can then skip one or more frames and render to depict a time 2 (or more) frames later. (It's OK to leave a frame on the display for two frame periods as long as the new placement is correct; this is quite different than the 65Hz rendering example.) In 3D games or simulations, this introduces some "lag" because user input is not applied instantly, but one or more frames from now. As long as this lag is fairly constant and relatively small, the user can adapt to it without really noticing. Shyland 09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

you can add the jerk part on in a few sentences. also that triple buffering means 3 frames of lag from input. keep it short, theyre just details.
 * This is great, put it in as a new section ! :) Procrastinating@ talk2me

 * Triple buffering doesn't mean 3 frames of lag. It means 2 frames (1/30 sec at 60Hz, less at higher refresh rates.) One buffer holds the frame currently shown; it's the other two that hold advance frames and produce delay. Furthermore if your mouse/button input is ALWAYS 1/30 second(!) behind, you can easily adapt to such a small delay. It's unpredictable lag (i.e. not using double/triple buffering) that screws up your timing. --Shyland 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The cinema standard of 24 fps assumes a rotating shutter with 170 degrees open. This means that the actual exposure time is slightly less than 50% of 1/24 sec - or about 1/50 sec. with a space of 1/50 sec where no action is captured. A similar effect is obtained with 60i video where the alternate field is removed and the active field doubled. Think of this as a square wave where every negative excursion is a slice of time that is not captured. This can result in a very important visual difference from a video camera capturing at 30p - if the sensor is actually being scanned 30 times/sec. Frame blurs will be much more noticeable when the sensor is integrating a full 1/30 second of action rather than 1/60 second of action. It also follows that the common recommendation to shoot video at 1/30 sec. with a higher f-stop will result in a much more blurred look when shooting fast motion than locking to 1/60 sec and accepting a lower f-stop with a shorter depth of focus. It is a catch22 - more motion blur with a more forgiving focus or no motion blur but more critical focus. Mccainre (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering.
What's the frame rate of reality? What will happened when games get a higher framerate then real life? --Planetary 03:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the real world frame rate are infinite or close to the speed of light The brain and the machine cannot go faster. As for me, I can detect up to 120 FPS. My old MAC monitor has up to 120 hz refresh rate. Now does it was interlaced or progressive? I do not know. If it was interlaced at 120 fps then 120/2 = 60FPS. I can really see the difference with 30 FPS. 2 tips to help you to see the difference. look in a white background. In a game, do quick 180 degree turns (360 if you can) An other way it to move your mouse quickly left, right, left, etc. in your computer. You should see a lot of mouses in the same time. If your computer has a low refresh rate you will not see much mouses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.190.11 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Your brain isn't a synchronous computer; it has no central clock from which to measure its "frame rate".
 * Atlant 13:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info. I wasn't expecting an answer like that. :)--Planetary 04:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Now, if you're talking about the frame rate of your eye, it's usually between 35 and 55 fps. Just an estimate, but I can usually see if something's running below 20 fps. ZtObOr 21:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Fun idea...Reality isn't a synchronous computer either. It has no framerate; or infinite framerate, if you like. Frames are just our crude way of approximating reality. Higher frame rates only get closer to simulating reality's utter smoothness. Above a certain rate it stops mattering because you can't see the difference. At that point the display system exceeds the capabilities of the input system (your eyes and brain), so there's no real point in any further frame-rate improvements. --Shyland 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, ti would be funny if there was a maximum frame rate of real life. Sort of a stand-up comedy time gag.--Planetary 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Modern physics seems to think that time really is quantized, so if the physicists are correct, there is an ultimate frame rate. See.

 * Atlant 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Interesting. Thanks for the link. Looks like this tale hasn't been told...--Planetary 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no definite answer to this. It relates to the computational issue of whether the universe is a finite Turing machine or an infinate one, as well as to the philosophical issue of whether the universe is continuous or discrete (e.g. Zeno's paradox).  Indeed, generations of physics students have in essence been taught that the universe is *both* when told that light is both a wave *and* a particle.  The underlying dilemma is that both perspectives lead to what appear to be contradictions.  But more interestingly, the point of the graphics is to fool your brain, and that in turn relates to how your optical system works as well as your cognitive functions, not how the "universe" works.  Hence issues like simulated motion blur (there is no such thing as "motion blur" in "reality"), as well as relativistic presentation in current massively multiplayer games (run two clients next each other of the same scene, and they will show different things).  Note also that the biggest "fib" of current games is not the frame rate, but the simplified physics (and lighting) models of the rendering systems, since current (and envisioned) computational power is several magnitudes short of anything approaching photorealism. --Psm 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the explanation. I :think: I get it now.--Planetary 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm of the opinion that the above is an example of a little knowledge of physics being a dangerous thing. Light behaving as a particle and a wave has nothing to do with time being discrete or continuous.  Zeno's paradox isn't a paradox at all, it's an easily solved calculus problem.  Calling the universe a turing machine is also absurd, as is equating client synchronization issues in games to relativity.

The universe runs at one frame per planck second. But it is not that simple, the duration of a planck second in each point is not the necessarily the same than at any other point due to the effects of relativity. Kinda like a cellular automata running across billions of parallel processors. --TiagoTiago (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"In theory, the continuous information (also analog signal) has an infinite number of possible values..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_device — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcsee1 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Extra" frames are not always dropped
"The solution to this problem would be to interpolate the extra frames together in the back-buffer (field multisampling), or simulate the motion blur seen by the human eye in the rendering engine. Currently most video cards can only output a maximum frame rate equal to the refresh rate of the monitor. All extra frames are dropped." I've heard of triple buffering, but with double buffering usually at least some of each rendered frame makes it (with vsync nothing but potential processing power can go waste; otherwise a new frame can appear if another wasn't completely sent to the monitor yet, resulting in parts of each being shown). I think the last claim should be either adjusted or removed. --62.194.128.232 02:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this but directx does not have triple buffering. Only openGL for now. Well, some people have being able to hack directx to have triple buffering but it is not supported and too much troubles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.190.11 (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

hi. this is my first time posting on a wiki page, and hopefully not too many people will be annoyed because i have nothing to back up my statements but personal experience and from much anecdotal evidence from other avid competitive FPS (first person shooter computer games) players. i have had several almost heated debates on this subject where multiple people have told me i was completely imagining things when i tell them i can clearly see the difference between 70 fps and 140 fps in these games. 70 fps feels downright CHOPPY to me and almost unplayable compared to what i am used to. i can even tell the difference between 120 and 250+ quite easily altho its not as immediate and jarring as 70 fps is to me. yes, i DO have a 70 refresh rate on my CRT monitor. i think without playing these types of games and using a mouse to spin your view 180 degrees almost instantaneously, its hard for almost anybody to fathom this, and yet i could tell the diff tween 70 and 140 %100 of the time if anybody blind tested me. i would like to know WHY exactly. the first 4 pages of google didn't give me anything to support what i can see firsthand tho, so let me just state the only explanation i can think of, and hopefully somebody out there knows for sure if this is all it is (or if there's more to it or if i'm wrong), and help get a proper explanation for this phenomena explained on this page because so many people think that if your monitor doesn't refresh THE ENTIRE screen faster than 70 fps, that its a physical impossibility for you to have a smoother gameplay experience going past that frame rate.

now as one of the posters above me stated, you should be getting more than one frame of 3D for each time your monitor draws a whole screen. therefore at 140 fps, you are actually getting 2 rendered screens (only a part of each one) rendered into 1 of your monitors screen refreshes. if you are at 280 fps, you are getting 4 different 3D renderings split between 1 monitor screen refresh. and these bits of more accurate frame pieces are able to, over time, give you a more accurate representation than a 70 fps vsync'ed rendering can give you.

the 2nd   half of a monitor's screen should be twice   as up to date with a 140 videocard frame rate versus a 70 fps videocard rate. the 4th quarter of a monitor's screen should be 4 times as up to date with a 280 videocard frame rate versus a 70 fps videocard rate. i would imagine that effectively, the higher up on the screen you are, the less difference a higher frame rate matters, whereas the further down you go the more accurate your view will be with rates above 70. is this how it works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpusc (talk • contribs) 08:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same topic? or..
I know that, like, birds and bees and things have a higher frame-rate of vision.. or something like that, so that they see movies as choppy.. whereas my vision seems to have a super low framerate.. one frame, the ball of the sport in question is ahead of me, the next it's behind me... no chance to react..

 * You dont actually see in frames. You see what appears to be a streak the color of the ball that extends from in front of you to behind you. You reaction time has nothing to do with this. We film video at around 1/30th second per frame, because if you open the lens for 1/30th second as the ball is thrown by a streak about the same length as what humans see would appear on the film.

Feel free to edit
I wrote about half of this article, and honestly just made it up as I went along. Im pretty smart, so its probly 98% right, but be bold if you disagree with something.

I was just wondering if the Madden reference at the bottom of the article fit in with the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.98.1 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Human Eye
As I've noted in the discussion for the human eye article, there's no information there or in this article about the human eye's "frame rate" which, I have read to be about 60Hz or approximately 24 fps. This, I think is an important fact to include somewhere in these articles (as long as at least one of the articles supported it by a reliable reference). Additionally, this article could have a link to the article on aliasing (or simply the article on the wagon-wheel effect) as this information can help a person understand how the frame rate can affect the perceived motion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Toth (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well when playing a PC game, I can definitely tell the difference between a game that is running at 24fps and 60fps. 212.139.18.21 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read that the average human eye can see 60 fps, and experienced PC users can see up to 120 fps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallica10 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"The human visual system does not see in terms of frames; it works with a continuous flow of light information." OK, I'm not an expert on human vision, but I do work for some, and I've just read that the human retina does indeed work in frames. So it looks like this needs and expert. So I'm adding the expert banner Anniepoo (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The human retina does not work in frames. Different receptors respond at different rates. For example, Rod cells integrate light slowly and might not be able to resolve light that is flikering faster than about 12Hz, while cones can detect flicker up to at least 55Hz. I have added a reference to a Neuroscience textbook that discusses responses of light receptors. AlexsandraSmart (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know about "expert," but I'm a cognition and perception psych phd student, and I am definitely 100% sure that the eye does not have a framerate. Every single individual rod and cone light receptor fires as often as it can as long as it is receiving light in sufficient amounts. The rate is therefore biologically determined from a whole host of factors that are not controlled or standardized at all - how nutritious your meals have been recently, whether you have enough oxygen, how much light you are seeing now and just recently saw, the focus and aperture of your eye at the moment, the coloration of the light, blood supply to that one receptor cell, blah blah blah. Thus, every cell will be out of synchronization with every other cell. So it is the equivalent of rendering every pixel of your screen separately, at a fairly random (but adapted to what is needed to some extent) rate between about 1 millisecond (very stimulated) to 30ms (inactive). To further complicate matters, that does NOT mean 1000FPS and 30FPS, because neurons often transmit information in terms of firing RATE, so it might take many firings to signal "yes, I am active" to the bipolar cells they are attached to, not just one. AND lightness/brightness information is updated more slowly than color information, another reason it is totally different than a monitor. AND the information that is collected from the retina is NOT processed in one frame and then discarded, as FPS systems are. It is averaged over a long period of time, up to several seconds in a very dark room. AND line orientation and motion and color etc. are all processed at different stages and have different reaction rates, etc. The two systems are just totally not comparable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.159.81 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Feet and frames
PBS said, "Most feature films and many TV shows are shot on 35 mm film that has 64 holes per foot. There are 4 holes on each side of each frame."

Does this mean that a foot of film corresponds to one second of filming time, i.e., 16 frames per second? When they talk about shooting 300 feet of film, did they mean five minutes (300 = 5 * 60)? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That sounds about right to me. I gather that sound film runs at 90 feet per minute at 24 fps, or 18 inches per second. That incidentally gives the soundtrack a speed comparable to that of most professional reel to reel tapes (15 ips). Lee M (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, 35 mm film runs 18 inches per second at 24 fps. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Watching old movies
Is there any way to watch an old movie, which was shot at 12 frames per second, on a modern computer? That is, I'd like to see the film at normal speed, so the action doesn't look sped up. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Use gSpot or similar to change the fps entry in the header of the avi file and change it for audio accordingly. --Arnero (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

60 fps vs 59.94 fps
Why are they no distinct points in the list? What happens if I play NTSC DVDs in my notebook? Theoretically some fields will be displayed twice? Looking at modern cameras, I see they use 59.94 fps. Do modern notebooks and Desktop LCDs also use this 59.94 fps and there are not troubles at all (I do not think so)? Can we state this explicitly in that point of the list? --Arnero (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

REPLY:

Black and white television is 30 FPS (60i), The amount of chroma information is minimal , when color TV was introduced , the frame rate was lowered to add the color information. which incidental only updates every "frame".

Wrong information! with 30p or 60i caution should be used! they are not use for some of this frame rate combination on video/film industry! they do not mix and match flawless! some time use 59.94i or 29.97 instead. most prosumer cameras stead 24p but actual rate is 23.976p! or 60i but actual rate is 59.94i!

NTSC 59.94i<->29.97p (TV ok) 24p<->30p (not TV rate, jumpy panning on TV) 23.976p<->59.94i (TV rate) 60p or 60i (Not TV rate, jumpy panning on TV)

There are techniques to compensate for that slight discrepancy, try viewing something with mediaplayer classic , and press CTRL-P , you will see the compensation for it in real time in a graph at the bottom right corner of the screen. You will also see your screen's true refresh rate at the top right.

300FPS change
I updated the 300 fps section to remove the statement that BBC was investigating high frame rate broadcasts due to issues from viewers. The paper was done to investigate the quality of improved frame rate for sports broadcasts and roughly outlines the benefits and some tech hurdles. There is 1 line talking about standard 1080 video @ 60hz causing some people to complain about nausea that is irrelevant to 300 FPS.

"High-Definition television (by which we mean television with a vertical resolution of 720 or 1080 lines and a field or frame rate of 50/60Hz) has increased the spatial resolution without altering the frame rates used, however. Traditional television production techniques have been constrained by this change.  For example, during camera pans to follow the action at sports events, HDTV trial viewers reported nausea as the static portion of the scene changed between sharp (when stationary) and smeared (when panning)"

48 fps on Spongebob and Hey Arnold!? or it's just me?
I don't know why but when i watching some cartoons like Spongebob (season 1) Hey Arnold (season 1-3) etc i noted that some scenes are sped up twice and it really drives me insane it ruins the theatrical look and it looks like a more video game rather than a film or cartoon itself. Also on Youtube the Spongebob looked pretty choppy like missing frames (Spongebob's arms are not moving when he building a bubblestand) as there are many fast motions here and when it converted to 24 fps the sped up scenes look really choppy like when you watch spongebob with hypercam that had only 10 fps or a cartoon made by Cambria Studios from late 50s and 60s like Clutch Cargo, Space Angel, Captain Fathom which had choppy or no animation at all. It's too bad that YouTube can't play anything faster than 30 fps. 109.174.115.127 (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 * See Soap opera effect. --2003:DA:CF11:CF77:9082:7795:7704:9A65 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Backup Evidence for Motion Blur Headache Claim
The article currently states unter 'Video games', "Motion blur can also induce headaches when people play a game that requires concentration." The source is a single blog post about a single game, with a single commenting person expicitly agreeing. Does that suffice to make that rather strong claim about a health-related effect of a technique? --178.0.155.26 (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Hobbit isn't first 48 fps film
The Hobbit is not first film to be filmed at 48 fps. The first 48 fps film is Avatar (yup there's a 48 fps version of Avatar floating around the web). Hobbit is actually second. 109.174.115.63 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Any source on this at all? I was unable to find anything on it (there are some news articles about the sequels being filmed in 48 fps though.) What you found floating around the web is probably interpolated footage from the original 24 fps. 71.213.147.249 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

300FPS
regarding the line "300 FPS can be converted to both 50 and 60 FPS transmission formats without major issues" would it be appropriate to add ", due in part to the fact that 300 is evenly divisible by both 50 and 60"? I'm just assuming that's the reason, not sure if it's correct. Jchap1590 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

fps or FPS?
The article started with FPS in the lede, switched to fps half-way through, and after that switched back and forth in a seemingly random manner. I have changed fps to FPS thoughout, for consistency with the lede, but now I wonder whether it should have been FPS changed to fps throughout because a quick google search suggests fps is more common than FPS. Thoughts? Is there a standard abbreviation somewhere? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Following the standard rules of the language(s) and the common sense, the correct form is FPS, as it's an abbreviation, an initialism to be more precise. Written *fps, be it popular or not, it's incorrect, even when most of people don't seem to care. It would be f. p. s., but then again, it's easier and more popular to write FPS, just as AM or PM...

62.83.135.212 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe "REFRESH RATE" is hertz, not frame rate.
Contrary to the opening paragraph, frame rate is not the same thing as hertz on a progressive scan monitor. "REFRESH RATE" is hertz, not frame rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate

''The refresh rate (most commonly the "vertical refresh rate", "vertical scan rate" for cathode ray tubes) is the number of times in a second that a display hardware updates its buffer. This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcsee1 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources
"In 2011, written on a forum was said that the retina takes about 5 to 12 milliseconds for an electrical impulse to fire and reset, 100 to 1000 rods depending on where in the retina you are, can fire every 7 milliseconds on average or around 140 fps.[11] Another website said that the human eye on average could see up to 150 fps."

I don't see how "a forum" and "a website" can count as reliable sources when people can write whatever they want on those without backing it up with evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytrearneindre (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pls explain or link the tech terms
What the heck is "progrsssive" (p) ? Article suddenly jumps into this term and its nowhere explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.9.220 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

3322285226
3322285226 43.250.241.45 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

60 Hz to 25/48/50 FPS vs 50 Hz to 24/30/48/60 FPS... I Need help.
I know right for 48 in my opinion: 48 need 2:1 pulldown (1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2) (frame one = refresh one, frame two = two refreshes) But i don't know what's pull-down for PAL and SÉCAM refresh rate with NTSC framing rate and same issue from PAL and SÉCAM framerate with NTSC refresh rate... 2A01:E0A:AB0:C580:D1C4:271D:6CF0:560E (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Deformable convolution? Adding/dropping frames?
The article uses the term "deformable convolution" without defining it and without giving a simple explanation. Are interpolated frames similar to image-morphing transitions? Does using AI significantly improve the quality of interpolated frames? Are transformations from 29.97 fps (NTSC) to 25 or 30 fps usually done by adding a duplicate or dropping a frame roughly every half minute? Can people notice that? David Spector (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 * it also refer to first person shooter games 64.125.177.174 (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Standard silent (shooting) framerate
As the German equivalent of this article correctly states, the standard silent framerate was 16fps ever since the 1909 Paris congress of film manufacturers. Before that, the only film system using a higher framerate as a standard upon filming and playback was Edison's Kinetoscope peephole viewer (with various shorts running at either 30 or 40fps throughout their respective runtime), and in fact, many systems prior to 1909 used framerates below 16fps. The archived Brownlow article dating from 1980 used as a source here to claim that the standard framerate was higher by the 1920s already has multiple issues that make it obvious that it's far from a reliable source:

 * Brownlow's article is self-contradictory when it comes to standard recording framerates. He gives one single anecdotal quote made decades later by a cameraman's son to claim that so-called 'overcranking' during filming was common at the time, and only shortly after, Brownslow contradicts himself by stating several times and in several ways that 16fps was still the definite standard at the time, such as that it can be told from the standard Bell & Howell camera equipment of the time, and uses other quotes relating to facts such as that at least up until the early or mid-1930s, professional silent-camera operators still calculated f-stop or aperture for 16fps, because that's what they were still shooting at for the standard filming speed.
 * Brownlow erroneously points to examples of deliberate slo-mo and timelapse effects (whether in-camera or during projection, cf. cue cards) for particular shots or scenes to claim that there was "no standard framerate" during filming or that it was higher than 16fps, and to rare film experiments such as Anapolis (1928). Similar to this, many newer sources basically point to the experimental Napoleon (1927) by Abel Gance to claim the standard framerate was higher than 16fps, and by that logic, there not only was a "higher" standard framerate, but films of the time were also shot in Cinerama and Keller-Dorian natural lenticular color "as a standard", as those were other experimental features unique to Gance's Napoleon.
 * Brownlow obviously lacks technical understanding of the contemporary Geneva drive inside cameras, as is obvious from numerous anecdotes in the article affirmative of the common erroneous myth that framerate would be determined by how fast the operator was cranking the handle. Movie cameras fundamentally relied upon Geneva drives translating naturally uneven and varying cranking motions into set consistent framerates, in order to maintain most basic exposure standards. Before early cameras adopted Geneva drives around c. 1900, films would flicker a lot in brightness throughout, because naturally uneven cranking speeds, no matter how miniscule the unevenness, would lead to significantly different amounts of exposure upon each frame. Up until c. 1900-1905, brightness flicker was also caused by early projection equipment, but then around c. 1905 they introduced 3-bladed shutters in order to minimize the duration of darkness between frames in projection. The fact that it were three shutter blades in silent-movie projectors from the start makes it evident that they were designed for 16fps playback, as 16fps * 3 shutters = 48 Hz, which meets the minimum requirement of the human eye's flicker fusion threshold of 48 Hz when it comes to the duration of darkness in-between frames (and in relation to the standard amount of image brightness inside a dark theater, as image brightness is also a factor when it comes to the minimum Hz required for flicker-free playback). When cinema progressed to talkies, the 3-bladed shutters in silents projectors were replaced by 2-bladed shutters in sound projectors, as 24fps * 2 shutters = 48 Hz. Also note that today, we are used to think of early movies prior to c. 1950 to flicker a lot, only because of cheap contact prints surviving of a particular film, and/or because of improper off-the-wall transfers made by simply pointing a video camera at the screen, where flicker occurs because the video camera is not in-sync with the projector. But in fact, movies didn't flicker anymore during projection once the shutter blade was introduced around c. 1905.
 * Brownlow ignores the difference between filming speeds on the one hand and projection-speed fads on the other, in order to claim there was "no standard filming framerate" or that it was higher than 16fps, even though he also states that during the 1920s, greedy commercial theaters owners began to instruct their projectionists to playback the films faster so they could cram more showings into the same day and thus make more money from selling more tickets. This also shows in his article when he quotes moviegoers saying that they initially perceived talkies as "looking leaden-footed", which was simply due to the fact that talkies were shot at 24fps and also "PROJECTED* at that speed by technical necessity. This proves that by that time, audiences were used to silent films being projected at higher framerates than they had been shot at, all because of greedy theater owners trying to cramp more showings in a day. It could well be that the one cameraman's son quote about common 'overcranking' during filming above was simply due to a misunderstanding in relation to actually 'overcranked' *PROJECTION* like this. Brownslow himself relates the visible difference in speeds of movements between silent and talkie scenes seen in The Jazz Singer (1927), as the silent scenes were shot at the silent standard of 16fps and the talkie scenes were shot at the new talkie standard of 24fps, but the entire film was projected at 24fps as the new projection standard now.
 * Brownlow draws his final conclusions from a faulty 1970s electronic slow-motion technology called "Polygon" to try and slow down tape playback after a telecine to tape had been done, in order to try and determine what the original filming framerate was. As this analogue video technique caused excessive tape-dropouts and interlacing flicker below a playback of c. 20-22fps (both because the video tape head was not fed enough information at such a low speed and all electronic monitors were reliant upon a higher framerate signal, and what they got at such a slow speed didn't meet their sync requirements; Bronwlow himself refers to those elctronic defects as "image drag"), he determines that the standard framerate of the 1920s must have been "somewhere between 20-26fps". For goodness' sake, by that quack method, he woulda gotten the same erronous results with Bioscop footage shot by the Skladanowsky brothers which is known, documented, and measured to have been shot at only 6-8fps!

Thus, I think Brownlow and his claim should either be removed from the article, or those numerous flaws in his article must be pointed out here by Wikipedia, namely in relation to the standard *SHOOTING* framerate. --2003:DA:CF11:CF77:9082:7795:7704:9A65 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 * In fact, on second thought (considering how once again, this is another case where falsehoods are picked up by many external sources simply because they were originally put on Wikipedia and have survived on there for a long time), maybe it should be made an FAQ on the very top of this talkpage, akin to Talk:Elon Musk/FAQ over at Talk:Elon Musk, pointing out the flaws and errors in Brownlow's 1980 article. --2003:DA:CF11:CF77:9082:7795:7704:9A65 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frame rate


text:
Buddy O'Connor

Herbert William "Buddy" O'Connor (June 21, 1916 – August 24, 1977) was a Canadian professional ice hockey centre who played for the Montreal Canadiens and New York Rangers in the National Hockey League between 1941 and 1951. He won the Hart Trophy and Lady Byng Trophy in 1948.

Playing career
O'Connor played for the Montreal Canadiens from 1941 to 1947 and won two Stanley Cups during his career in 1944 and 1946 while playing for the Canadiens.

In 1947, O'Connor was traded to the New York Rangers. He had 60 points that season, finishing second to Montreal's Elmer Lach in the scoring race. He was also awarded the Hart Memorial Trophy and Lady Byng Memorial Trophy and was the first player to win both in the same year. He was also the first Ranger to win the Hart. These achievements were reflected in his being named winner of the Lionel Conacher Award, as Canada's male athlete of the year for 1948.

O'Connor played for the Rangers until 1951. He was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1988, becoming the first inductee into the now-defunct Veteran category.

In the 2009 book 100 Ranger Greats, the authors ranked O'Connor at No. 38 all-time of the 901 New York Rangers who had played during the team's first 82 seasons.

Personal
In the mid-1950s, Danny Gallivan was known to assist with the Department of Education's Physical Fitness Division's annual hockey school in PEI, along with NHL chief referee Red Storey and NHL star Buddy O'Connor.

title: Buddy O'Connor


text:
The Swarm (1978 film)

The Swarm is a 1978 American natural horror film directed and produced by Irwin Allen and based on Arthur Herzog's 1974 novel. It stars an ensemble cast, including Michael Caine, Katharine Ross, Richard Widmark, Richard Chamberlain, Olivia de Havilland, Ben Johnson, Lee Grant, José Ferrer, Patty Duke, Slim Pickens, Bradford Dillman, Henry Fonda and Fred MacMurray in his final film role. It follows a scientist and a military task force who try to prevent a large swarm of killer bees from invading Texas. The film received overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics and was a box-office bomb, although praise was given to the costume design. It has been considered to be one of the worst films ever made.

Plot
In south Texas, a top-security United States Air Force ICBM command bunker is invaded and neutralized by an unknown force. An Air Force unit, led by Major Baker, investigates and comes across an unauthorized scientist at the secured base, Dr. Bradford Crane, who was tracking a large swarm of killer bees when they attacked the Air Force bunker. General Slater orders two helicopters to check the area, whereupon the helicopters are destroyed by the swarm of bees. Crane insists to Slater that the base was attacked by the same African killer bees that destroyed the helicopters. Helena Anderson, one of the base's doctors, supports Crane's story.

Meanwhile, in the nearby countryside, the Durant family is attacked by the swarm of the bees. The mother and father die from the bee stings, but Paul, their son, escapes in their car. Although he is stung, Paul manages to make it into town and crashes into the Marysville town square, where the citizens are preparing for the annual flower festival. The boy is brought into the hands of military personnel, where, due to the aftereffects of the bee sting, he hallucinates a vision of giant bees attacking him.

Wheelchair-bound Dr. Walter Krim confirms to Crane that the war against the bees they have feared for a long time has started. At the gates of the base, Slater confronts angry county engineer Jud Hawkins, who demands to see the dead body of his son, an airman in the bunker who was killed by the bees. Hawkins takes the body bag and departs, leaving the entire watching crowd silent over the loss. Slater suggests airdropping poison on the swarm, but Crane considers the ecological possibilities of the situation, as the poison will wipe out plant growth for a decade or more.

Recovering from his earlier bee attack, Paul and his friends search for the hive to firebomb it to avenge his family. This only angers the bees, who invade Marysville and kill hundreds. Crane and Helena take shelter at the local diner with pregnant café waitress Rita. Reporter Anne McGregor watches from the safety of her news van, hoping to get some exciting footage about the siege. After this most recent attack, and fear of another one, Slater suggests evacuating many of the townsfolk in a train. However, the bees attack the train, causing the locomotive to derail over a cliff and kill almost everyone aboard, including a love triangle made up of schoolteacher Maureen Scheuster, retiree Felix Austin and town mayor and drug store owner Clarence Tuttle.

Rita tries to board the ill-fated train but is saved at the last minute by going into labor and being confined to the hospital. She gives birth to her child while falling in love with the doctor in the process. Paul suffers a relapse from the effects of being stung earlier and later dies, devastating Helena and sending her into a rage about why the children have to die.

The savage swarm heads for Houston, Texas, and Crane decides to drop eco-friendly poison pellets on them, hoping the bees' senses will be harmed and they'll stay away from the city. Unfortunately, the plan fails. Dr. Krim self-injects an experimental bee venom antidote, planning to track the results, but the trial proves fatal and he dies. Meanwhile, nuclear power plant manager Dr. Andrews is convinced that his plant can withstand the attacks of the bees, ignoring the warnings of Dr. Hubbard. The bees nevertheless penetrate the plant, causing a nuclear explosion that annihilates Andrews, Hubbard, the plant and a nearby town.

Meanwhile, in Houston, Slater orders the city to be burned in the final hopes of defeating the swarm. Crane analyzes tapes from the bee invasion and comes to the conclusion that a test of an alarm system at the ICBM bunker attracted the swarm into the base. The bees attack Houston, resulting in the deaths of Major Baker and Dr. Newman, one of Crane's associates. Slater sacrifices himself to save Crane and Helena from the bees. Helicopters playing the alarm sound from the ICBM bunker over loudspeakers lure the bees out to sea, where they douse the water with oil and set the swarm ablaze. Helena wonders if their victory was just temporary. Crane responds that he does not know, but decides that "if we use our time wisely, the world just might survive".

Production
The film was announced in 1974 at the height of the disaster-movie craze. It was part of $38 million worth of projects Allen had lined up, including The Day the World Ended (a project which was retitled and released in 1980 as When Time Ran Out...). The script was written by Stirling Silliphant, who had written The Towering Inferno for Allen. He said in December 1974 that Allen hoped to start filming in April 1975. Production was delayed in part because Allen decided to leave Fox for Warner Bros. Estimates of the number of bees used in the production ranged between 15 million and 22 million, including 800,000 bees with their stingers removed to enable the cast to work safely with them. About 100 people were employed in the production to care for and transport the bees during the film shoot. Olivia de Havilland was stung by a bee while filming. MacMurray retired from acting and died in 1991.

Box office
The film grossed $5,168,142 in its opening weekend in more than 1,200 theaters, and earned Warner Bros. rentals in the United States and Canada of $7.7 million. It was considered a commercial failure.

Critical response
The film received overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics. It has a score of 9% on Rotten Tomatoes based on twenty-three reviews, with an average rating of 3.80 out of 10. It was one of two disaster films (the other being Beyond the Poseidon Adventure) directed solely by the "master of disaster" Allen, who had experience directing several films and many episodes of his TV shows – and both featured Michael Caine in the lead role. The film is listed in Golden Raspberry Award founder John J.B. Wilson's book The Official Razzie Movie Guide as one of the 100 Most Enjoyably Bad Movies Ever Made, where Wilson states that under Allen's unsubtle direction, "despite the enormous production budget, The Swarm turned the tale of an invasion of killer bees into the ultimate B movie".

Vincent Canby of The New York Times called the film "nothing less than the ultimate apotheosis of yesterday's B-movie". Comparing the film unfavorably to recent blockbusters such as Star Wars and Grease, which also evoked old B-movies, he wrote, "Allen merely reproduces a tacky genre while spending a great deal of money doing it. There's not a frame of film, not a twist of plot, not a line of dialogue, not a performance in The Swarm that suggests real appreciation for film history, only a slavish desire to imitate it. That's not enough."

Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave the film 1½ out of 4 stars, and wrote that it was "surprisingly flaccid in its thrills", explaining: "In these days of Star Wars (which was made for less money), it takes more than a fleet of helicopters and a flameout on the Gulf of Mexico to convince audiences that they are being dazzled." Arthur D. Murphy of Variety called it a "disappointing and tired non-thriller. Killer bees periodically interrupt the arch writing, stilted direction and ludicrous acting."

Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times wrote that the film was "fun in its primitive way", adding, "One wishes it were silent, as were the DeMille epics of the '20s it so closely resembles." Tom Zito of The Washington Post wrote, "While subtlety has never been a strong theme in Allen's films, The Swarm does manage to turn the industrious little honeybee into a menace so seemingly convincing that America may go bee-crazy this summer." Richard Velt in the Wilmington Morning Star stated, "The Swarm may not be the worst movie ever made. I'd have to see them all to be sure. It's certainly as bad as any I've seen." Velt also wrote, "All the actors involved in this fiasco should be ashamed." James Baker of Newsweek declared, "It may be early, but it's probably safe to nominate The Swarm for the worst movie of the year."

The Sunday Times described The Swarm as "simply the worst film ever made", while Time Out magazine called The Swarm a "risibly inadequate disaster movie". Leslie Halliwell called The Swarm a "very obvious disaster movie with risible dialogue", and suggested its commercial failure was partly due to the fact that prior to its release, several American television movies with similar plots had been broadcast. TV Guide said, "The Swarm is a B movie in every sense of the term. Somehow disaster-movie king Allen convinced top Hollywood stars (including five Oscar winners) to appear in this nonsense."

Accolades
Despite its large negative reception and box office failure, Paul Zastupnevich was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Costume Design.

Score
The musical score was composed by Academy Award winner Jerry Goldsmith. It used French horns and comparable instruments, which were intended to produce sound effects intended to resemble the sound of an apiary mega-swarm. The score originally was released on LP and cassette on Warner Bros. Records in 1978 at the same time as the film's release. An expanded, remastered score was released in 2002 in a limited edition by Prometheus Records and contained over 40 minutes of previously unreleased material. In 2020, La-La Land Records issued a two-CD set with the complete film score and the 1978 soundtrack album.

Home media and alternate versions
The film was originally released in theaters at 116 minutes, but when released on laserdisc in 1992, it was extended to 155 minutes with additional scenes. This extended version is also included on all DVD releases worldwide, alongside a 22-minute documentary, Inside The Swarm, and the original theatrical trailer.

It was first released to DVD by Warner Home Video on August 6, 2002, then reissued on December 2, 2014, under their Warner Archive Collection sublabel. The film was released on Blu-ray on September 25, 2018,  again through Warner Archive. Like the two previous DVD releases, it contains the 155-minute extended version, the original theatrical trailer and the 22-minute making-of documentary.

In the United States, the film was given a PG rating by the MPAA, while the extended version is unrated. In the United Kingdom, the film was released with an A certificate in 1978. The BBFC rated the extended version 12.

Disclaimer
The closing credits of the film included a disclaimer that read: "The African killer bee portrayed in this film bears absolutely no relationship to the industrious, hardworking American honey bee to which we are indebted for pollinating vital crops that feed our nation." According to an article in HR published on February 24, 1978, the American Bee Association considered taking legal action against the film's producers for defaming the western honey bee, but whether the lawsuit was ever filed is unknown.

title: The Swarm (1978 film)


text:
Heinrich Jacoby

Heinrich Jacoby (1889–1964), originally a musician, was a German educator whose teaching was based on developing sensitivity and awareness. His collaboration with his colleague Elsa Gindler (1885–1961), whom he met in 1924 in Berlin, played a great role in his researches. With the advent of Nazism in 1933 Jacoby was forced to leave Germany, but he continued his work in Switzerland.

Jacoby and Moshe Feldenkrais were among a small group of European 20th-century innovators who emphasized the "self" in self-development, so that as in the zen inspired arts such as archery or judo, or even flower arranging, a skill was not an end in itself. Practicing a skill was a path to greater awareness.

The work of Heinrich Jacoby influenced body psychotherapy through the workshops that Charlotte Selver (1901–2003), a student of Jacoby and Gindler, gave to major body psychotherapists at the Esalen Institute in the 1960s.

title: Heinrich Jacoby


text:
User:Darlene4

Hi! I'm from Olney MD, in the suburbs of Washington DC and became a Wikipedian an 23 April 2005.

title: User:Darlene4


text: Template:User tlh-1

title: Template:User tlh-1


text: Category:Cornish saints

title: Category:Cornish saints


text: User talk:70.21.244.60

title: User talk:70.21.244.60


text: Category:Religion in Cornwall

title: Category:Religion in Cornwall


text: Template:User tlh-2

title: Template:User tlh-2


text:
Didier Pitre

Joseph George Didier "Cannonball" Pitre (September 1, 1883 – July 29, 1934) was a Canadian professional ice hockey player. Nicknamed "Cannonball," he was renowned for having one of the hardest shots during his playing career. One of the first players to join the Montreal Canadiens, Pitre and his teammates' French-Canadian heritage led to the team being nicknamed The Flying Frenchmen. His teammates on the Canadiens included Jack Laviolette and Newsy Lalonde.

Though he spent the latter part of his career almost exclusively with the Canadiens, Pitre played for several other teams in various leagues early on, including the International Professional Hockey League, the first professional hockey league, and the Pacific Coast Hockey Association. A prolific scorer, Pitre won the Stanley Cup with the Canadiens in 1916, the first for the team. In 1963 he was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

He was the uncle of Vic Desjardins, a member of the United States Hockey Hall of Fame.

IPHL
Didier Pitre's first major hockey league experience was in the first fully professional league, the IPHL, playing with the Michigan Soo Indians alongside Jack Laviolette. Before that Pitre and Laviolette had played together on the Montreal Le National team in the Federal Amateur Hockey League. The Michigan Soo Indians were located in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Pitre joined the Soo team for the 1904–05 season. By 1905–06, he was already the top scorer in the league scoring 41 goals in 22 games played. Pitre was on the IPHL First All-Star Team that year in 1905–06 and again in 1906–07.

Despite Pitre and Laviolette playing three years for the Michigan Soo in the IPHL, the club failed to bring home a championship, finishing 3rd, 2nd and 4th in the league standing between 1905–1907.

Montreal Shamrocks, Edmonton and Renfrew
The next season, in 1907–08, after the IPHL had folded, Pitre left as a free agent and played with the Montreal Shamrocks in the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), where he was again joined by Jack Laviolette. Pitre lasted only one year with the Shamrocks before leaving to play with the Edmonton Pros in Alberta. With Edmonton Pitre played three games before he was part of a Stanley Cup challenge in December 1908 when his team challenged the Montreal Wanderers for the coveted prize, eventually losing out 10 goals to 13 (3-7, 7-6) over two games.

After the Stanley Cup challenge with Edmonton Pitre jumped the contract and went back to eastern Canada where he played with the Renfrew Creamery Kings in the FAHL for the remainder of the 1908–09 season.

Montreal Canadiens
Pitre joined the Montreal Canadiens in 1910 in the newly founded National Hockey Association (NHA), the club's first season of existence, where he teamed up with Jack Laviolette and Edouard "Newsy" Lalonde. He initially stayed for four years with the Canadiens, before leaving for the West again. Pitre spent a year playing with the Vancouver Millionaires in the Pacific Coast Hockey Association (PCHA) in 1913–14, after having been lured over by Vancouver Millionaires owner Frank Patrick, in a coast-to-coast trade that saw Newsy Lalonde go the other way to the Canadiens.

Pitre returned to the Montreal Canadiens the next year, in 1914–15. In 1916, Pitre led the NHA in regular-season assists and points. He scored 24 goals, 15 assists (assists in those days were one per goal and only if the official scorer thought it contributed to the goal being scored) for 39 points. He also helped lead the Canadiens to their first-ever Stanley Cup, defeating Portland Rosebuds of the PCHA over five games. He led the playoffs in goals as well.

In the 1919 Stanley Cup playoffs, which were never completed due to the influenza epidemic, he led the playoffs in points. By 1921, the Montreal Canadiens had so much depth at forward, and an opening on defence due to the death of future Hall of Famer Joe Hall in the influenza epidemic, so they decided to try Pitre as a defenceman; not as difficult a transition as one might think, because he had previously been a rover during the days of "seven man" hockey. He remained with the Montreal Canadiens through the formation of the NHL and into 1923.

A forward throughout his career, Pitre played the final two seasons as a defenceman.

Playing style
Didier Pitre's combination of speed, size and a hard shot made him one of the preeminent offensive players of his era. A forward and a right-handed shot, Pitre played predominantly on the right wing position, but he also figured occasionally on the old rover position before it was removed by the NHA in 1911–12. At times he was also used as a cover-point, and at the back end of his career with the Montreal Canadiens, he would play as a defenceman.

Pitre's hard shot, which he would often fire from long range, was often dubbed a "bullet shot" in contemporary newspaper reports. In an interview with Mike Jay of the Vancouver Daily World in December 1913, while he was playing for the Vancouver Millionaires in the PCHA, Pitre explained that he generally used the center area of the stick blade while firing his shots, because it required considerable speed and strength to get the puck away. Pitre claimed that about 90 percent of the players instead used to shoot with the heel of the stick blade, because it was easier and felt more natural, but that his own favorite place to shoot from was the center area of the blade because it made it easier for him to "place" the puck. Regarding the "bullet shot" nickname, Pitre claimed that his teammates had come up with it after too many of his shots had rattled Montreal Wanderers net guardian Riley Hern.

Although not considered one of the roughest players of his era, Pitre still had a bulky frame and could still handle himself physically if he had to, which in some seasons resulted in a fairly high amount of penalty minutes. Outside of ice hockey Pitre also played lacrosse, with the Montreal Nationals, and during the 1913 season, he ended up in a Toronto police court after he had lost his temper during a game in Toronto on July 26, between the Nationals and the Torontos, and punched referee Thomas Humphreys in the face. Pitre claimed that he used a similar shot technique in hockey as he did in lacrosse, except for a lower type of movement in his hockey shot and the speed amounted from his skating.

According to player and executive Lester Patrick Pitre shot a "heavy puck," similar to the baseball parlance of a "heavy ball," and he also claimed that Pitre once had knocked a goaltender unconscious for three hours with a puck after it had struck him on the forehead. Patrick also praised Pitre as a "clear-headed thinker" on the ice, which he claimed is what made him into a superstar player.

Legacy
At the end of his hockey career, Pitre sold his business in Montreal and moved to Sault Ste. Marie in Michigan, where he had once started his professional hockey career. His nephew Vic Desjardins from Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, would also play in the NHL, with the Chicago Black Hawks and New York Rangers, and would be inducted into the United States Hockey Hall of Fame.

Pitre died on July 29, 1934, in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, as a result of acute indigestion.

In 1963 he was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Regular season and playoffs

 * All statistics are taken from NHL.com.

title: Didier Pitre


text: Template:User tlh-3

title: Template:User tlh-3


text: Template:User tlh

title: Template:User tlh


text: Category:User tlh-1

title: Category:User tlh-1


text: Category:User tlh-2

title: Category:User tlh-2


text:
Ken Reardon

Kenneth Joseph Reardon (April 1, 1921 – March 15, 2008) was a Canadian professional ice hockey defenceman who played for the Montreal Canadiens in the National Hockey League. He was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1966. Ken is the younger brother of Terry Reardon.

Reardon was born April 1, 1921, in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He was known as a tough defenceman, a physical player who exhibited great endurance by continuing to play while injured. He played two seasons with Montreal before enlisting in the Canadian Army in 1942. He spent several years playing for army teams in the Ottawa area, winning the Allan Cup with the Commandos in 1943 before he was shipped overseas. During World War II, Reardon returned to the Canadiens and won the Stanley Cup in 1946. Reardon faced his brother Terry in that series, making them one of the few sets of brothers to do so in the Stanley Cup Finals, and the two even dropped gloves against each other at one point.

Reardon retired prior to turning 30, a probable result of the numerous injuries he sustained. He continued his hockey career off-ice, scouting for and managing farm teams before becoming a successful executive in hockey with the Canadiens. He was announced as coach of the Kitchener Greenshirts in March 1954. The position came after working as chief of staff of the Cincinnati Mohawks. He earned the position as the Canadiens vice-president in 1956. During his tenure with Montreal the team won five Stanley Cup titles. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1966. He died on March 15, 2008, at the age of 86.

Awards and achievements

 * Allan Cup championship (1943)
 * Stanley Cup championship — 1946 (as a player), 1956 (as an assistant manager), 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 (as the Vice President)
 * NHL First All-Star Team defence (1947 and 1950)
 * NHL Second All-Star Team defence (1946, 1948, and 1949)
 * Inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1966
 * Inducted into the Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame and Museum in 1996
 * Selected to Manitoba's All-Century Second All-Star Team
 * Honoured Member of the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame.

title: Ken Reardon


text: Category:User tlh-3

title: Category:User tlh-3