text:
Talk:Rover V8 engine

This article is redundant with the article about the V8 engine...

What is that supposed to mean?? Does this mean it can simply be merged?? If so, why not put it on Duplicate articles?? Georgia guy 00:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, compare...

 * Seems to be the case right now, but it's more the case that detail needs to be moved out of V8 and into this article. —Morven 01:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

No way! The Rover V8 was the greatest peice of engineering in British history! It HAS to have its own article! Dominar_Rygel_XVI (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um...because they bought it from GM? I hope you were being sarcastic - if not, I'd consider the Jaguar XK inline-six or the Rolls-Royce (now Bentley) V8 much higher on the list of British automotive engineering triumphs. Duncan1800 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Project Iceberg
I seem to recall reading that the engines used for the late-eighties Paris-Dakar Range Rover were based around the stronger components initially made for the diesel. There was a contemporary article in CAR magazine featuring ex-F1 driver Patrick Tambay charging around a quarry in a bright-yellow example. I'll have to visit The Archives...Mr Larrington (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Another rallying connection is that the EA vans used as service vehicles by the BL rally operation in the 70s were fitted with the 3.5L V8. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Buick or Oldsmobile
Shifted the following question out of the article page...  Stepho  (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Interruption: I am confused. As I understood it in my youth the engine derived for Leyland and for Range Rover was NOT Buick but was OLDSMOBILE...which had less coolant water problems than Buick (an it has some, I can assure you) as it has an extra head stud each side....a pretty serious difference. Otherwise the motors were much the same. Tony Clancy 121.50.203.129 16:05, 30 April 2010

 * Isn't the "Just the same, but with one more head stud" engine the one that turned into the Repco-Brabham F1 engine? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Oldsmobile 215 and Repco-Brabham V8 has FOUR extra head studs on each head, one extra on top of each cylinder (inside of the V angle) for the total of 8 extra studs per engine. Rover V8 does not have these as it is based on Buick 215, and the Repco RB620 head will have four empty mounting holes if placed on Rover/Buick block.  The public and the press were not aware of this important difference. Yiba (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Buick and Oldsmobile versions of the 215cid aluminum V8 were built from the exact same castings. Drilling and tapping of cylinder head bolt holes was a secondary operation. Any competent automotive machine shop can can easily add the eight threaded holes to convert a Buick 215 engine block to Oldsmobile specification. Considering the extensive machine work Repco did to prepare other aspects of the Repco-Brabham racing engines, drilling/tapping eight holes is trivial. Since there's probably no way to prove Repco didn't build from Buick blocks and since the difference truly is unimportant, this article shouldn't differentiate. Furthermore, explanations of differences between Oldsmobile and Buick production engines don't belong in the Racing section of an article about Rover engines. 71.33.139.75 (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Curtis Jacobson

 * This may be what you are talking about:
 * http://assets.hemmings.com/story_image/42665-500-0.jpg?rev=1
 * and you are correct that at one time the castings were made to be common between the two, and the above block can be drilled/tapped. However, that was not the case when Repco used the Oldsmobile block.  This is how the Buick block looked originally:
 * http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o316/donkelly23/2011%20Rebuild/DSCF6436.jpg
 * or:
 * http://www.abload.de/img/p1100594s77s.jpg
 * Do you see the difference? Yiba (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Acquisition by Ford
Article says "The Rover V8 remained with Land Rover until being sold to Ford by BMW", i.e. the engine was acquired by Ford. But since Land Rover was also acquired by Ford, it appears that the two were still under the same ownership. So what exactly is the author trying to tell us?

Also says "However, Land Rover wanted production of the engine to continue, and they arranged for production to restart …". If production was to restart, the reader needs to know why it ceased. Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Sorted.Greglocock (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Predecessor
I really am quite sceptical of the statement that the predecessor to the RV8 was the BMC C-series. I can lay my hands quite easily on supporting information, but there are several key reasons why this is inaccurate. Primarily, the Rover Company had no ties with BMC at the time of the engine's acquisition or productionisation (1964 and 66 resp.), not becoming involved with the Leyland Corp until '67, and British Leyland (whereupon Leyland was joined to BMC) in '68. Furthermore, the only connexion between the RV8 and C-series is in the MG sports cars, but MGC was not directly replaced by MG BGT V8. MGC was aimed at the ex-Austin-Healey 3000 buyer to maintain a prescence in the 3-litre sports car bracket. MG BGT V8 was marketed as an upmarket GT coupe to challenge contemporary European V8 coupes, and retained the suspension setup and frontal treatment of the original MGB.

In terms of the candidate for the title of predecessor, there are two options. The first is the Rover P7 straight-six. Whilst this engine was never productionised, it had been extensively developed for production and the RV8 directly brought about the immediate winding up of the project. The P7 engine had been in development from around 1960-64, though never satisfactorily refined. It was in essence a 'stretched' version of the SOHC 1978cc 4-cylinder engine developed for the Rover 2000 (P6), giving a swept volume of 2967cc. Part of the scope of Project P6 from very early on (1957/58) was to replace the ageing IOE 4- and 6-cylinder engine family of the early Wilks era Rovers with a much more modern engine family of modular design that could be built on a single set of tooling with maximum parts crossover. Thus, the 1978cc 4-cylinder engine of the Rover 2000 has all of its ancillary components gathered in an auxiliary drive housing driven by an intermediate chain wheel at the front of the engine, making the engine 'extendable' with nothing more involved than the addition of two cylinders to the block- and head-casting moulds, and the use of longer crank and cam shafts. It would appear that the initiation of this dual engine family brought an end to the experimental V6 engine designs that were trialled for P5 before its launch, and probably suggests that the underwhelming F-head 3-litre that P5 was launched with was always viewed only as stop-gap. The P6 was launched as Rover 2000, with plans to launch P7 (a long-nose 2000 with the 3-litre engine) as Rover 3000 circa 1965 (so-called to distinguish it from the P5 'Rover 3-litre', and simultaneously providing the origin of the P6 name '2000').

In view of the fact that P7 was never launched, the V8 therefore directly replaced the P5 6-cylinder engine as the Rover offering for the 3-litre bracket. And there are strong grounds to argue direct succession: if the P7 engine was always intended to be fitted to P5, then the same business case created the P5B, merely substituting the RV8 engine design for the P7.

Dissatisfaction with the power-to-weight ratio of the P7 engine (possibly due to the length of time required to refine the aborted EFi system then in development), and the ready availability of the Buick V8 were the grounds for this substitution, and the modular engine family design was not proceeded with (although a modular scheme was designed around the V8 to give a 4-cyl slant-four derivative in the early 1970s). Thus the highly advanced (for the time) 2000 engine remained unique to P6.

Therefore, the RV8 is unequivocally linked primarily to the independent Rover Company's desire to remain competitive in the 3-litre luxury saloon class in the mid-1960s, and secondarily to answer the performance shortcomings of its P5 saloon. In my view, the 2995cc P5 straight-six engine is therefore the best candidate for the label 'predecessor', although I accept that the breadth of the engine's application over the years generates a long list of older engines that were 'replaced' by the RV8 in various model line ups. Please do challenge me if you feel differently. I will seek out the sources necessary to support this position. Mja58 (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with Mja58 that BMC C-Series is inappropriate as the predecessor of Rover V8.  I would also respect his judgement on whether P5 or P7 engine should be listed as the predecessor.  However, this choice poses an interesting question; "Is 'Predecessor/Successor' of an engine defined in terms of heritage/lineage on 1. Design, 2. Manufacture/Production, or, 3. Market Positioning?"
 * I tend to value the Design heritage, but at the same time, I am aware that most engine articles have taken the Market Positioning approach, which is inherited from Car Model articles.

 * This would ultimately lead to "Who is the target of Wiki articles? / How do we define an Average Wiki User?", but my opinion is that the subject/field of an article defines the target reader, so that the engine articles should cater to a more technically inclined group of readers than car model articles do. I would like to see the "Infobox automobile engine" Template discarded.

 * Separately, Mja58, could you add P7 section in the P6 article, building on:
 * http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_P6&prev=/search%3Fq%3DRover%2BP7%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1C1GGGE_jaJP422JP422
 * please?  How about "Rover P7 engine" and "Morris Six engine"?  I don't know much about these and the info you provided above is quite enlightening. Yiba (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks Yiba. I agree this choice does indeed pose an interesting question. I also agree with your assessment that an article's subject matter often defines the reader, and feel your method of categorising 'lineage' is quite effective and succinct.
 * With that in mind, I would suggest the following for discussion:
 * Design. The RV8 design was a linear development of the GM design, and in that respect is the 'design successor' to the GM unit. Often the extent to which the engine was 'Roverised' is overlooked, but the development and refinement work was reasonably thorough in the three years prior to launch.
 * Manufacture/Production. Arguably the GM unit is predecessor in this sense as well, owing to the use of the same production machinery (which was imported from the US). However, in a product planning and production sense, it directly brought about an end to the pre-war IOE engine family, the only remnant of which by the time of the RV8's acquisition was the 3-litre P5 unit.
 * Market Positioning. Unequivocally the original purpose of the engine was to secure Rover's competitive presence in the 3-litre and above classes. Originally this role was intended to be fulfilled by the P7 3000, but as this was never productionised, it isn't a suitable candidate for a market predecessor. In many ways, the P7 3000 project was substituted by the RV8 project, and in that sense reasonably fulfilled many of the same purposes. But from a market perspective, P6B appeared ex nihilo, there being no production 3-litre+ P6 before the launch of P6B.

 * I feel it is important in any discussion on predecession to regard only the original development, application and positioning of the engine by the Rover Company circa 1967-8. Beyond this, the breadth of the engine's application somewhat distorts any clarity surrounding its provenance and origins in the British Motor Industry. The same argument may be applied to the BMC A-series, for example, which over the course of eight years or so gradually replaced many old pre-war engines in a multitude of models, such that it becomes difficult to determine the original scope of its purpose as a 'successor' to the many legacy designs. Unlike the A-series, however, the RV8 was bought and developed exclusively for Rover use in a pre-BL landscape. Future models were dependent on it (not least Range Rover, which had been hitherto marginalised and never seriously developed through lack of suitable engine - a deciding factor in market positioning), but P5 was the only current presence in the 3-litre market at the time in question. It therefore seems reasonable to classify the P5 engine as the Market Predecessor, and (if desired) GM as the 'Design Origins'.

 * I will gladly add what information I can about P7 to that article. Thanks Mja58 (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Updated Predecessor as per discussion.Mja58 (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking further into amendments to the infobox, can I suggest the following for dicussion:
 * Production 1967-2006
 * This is an article about the engine in heavily revised Rover form, so earlier production is not relevant or accurate. This is covered by the Buick 215 article.
 * Predecessor
 * I have requested on the Talk page for the automobile engine infobox template that a new category of 'Designer' be added. This will be of relevance and value for many of the 20th Century engine designs, and in this case would permit the GM connexion to be referenced more accurately. I would propose:
 * "Designer - General Motors (1959/60), Rover (1965-67)".
 * This could then facilitate the deletion of the "Also Called Buick 215" field, which is inaccurate. By that measure, the Triumph 1500 engine would be "also called" Standard 8, when the development in the interim years was sufficient for the engines to share almost nothing in terms of tooling or componentry. An RV8 is definitely not a Buick 215 - even the casting method was altered. This also adds to my above argument that Production should count from 1967 onwards, with the general purpose being to differentiate the Rover-ised engine from its design origins in line with what I believe is the scope of the article.
 * How do we feel about that sort of change (provided Designer can be added to the infobox)?Mja58 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say the proposed change is an improvement over the current way. However, a Designer is a person and not a company, so
 * "Under development by - General Motors (1959/60), Rover (1965-67)"

is more appropriate. For example,
 * "Designer - Gioacchino Colombo"

on "Ferrari 125 engine" is correct, but GM and Rover are not designers. We don't call someone, who designs the changes on minor aspects of an engine, a designer. He/she is a development engineer.

If we are going to retain the infobox on engines, then basic characteristics like
 * "Total Displacement"
 * "Number of Cylinders"
 * "Cylinder Configuration"
 * "Number of Camshafts"
 * "Cylinder Bore"
 * "Stroke"
 * "Valve Configuration"
 * "Number of Valves per Cylinder"

should be on it, don't you think? If it is difficult to do so, then I am against keeping the infobox. Yiba (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Beware that the engine infobox is used in two ways - one is to represent the entire family (for shared features) at the top of the article and the other way is for each individual engine (for different bore, stroke, etc).  Stepho  talk 08:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks. That is a very good point.  I could not find an engine article that uses the infoboxes in both ways, but you are right may be we should be discussing "Infobox on engine family" and "Infobox on an engine" separately.  May be "Infobox for engine family" should be created. Yiba (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Hmm, took me longer than I thought to find an example but here it is: Toyota AR engine. Coincidently, the AR has two predecessors listed, the S engine family that it generally replaced in vehicles and the AZ engine family that it took its technology from. There used to be two separate templates (one for family, one for each engine within the family) but they were practically identical, so we joined them together a few years back).  Stepho  talk 04:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot. I learned for the first time Toyota AR has iron sleeves cast in the aluminium block. Very interesting.  And, more importantly, I didn't know the engine family Infobox used to exist separately.
 * Now that I see the Infobox on Rover V8 is for the family, and (I hope) there is the probability of someone adding Infoboxes on each displacement, I don't feel as bad about having the Infobox on this family that does not describe any technical feature. The "family" should normally include Buick 215, but I wouldn't argue for it, as that would make a mess out of the whole thing.

 * But I remain firm on the opinion that a "Designer" should be a person, or a specific group of people, which are becoming near-impossible to define on modern engines. A Mazda engineer told me that Jaguar AJ-V8 was mostly designed in Dearborn by Ford engineers, but its combustion chamber and port designs were done in Hiroshima using Mazda's super-computer by Mazda engineers. (He says the design lineage goes back to Mazda 929/MPV V6.  He also says Aston Martin V12 used the same combustion chamber design at least originally.)

 * I would love to know who belonged to Austin Design Office from what year to what year, and what designs came out of the office in what years. David Bache article would be a good place to start, but I know so little about the subject that I don't know where to go from there.
 * Credit for achievements should go to the people who deserve, not who paid their salary, which should be clear when we think about Alec Issigonis.

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiba (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

displacements near of 6.3 L (383.4 cu in)
< possibly even displacements near of 6.3 L (383.4 cu in), though the latter has not been tested in practice as of yet.>

Never mind practice; how is this achieved even in theory without the pistons welding themselves together or the crankshaft and camshaft attempting to be in the same place at the same time?

(in other words:  )

86.142.118.81 (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

displacement
Baldy Bill@undefined has just changed the displacement from 3532cc to 3528cc. His sources are usually reliable. However, there are also equally reliable sources out there that give 3532cc. Using the given metric figures for bore (88.9 mm) and stroke (71.0 mm), we get (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.0*8/1000=3525.667 cc. But using the imperial figures converted to metric (25.4 mm = 1") we get 3.50"=88.9mm and 2.8"=71.12mm. Which gives (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.12*8/1000=3531.626 cc. Rounding the 2.8" to 71.1mm gives (88.9/2)*(88.9/2)*3.14159*71.0*8/1000=3530.633 cc. I'm not sure where the 3528 cc figure comes from but assuming 88.9 mm bore and 3528 cc we require a stroke of 71.04 mm, which seems wrong. So, which figures do we use?  Stepho  talk 00:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Stepho, thanks for the helpful input and calculations. I thought it wouldn't be a contentious edit as no sources were referenced inline for the 3532cc figure, however of course we aim to have the most accurate possible information so I am open to correction by reliable sources. If equally weighted sources are available then I would suggest the way forward would be to list both possible capacities, source(s) inline after the stated capacities and wording along the lines of "variouly quoted as...". The reason I noticed the figure is simply that back in my pre-teen days when the Rover SD1 was a new car both a Rover Vitesse and a Range Rover Vogue were high on the list for the imaginary dream car garage, so I had pored over the Rover brochures and the magazines of the day many times and the 3528 figure is burned in my mind. Just because it is burned in does not mean it is correct, hence the quest to read through several sources and pick two to reference in the article. I did have a brief hunt around on search engines to see if any archivists had scanned in Rover's then-published figures, to no avail so far. What I did find were several sites mirroring the Wikipedia text, as so often happens! I suppose the vagueness can arise from it being 0.5ml per cylinder in question - barely a vaccination's worth - so a metric-to-imperial conversion factor and decimal rounding, squared, could easily account for that much and Rover's own sales staff may have been working from erroneous figures. Baldy Bill  ( sharpen the razor | see my reflection ) 18:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re not the only one; 3528 cc has been firmly wedged in my head-branez since about 1970. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked for some period brochures and found some at https://www.roverownersclub.com.au/rover-history-in-australia/rover-sales-brochures/
 * They consistently say bore 3.5" (88.9mm) x stroke 2.8" (71.12mm) for 215cuin (3528cc), which at least agrees with your memory.
 * Yet the numbers still don't work out. The bore and stroke conversions are exact using 1" = 25.4mm . Using imperial figures and formula stroke*stroke*pi*bore*cylinders, we get (3.5/2)*(3.5/2)*3.14159*2.8*8 = 215.513074 cuin, which converts to 3531.6xxx cc. If I use the metric figures then I get the same answer. But the UK used 1"=25.399977mm until 1930. Perhaps somebody at Rover did all the calcs in imperial, then looked up an old conversion table, rounded it to 25.39, got 3527.4 and rounded that 3528. I feel like I should be mentioning Jupiter ascending in Pisces and adding your granny's age but I can't find any other rational explanation.
 * So, my best guess is that Rover did indeed advertise it as 3528cc but that this is actually a bad metric conversion and that some aftermarket suppliers gave the correct figure.
 * We went through a similar process with the Ford 302 V8. Ford US advertised it as a 5.0 L engine when its capacity was actually 4940cc. So, technically it's a 4.9 L V8. When we started changing articles to list it as a 4.9 L we got a lot of kick back but eventually we settled on actual capacity overriding advertised capacity.  Stepho  talk 02:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another IP has been making the change 3528 -> 3532 lately. I agree with the math, but I am as mystified as anyone else in how they calculated this. I keep seeing this engine referred to as 215.3 cuin as well, which converts to 3528cc. Which doesn't really help. Also, why did Buick call it a 215 if it's 215.51; it should have been called a 216. Anyhow, there are lots of period and current references for 3528, so I think that us or other websites doing their own math kinda sorta becomes WP:OR.  Mr.choppers |   ✎  20:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Really stretching here, but if you presume that someone at BL converted 2.8 to a fraction, then 2+51/64 in gives a displacement of 215.27 CID. This is my best guess, but it remains a theory unless we find some early Rover publication which refers to the stroke as a fraction. In any case, this discrepancy jives with all my notions regarding the British car industry - one engineer uses mm, one uses decimal inches, while a third uses fractions, and thus the engine leaks oil at all times.  Mr.choppers |   ✎  20:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this keeps gnawing at my OCD nature. I checked a number of Rover brochures from the 1970s-1990s. The 3528 cc figure is rock solid consistently reported by the company in all its literature. Same for the bore and stroke figures. If only they agreed :( Without measuring it myself (not allowed under WP guidelines and I don't have an engine anyway), I have no way to choose which set of figures is correct. Perhaps we should add a sentence saying that the reported capacity and the reported bore x stroke don't quite match and leave it at that.  Stepho  talk 02:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a collection of the most popular beliefs. The act of editing Wikipedia articles is a result of research by the editor with the originality resting with that person. --a form of original research. So WP:OR does not prohibit original research per se. In order to promote accuracy, WP:OR enforces verifiability to fight against our own inaccurate beliefs, and that policy is not there to discourage the effort to sniff the truth out of a pile of junk ad copies and news articles written with various degree of popularism  --this quest for the truth, I believe and admire, is what  Stepho  is doing. I consider the truth should prevail over inaccurate popular belief in Wikipedia articles (with or without editor consensus) no matter how many "reliable sources" can be quoted against (granted, the fact these sources exist should be included in the article). If the discussion is on the change of article title from "Rover 215 engine" to "Rover 216 engine", it's a totally different story. Please realize WP:CALC states doing our own math does NOT make it an original research as defined by Wikipedia. Yiba (talk | contribs) 09:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For sure - what's complicated is when published materials and mathematics disagree. For now I agree with Stepho in mentioning that bore x stroke calculates to 3532, but leaving it 3528 throughout because that is what reliable sources state. After all, a .08 mm difference in bore should fall within BL's no doubt ample tolerances back then so who knows if 3528 isn't actually correct after all. Meanwhile, Rover's "4.2" and TVR's 4.3 have identical engine dimensions (94.0 x 77.0) but their claimed displacements are 4275 and 4280cc respectively. Headaches aplenty. Best,  Mr.choppers |   ✎  17:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rover V8 engine


text: User talk:134.48.177.40

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

title: User talk:134.48.177.40


text:
User talk:TheMajinZenki

Image:Zenki.jpg has been listed for deletion

 * --Romeo Bravo 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:TheMajinZenki


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg

Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh
A classic picture of Albert. Would be the classic picture if not for Image:Einstongue.jpg, which is of too low quality to be featured, unfortunately. - Circeus 00:47, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. First vote here - Circeus 00:47, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. —Josh Lee 02:38, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - my hero (Einstein, that is) - Adrian Pingstone 07:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nice portrait, popular figure, but I am confused by the copyright status. Thanks to Lupo this image is well sourced and tagged, and indeed if you follow the source link it states that the copyright is expired. But why? The picture is taken in 1948 so it is not published pre-1923, and the photographer Yousuf Karsh only died a few years ago. -- Solipsist 10:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I cannot say I get overwhelmed by it. Jonas Olson 10:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great photo. I think the sweater gives a nice informal look. --Fir0002 11:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A great photo of a great man - assuming the copyright issues are resolved. Enochlau 13:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- brian0918  ™  19:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The best picture I've seen of the guy yet. Mgm|(talk) 21:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Zxcvbnm 04:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Ericd 21:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. -- I discovered a few years ago that many great photographs by Karsh are in the PD. At that time I wrote something in the Village Pump to suggest to Wikipedians to "dig" in Karsh portraits. I still don't know why they're PD, maybe a governement order or maybe Karsh had no children and released his works in the PD.
 * Comment - It seems that the Canadian governement acquired the rights. Ericd 21:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Nice shot. TomStar81 21:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Go for it! How about nominating this one Image:Karsh Churchill.jpg too? --Bricktop 06:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's low res. Jonas Olson 08:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's easy to get the hi-res version... Ericd 08:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good! We sure could use it, featured or not. Jonas Olson 10:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the best res version I could find on internet, but if you get a high-res version, it's always welcomed --Bricktop 12:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Thanks for the clarification on copyright. I guess 'expired' isn't the right word if the Canadian government aquired the copyright and release it, but it does look like several other Karsh photographs are similarly in the public domain. -- Solipsist 10:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know what's the legislation is Canada is a photographic work owned by the Canadian state automatically PD or did Canada release Karsh works in the PD ? Ericd 10:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - This has to be verified, but it seems that the Canadian governement acquired the rights for the whole Karsh works, thus all Karsh photographs must be in the PD. As he photographied a bunch of the celebrities of his time and he is one the best (if not the best) portrait photographer ever, it's a great source for Wikipedia. Ericd 11:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Canadian Gov works are not PD, ala the US gov, they are crown copyright, which is a non-commercial (non-free) license. See Crown copyright. Burgundavia 21:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Karsh may be the greatest portrait photographer of all time, and this is one of the best examples of this work. Alight 19:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to see that you all are staying away from opposing to this picture. You see, I have patented that opinion! :-) Jonas Olson 07:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem very unexcitable. :) -- brian0918 ™  09:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- I like it a lot. - Longhair | Talk 12:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * overwhelmingly BrokenSegue 12:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:128.239.197.155

title: User talk:128.239.197.155


text:
Lira Baysetova

Lira Baysetova is the former editor of the weekly Respublika newspaper of Kazakhstan.

In late May 2002, she found that her 25-year-old daughter Leyla Baysetova had mysteriously disappeared. Reporters Without Borders reported that, during the previous week, the editor had been the subject of specific threats following an interview she had conducted with Geneva general prosecutor, Bernard Bertossa (on 10 May 2002) concerning the Swiss bank accounts of several top Kazakh officials, including President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

A week later, the headless body of a dog was found hanging over the entrance of the offices of another opposition newspaper (Soldat), which was set to publish Baysetova's interview with Bertossa. On 22 May (the day the interview was published), unidentified men attacked Soldat's premises, beating up two employees, stealing computers and smashing equipment. The same day, the offices of Respublika in Almaty burned down after Molotov cocktails were thrown into the building. On 16 June, a man claiming to be from the Interior Ministry told Baysetova that her daughter had been arrested for possession of heroin and had subsequently fallen ill. She was not allowed to see her daughter until June 21 when she was informed that she was dead. The circumstances of the case (and particularly Leyla Baysetova's death) remain disputed. The local police authorities claim that she was a drug addict who hanged herself with her jeans in a moment of temporary insanity. However, Kazakh television have questioned the police's findings, stating that no attempts was made to analyze the deceased's blood to determine if she had indeed taken drugs and that no jeans were presented as evidence.

On October 3, 2002 Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) awarded an International Press Freedom Award to Baysetova.

title: Lira Baysetova


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Yarnell

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tyler Yarnell
Wwjdd marked this vfd on March 26, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The only thing remotely notable is the book. All else is vanity. Can anyone track how it sold and if it's even widely available? Mgm|(talk) 15:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tyler Yarnell does not exist on amazon. poor POV, non-notable--Delete --Combuchan 02:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


text: User talk:209.81.57.146

title: User talk:209.81.57.146


text:
Wantage Hall

Wantage Hall, built 1908, is the oldest hall of residence at the University of Reading, in Reading, England. The hall is one of 13 belonging to the University and is close to Whiteknights Campus. It is designated a grade II listed building, a status given for its special architectural or historic interest.

The hall provides fully catered residential accommodation for about 245 students.

History
Wantage Hall was built in 1906–1908 by Harriet, Lady Wantage in memory of her husband Robert Loyd-Lindsay, 1st Baron Wantage, and was the first residential hall of the University, at that time an extension college of Christ Church, Oxford. The architect was Charles Steward Smith, and the hall was laid out as a quadrangle and built in Neo-Tudor style in red brick with stone details.

Wantage Hall was used by the No 1 School of Military Aeronautics during the First World War for training flight instructors, cadet pilots and observers. During World War II, it was the headquarters of RAF Reserve Command.

In 1970 an extension of little architectural interest was built to the north, also in red brick. This was called "New Court", and the original structure became "Old Court".

title: Wantage Hall


text:
User talk:Georgia guy/Letter number combinations

Primary topic dis-ambiguation with letter-number combinations
(This question was brought to my attention when I saw someone write that the V8 engine should be the primary meaning of V8.)

Any opinions on what to do if any letter-number combination has a primary meaning set according to the location of any Wikipedia article?? Georgia guy 00:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Primary topic disambiguation is common Wikipedia practise when one of the meanings of a title is much more commonly used (on Wikipedia, or elsewhere) than the others. Article titles are meant to give the searcher or linker what they probably meant.  In the case of V8, for example, the engine is referred to much more often than the juice or anything else.  If primary topic disambiguation is not used, someone will have to constantly clean up casual linking to the base term.

 * I would ask you, then, that if an article currently exists at a letter-number combination, to at least consider the fact that primary topic disambiguation might be better, and to possibly engage people on the talk page.

 * Also, if you decide the primary page should be a disambiguation, because there is no clearly dominant meaning, be aware that you are breaking many links if you move things. —Morven 18:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Problem
When I edit the letter-number combinations list, when I check for useful dis-ambiguation pages I do so by finding its uses at Special:Allpages for article titles to add. Any other way to find new articles for dis-ambiguation pages besides this?? Georgia guy 22:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Ecoregions of Australia

this article should be either ecoregion in Australia or Australian ecoregion or a list of ecoregions of Australia. only topics that are lists should use plurals in their title. clarkk 00:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The article isn't just a list, it's an article; to rename it "List of Ecoregions of Australia" is not only unnecessarily long (brevity being a virtue in article naming), but it is also somewhat misleading. Calling the article "Ecoregion in Australia" or "Australian Ecoregion" is also misleading; it could easily imply that there is one ecoregion in Australia, when in fact there are many. The article isn't about one ecoregion or about all ecoregions, but about the ecoregions of a particular geographic area; hence the plural is appropriate here.

 * Never heard of the rule that only lists can have plurals in the title; I refer you to the featured articles National parks of England and Wales and Traditional counties of England as exemplary articles that use plurals in the title. Like this article, using the singular noun would be misleading, implying that England and Wales had one national park, and England one traditional county. Tom Radulovich 05:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ecoregions of Australia


text:
MAX Blue Line

The MAX Blue Line is a light rail line serving the Portland metropolitan area in the U.S. state of Oregon. Operated by TriMet as part of the MAX Light Rail system, it connects Hillsboro, Beaverton, Portland, and Gresham. The Blue Line is the longest in the network; it travels approximately 33 mi and serves 48 stations from Hatfield Government Center to Cleveland Avenue. It is the busiest of the five MAX lines, having carried an average 55,370 riders each day on weekdays in September 2018. Service runs for 22$1/2$ hours per day from Monday to Thursday, with headways of between 30 minutes off-peak and five minutes during rush hour. It runs later in the evening on Fridays and Saturdays and ends earlier on Sundays.

The success of local freeway revolts in Portland in the early 1970s led to a reallocation of federal assistance funds from the proposed Mount Hood Freeway and Interstate 505 (I-505) projects to mass transit. Among various proposals, local governments approved the construction of a light rail line between Gresham and Portland in 1978. Referred to as the Banfield Light Rail Project during planning and construction as a part of the Banfield Freeway redevelopment, construction of what is now the Eastside MAX segment began in 1983. The line was inaugurated as the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) on September 5, 1986.

Planning for an extension of MAX to the west side began as early as 1979. Known as the Westside MAX, construction was delayed by nearly a decade due to funding disagreements. Originally designed to terminate at 185th Avenue near the border of Hillsboro and Beaverton, proponents for a longer line achieved a supplemental extension to downtown Hillsboro just before groundbreaking in 1993. The Westside MAX opened in two phases following delays in tunnel construction; the first section up to Goose Hollow opened in 1997 while the rest opened on September 12, 1998.

In 2000, the two distinct segments, already operating as a single through route between Gresham and Hillsboro, were unified in passenger information as the Blue Line after TriMet introduced a color coding scheme in preparation for the opening of the Red Line to Portland International Airport. The Blue Line currently shares its route with the Red Line on the west side, between Beaverton Transit Center and Rose Quarter Transit Center. On the east side, it shares tracks with both the Red Line and the Green Line, between Rose Quarter Transit Center and Gateway/Northeast 99th Avenue Transit Center.

Early freeway opposition
Following the recommendations of Robert Moses, the Oregon State Highway Department developed a plan for freeways in the Portland metropolitan area in 1955 that proposed, among others, the Stadium, Mount Hood, and Industrial freeways. Added to the Interstate Highway System as Interstate 405 (I-405), the Stadium Freeway was the first to start construction in 1963. Its route through downtown Portland led to condemnations that fostered one of the first grassroots opposition to freeways, which grew considerably as planning continued for the others. In 1971, the Portland–Vancouver Metropolitan Transportation Study (PVMTS), published a "1990 Transportation Plan". The plan, later adopted by the Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG) as a regional transportation plan, called for 54 new road and highway projects. That same year, an anti-freeway group called Sensible Transportation Options for People (STOP) was formed, while Neil Goldschmidt ran a successful election campaign on freeway opposition to become a member of the Portland City Council and eventually, mayor.

By 1972, local groups had filed lawsuits against the Oregon Transportation Commission to halt the Mount Hood and Industrial—by then called I-505—freeways. For I-505, a U.S. district court forced the Highway Department to conduct an appropriate environmental impact statement (EIS) after Northwest Portland residents alleged that National Environmental Policy Act guidelines were ignored. In 1973, a separate EIS prepared by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill determined that if built, the Mount Hood Freeway would only add more traffic to downtown Portland than the surface streets could handle. Then, on February 4, 1974, U.S. District Judge James M. Burns rejected the freeway plan after finding that the corridor selection process failed to follow the appropriate procedures. Multnomah County and the City of Portland withdrew their support for the Mount Hood Freeway later that year, and in 1978, the City of Portland did the same for I-505.

Transitway planning and construction
With highway revolts similarly occurring in cities across the country, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 containing a provision that allowed state governments for the first time to transfer federal funds from withdrawn interstate projects to other transportation options, including mass transit. The Mount Hood Freeway and I-505 were officially removed from the Interstate Highway System in 1976 and 1979, respectively, but planning for the use of around $200 million from the Mount Hood Freeway and $154 million from I-505 on other projects in the Portland area started much earlier. In May 1973, Governor Tom McCall assembled a task force to determine alternative uses for the highway funds. The task force, in turn, recommended a network of "transitways". The task force was subsumed into CRAG in 1974, and CRAG incorporated its recommendations in an "Interim Transportation Plan" (ITP) adopted in June 1975. The ITP identified three corridors for potential funding using the highway funds: Banfield, Oregon City/Johnson Creek, and Sunset (Westside). In 1976, CRAG moved forward with a detailed study of the Banfield Corridor and put planning for the other corridors on hold. Among five alternatives developed by the Highway Division, including the removal or extension of an existing high-occupancy vehicle lane, a busway had been favored for the Banfield Corridor. Support for light rail on the corridor grew following the mode's inclusion as a sixth alternative in a 1977 EIS, though there was also opposition. Notable opposition came from the East County Concerned Citizens; 5,400 individuals signed a petition against any alternative involving light rail for costs and lack of presumed ridership. The group endorsed a plan to add an HOV lane and general lanes to Banfield instead. This opposition was notable, especially in comparison to the 340 individual comments received during a discussion period in 1977–1978.

In September 1978, TriMet became the first jurisdiction to adopt a resolution supporting a combined light rail and highway expansion plan. Remaining local jurisdictions each announced their support by November, and the State Transportation Commission approved the project in 1979. The Banfield light rail project received federal approval for construction in September 1980. Plans for a 27-station, 15.1 mi line,  running from Southwest 11th Avenue in downtown Portland to just east of Cleveland Avenue in Gresham, were produced by Wilbur Smith Associates. The project estimated a budget of $225.5 million (equivalent to $ in dollars), of which $146.9 million went to light rail. Planners selected the Steel Bridge to carry the alignment over the Willamette River because it had been designed for the use of the city's former streetcars. In the east side, planners routed the line through a former Mount Hood Company interurban right-of-way, which occupied the median of East Burnside Street between 99th Avenue in Portland and Ruby Junction/197th Avenue, along which interurban service had ended in 1927. From Ruby Junction to Cleveland Avenue, planners assumed acquisition of a two-mile (3.2 km) section owned by the Portland Traction Company (PTC). In August 1983, PTC agreed to surrender this segment as part of a longer abandonment up to Linnemann Junction, a total of 4.3 mi of right-of-way, which TriMet bought for $2.9 million in December of that year. Anticipating 42,500 riders by 1990, TriMet purchased 26 light rail vehicles from Bombardier, with each car costing $750,000. Bombardier started their production in 1982 and began delivering them in 1984. Zimmer Gunsul Frasca designed the line's stations and overpasses, earning the firm a Progressive Architecture Award in 1984.

The groundbreaking ceremony took place at Ruby Junction Yard, which would house a 98000 sqft maintenance and operations building, in March 1982. Light rail construction, which progressed largely east to west, commenced the following year in April, on the two-mile (3.2 km) section between Ruby Junction and Cleveland Avenue. The Ruby Junction facility opened as the system's first maintenance complex later that July. By January 1984, work had reached East Burnside Street. To minimize the cost of the Banfield Freeway segment, track right-of-way excavation and freeway widening took place simultaneously. Construction along this segment nonetheless slowed due to late material deliveries, particularly between Northeast Union and 39th avenues. Track work in downtown Portland, the final section to be built, began in March 1984 and involved utility relocation, cobblestone paving, and tree planting across 36 downtown blocks. The line's use of the Steel Bridge necessitated a $10 million rehabilitation that started the following June. System testing followed the completion of electrification work. This included the validation of the new light rail cars, which initially encountered electrical braking glitches, by putting each of them through 1500 mi of on-track testing. On July 28, 1986, an eastbound car conducting a test run struck and killed a man who had trespassed onto the light rail tracks near Northeast 68th Avenue. The Steel Bridge reopened in May 1986 after encountering a nine-month delay caused by structural problems and late deliveries. The bridge's owners—the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads—added to the delay by insisting on the replacement of the bridge's 64 lift cables, which TriMet claimed had not been in the original contract.

Inauguration and later improvements

On September 5, 1986, the $214 million (equivalent to $ in dollars) light rail line—now called Metropolitan Area Express (MAX)—opened for service. Its new name was selected through a public contest held by The Oregonian and TriMet in June 1986. TriMet designer Jeff Frane, who attributed inspiration to his son Alex, made the winning suggestion. As the planning of an extension to the west side progressed, this line came to be referred to as the Eastside MAX. Freeway transfer funds provided $178.3 million, or 83 percent of the total cost. The project was completed $10 million under budget. An estimated 250,000 people attended the opening celebrations which spanned three days. Downtown retailers, many of whom had opposed light rail, reported substantial increases in sales following the line's opening. Nine new bus lines were created and six existing bus routes were modified as feeder routes. MAX trains initially operated between 5:00 am and 1:30 am, with headways as short as seven minutes. Fares ranged $0.85–$1.30 to travel up to four paid zones. Rides were free within Fareless Square from opening day until 2012.

Originally, MAX trains did not automatically stop at every station, if no one was waiting to board when a train approached a given stop. MAX cars were equipped with stop-request bell cords (as are commonly found on American transit buses), which passengers needed to pull to signal the operator that they wanted to get off at the next stop. However, after finding that the times when a train could pass a station without needing to stopbecause no one was getting on or offwere mainly limited to late-night hours and a small number of less-used stations, TriMet removed the bell cords in November 1994 and changed its operating practices to have trains stop at every station at all times.

From 1986 to 1996, most of the line's easternmost two miles (3.2 km), beyond the Ruby Junction maintenance facility, operated as bidirectional single-track. Trains traveling in opposite directions were unable to pass in these sections, resulting in delays when service ran behind schedule. In early 1996, a second track was laid and a second platform was constructed at Gresham Central Transit Center, making the section double-track and eliminating the only remaining single-track on the Eastside MAX. The new track was brought into use in May after a three-month suspension of MAX service east of Rockwood/East 188th Avenue station; it had been replaced by shuttle buses to allow the work to be carried out.

Since the inauguration of MAX, TriMet has added four infill stations to the original alignment. In March 1990, the system opened the Mall stations—their names referring to the Portland Transit Mall—to coincide with the opening of Pioneer Place shopping mall in downtown Portland. After operating for 30 years, these stations closed permanently in March 2020, owing to low ridership and to speed up train travel times across the city center. In September 1990, the Oregon Convention Center opened to the public with MAX service from Convention Center station. Work on the line's newest station, Civic Drive, started in 1997 as part of the Civic neighborhood development, but was delayed for approximately twelve years due to a lack of funding. Construction resumed in May 2010 and the station opened on December 1, 2010.

In 2015, TriMet began renovating fourteen of the system's oldest stations, between Hollywood/Northeast 42nd Avenue Transit Center and Cleveland Avenue. The project includes the installation of new windscreens, shelter roofs, digital information displays, lighting, and security cameras. Three stations—Gresham City Hall, East 122nd Avenue, and East 162nd Avenue—have been renovated as of February 2019.

Early planning and delays

On September 30, 1908, an interurban rail service ran for the first time between Portland and Hillsboro. It was operated by the Oregon Electric Railway (OE), which built a branch line from its Garden Home depot to Forest Grove. The Great Depression and the rise of the automobile in the 1920s led to the closure of the Forest Grove Branch in 1932. The Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) later acquired much of this alignment and used it for freight service. It abandoned a segment between Orenco and central Hillsboro in 1977.

In 1979, plans to restore passenger rail service from Portland to the west side emerged with a proposal to extend MAX to 185th Avenue, near the Hillsboro–Beaverton boundary. In 1983, Metro (the successor to CRAG) selected light rail as the preferred mode alternative, and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) released $1.3 million to begin a preliminary engineering study. That same year, newly appointed Hillsboro Mayor Shirley Huffman began lobbying for the line's extension to downtown Hillsboro. She traveled frequently to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress and UMTA. The project was later suspended by TriMet amid conflict with UMTA, who wanted the former to develop a financing plan before it released funding for preliminary engineering work. By the time planning resumed in January 1988, significant changes in the Westside Corridor, including the conversion of 3,000 acre of vacant Washington County land into mixed-use urban areas, required a re-evaluation that was completed in May 1991.

As planning continued on the route between Portland and 185th Avenue, alternative routes through Beaverton included alignments along the Sunset Highway (U.S. 26), the BN right-of-way, and the Tualatin Valley Highway (TV Highway). A consultant recommended the BN alternative to TriMet in December 1988, and the agency's board ultimately selected that recommendation. The terminus station would have been along the BN right-of-way near 185th Avenue and Baseline Road. Meanwhile, the Portland City Council formed an advisory committee to determine whether the route through downtown should extend west from 11th Avenue on Southwest Morrison and Yamhill streets or run through the Portland Transit Mall on 5th and 6th avenues. The locally preferred alternative ultimately adopted a continuation of MAX along Morrison and Yamhill streets.

The efforts of Huffman and others regarding the proposed Hillsboro extension led to a supplemental study in April 1993, which evaluated options to extend the westside light rail project, among other mode alternatives, to the Washington County Fairplex or downtown Hillsboro. Alternative routes up to downtown Hillsboro included the abandoned BN segment from 185th Avenue to 10th Avenue, Baseline and Cornell roads, and TV Highway. In July of that year, TriMet approved an extension of the initial 11.5 mi light rail line, 6.2 mi farther west to downtown Hillsboro using the abandoned BN route. This brought the project's new total distance to 17.7 mi (some sources say 17.5 km). At the time, the line was scheduled to open as far as 185th Avenue in September 1997, and downtown Hillsboro by the end of 1998.

Funding and construction

Funding for the westside extension proved difficult to obtain under the Reagan Administration, which sought to reduce federal expenditures by delaying existing light rail projects and declining to approve future planning. As members of their respective appropriations committees, U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield and U.S. Representative Les AuCoin secured preliminary engineering and environmental review grants in 1989 by withholding funds from the head of UMTA's office. In 1990, Congress adopted legislation requiring the federal government to cover a 75 percent share of transit projects approved within the fiscal year. Voters subsequently rejected a measure to permit the use of local vehicle registration fees for public transit, which would have covered Oregon's 25 percent share, defeating it 52 percent to 48 percent. With a year-end deadline approaching the 25 percent local-share stipulation, TriMet introduced a $125 million local bond measure in July 1990. Portland area voters overwhelmingly approved the ballot measure, which earned 74 percent average approval the following November. This marked the region's first successful vote approving public transportation. The Federal Transit Administration (the new name for UMTA) completed the funding package in 1991, granting $515 million to build the line up to 185th Avenue. It provided another $75 million in 1994 following the approval of the Hillsboro extension, which covered one-third of the segment's $224 million additional cost.

Construction of the Westside MAX began in August 1993 with the excavation of the 21 ft Robertson Tunnel. Several alternative alignments through the West Hills were studied, including an all-surface option along the Sunset Highway, an option with a half-mile-long (0.8km) "short tunnel", and an option with a 3 mi "long tunnel". TriMet chose the "long tunnel" in April 1991. Frontier-Traylor, the project's general contractor, used conventional drilling and blasting techniques to dig through the west end. On the east segment, a 278 ft tunnel boring machine was used to drill for two miles. Highly fragmented rock initially made machine excavation difficult, delaying the project for nine months. The $166.9 million tunnel was completed in 1997. It houses the 260 ft Washington Park station, currently the system's only underground station and the deepest transit station in North America.

Work along Oregon Highway 217 started in March 1994. Initially planned to run alongside freight trains through Beaverton and Hillsboro, the alignment was replaced with light rail following TriMet's acquisition of the BN right-of-way in June. The 600 ft horseshoe tunnel below Sunset Highway was completed in July 1995 and all highway work ceased in December. Track work commenced west of 185th Avenue around the time the Elmonica Yard opened in January 1996. It was built to accommodate some of the 39 Siemens cars TriMet procured. The model SD660 low-floor cars, jointly developed by TriMet and Siemens, became notable as the first low-floor light rail vehicles in North America. The final rail spike was driven on Hillsboro's Main Street Bridge in October 1997. System testing took place in June 1998.

Opening

Owing to delays caused by tunneling work, the line's planned September 1997 opening up to 185th Avenue was postponed by one year. On August 31, 1997, the Westside MAX opened its first section, a two-station extension west to the Civic Stadium and Kings Hill/SW Salmon Street, in conjunction with the entry into service of the first low-floor cars. Grand opening celebrations for the entire $963.5million (equivalent to $ in dollars) line took place on September 12, 1998. Ceremonies were held at various stations and speeches were delivered by local and national dignitaries, including Vice President Al Gore. Twelve TriMet bus routes, which had operated between the west side and downtown Portland, were reduced to five, replaced by light rail. The line immediately drew strong ridership, exceeding projections for 2005 less than two years after it opened. In September 2000, TriMet adopted a color coding scheme to differentiate its trains operating between Hillsboro and Gresham from those that were going to serve the Airport MAX extension, assigning the colors blue and red, respectively. The line-identification system was implemented shortly before the Red Line's opening on September 10, 2001.

Proposed extension to Forest Grove
In February 2006, local government officials proposed an extension of the Westside MAX from its Hatfield Government Center terminus to Forest Grove. City leaders approached a former TriMet engineer to conduct a feasibility study and develop a plan to get the project included in Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation list of priority projects. The six-month study, completed in October, estimated a cost of about $200 million to build the segment. The study identified a best route option using existing tracks between Southwest Adams Avenue in Hillsboro and Douglas Street in Forest Grove. The tracks, which were formerly owned by OE, are currently state-owned with operating rights assigned to the Portland and Western Railroad. Metro proposes a high-capacity transit extension to Forest Grove as part of its 2018 Regional Transportation Plan for 2040 but does not specify the type of high-capacity transit, which could either be a bus or a rail option.

Route

The Blue Line operates along the Eastside and Westside MAX segments, which combined total 32.6 mi to 32.7 mi. Its western terminus is Hatfield Government Center in Hillsboro, on the corner of West Main Street and Southwest Adams Avenue. From there, the line heads east along the median of Southeast Washington Street and continues east on a former BN—former OE—right-of-way between Southeast 10th Avenue and Northwest 185th Avenue, traveling mostly at-grade except at grade-separated crossings—notably, the Main Street Bridge and Cornelius Pass Road—until it reaches Beaverton Transit Center. It then turns north, running adjacent to Oregon Highway 217 to Sunset Transit Center. From there it continues eastwards along the north side of the Sunset Highway before entering the Robertson Tunnel for Washington Park station. After leaving the tunnel, the line passes below the Vista Bridge and enters downtown Portland, continuing along Southwest Jefferson Street before turning north onto the median of Southwest 18th Avenue.

Near Providence Park, the tracks diverge eastbound onto Southwest Yamhill Street and westbound onto Southwest Morrison Street, crossing the Portland Transit Mall near the Pioneer Courthouse and Pioneer Courthouse Square. The tracks reconnect on Southwest 1st Avenue and head north, traversing the Willamette River via the Steel Bridge into the Rose Quarter. The line runs along Holladay Street in the Rose Quarter and the Lloyd District, passing the Moda Center and the Oregon Convention Center. It enters its grade-separated segment along the north bank of the Banfield Freeway at Sullivan's Gulch. The line then travels over the Interstate 84 and Interstate 205 interchange towards Gateway/Northeast 99th Avenue Transit Center. From Gateway Transit Center, tracks head south along the east side of I-205. A single-track junction south of Gateway Transit Center marks the start of the Airport MAX segment while a double junction south of Southeast Glisan Street splits into the I-205 MAX. The Blue Line turns east and enters the median of East Burnside Street at East 97th Avenue. At Ruby Junction/East 197th Avenue station, the line leaves the street and heads southeastwards until it reaches Cleveland Avenue station, its last stop, near the corner of Northeast Cleveland Avenue and Northeast 8th Street in Gresham.

The Blue Line shares much of its alignment with the Red Line. Between 2001 and 2003, they used the same tracks from the 11th Avenue loop tracks in downtown Portland to Gateway Transit Center, where Red Line trains diverge towards Portland International Airport. Since 2003, they have shared the same route between Beaverton Transit Center and Gateway Transit Center. The Green Line joined a part of this shared alignment in 2009, entering from the Portland Transit Mall just west of the Steel Bridge, diverging at Gateway Transit Center, and continuing south towards Clackamas.

Stations

The Blue Line serves 48 stations. The 27 stations built as part of the inaugural line between Gresham and downtown Portland opened on September 5, 1986. The Mall stations on Southwest 4th and 5th avenues were added in conjunction with the opening of Pioneer Place in March 1990, followed by the Convention Center station and the Oregon Convention Center in September. The Westside MAX opened in two stages due to delays in construction. The first two stations, Civic Stadium—now Providence Park—and Kings Hill/Southwest Salmon Street opened on August 31, 1997. The remaining 18 stations opened during the segment's inauguration on September 12, 1998. The newest station is Civic Drive, which was opened on December 1, 2010.

On July 24, 2019, TriMet announced the permanent closure of the Mall stations, as well as a one-year pilot closure of Kings Hill/Southwest Salmon Street station, in an effort to speed up travel times. The closures took effect on March 1, 2020.

Transfers to the Yellow Line are available at the Pioneer Square and Mall stations and Rose Quarter Transit Center, while transfers to the Green Line (beyond the shared Eastside MAX alignment) and the Orange Line can be made at the Pioneer Square and Mall stations. Additionally, the Blue Line provides connections to local and intercity bus services at various stops across the line, the Portland Streetcar at four stops in and near downtown Portland, and a transfer to WES Commuter Rail, which runs from Beaverton to Wilsonville during the morning and evening commutes on weekdays, at Beaverton Transit Center.

Transit-oriented development
In an Institute for Transportation and Development Policy study conducted in September 2013, the Blue Line was credited with generating $6.6 billion in transit-oriented development investment.

Service
From Monday to Thursday, the Blue Line runs for 22$1/2$ hours per day. The first train goes westbound from Elmonica/Southwest 170th Avenue station at 3:31 am and the last trip goes eastbound from Rose Quarter Transit Center to Ruby Junction/East 197th Avenue station at 1:29 am the following day. Additional late-night trips are provided on Fridays, with the last trip going eastbound from Hatfield Government Center station to Elmonica/Southwest 170th Avenue station at 2:01 am. Except for additional late-night trips on Saturdays, weekend service runs on a slightly reduced schedule. The first trains run westbound from Ruby Junction/East 197th Avenue station at 3:35 am and the last trains run eastbound from Hatfield Government Center station at 1:51 am and Rose Quarter Transit Center at 1:33 am, respectively. Select early morning trains operate as through services of the Red Line and the Yellow Line. End-to-end travel time is approximately 105 minutes.MAX Blue Line schedules:
 * For weekday, westbound to Portland City Center and Hillsboro:
 * For weekday, eastbound to Portland City Center and Gresham:
 * For Saturday, westbound to Portland City Center and Hillsboro:
 * For Saturday, eastbound to Portland City Center and Gresham:
 * For Sunday, westbound to Portland City Center and Hillsboro:
 * For Sunday, eastbound to Portland City Center and Gresham: TriMet designates the Blue Line as a "Frequent Service" route along with the rest of the light rail system, ensuring service runs on a 15-minute headway for most of each day. Blue Line trains run most frequently during weekday rush hours, operating on headways as short as five minutes. During the early mornings and late evenings, headways increase to 30 minutes.

Ridership
During the Eastside MAX's construction, the line was projected to carry 12,000 riders per day. It averaged around 22,000 during its first four days of regular operation and had leveled at 18,000 by December 1986. In June 1987, TriMet's general manager, James Cowen, claimed MAX ridership had grown to a point where it was "a peak all day" with a farebox recovery ratio of 50 percent. Two years after the opening of the Westside MAX, the system had been recording over 71,000 daily riders, a figure that was not anticipated until 2005. To relieve overcrowding, TriMet extended the Red Line further west to Beaverton Transit Center on August 31, 2003. From 2004 to 2007, TriMet recorded 18 percent and 27 percent increases in utilization between Hatfield Government Center station and Beaverton Transit Center during morning and evening rush hours, respectively, prompting the agency to add three Red Line trains running up to Hatfield Government Center on March 2, 2008. In the first three months of 2017, the Blue Line recorded an average 55,233 rides per weekday, a drop of 2.9 percent from the same period in 2016. TriMet attributes the drop to lower-income riders being forced out of the inner city by rising housing prices. The Blue Line is currently the busiest line in the MAX system, carrying 18.9 million passengers in 2015. It averaged 55,370 riders on weekdays in September 2018, up from 55,330 for the same month in 2017.

title: MAX Blue Line


text:
Tristan Emmanuel

Tristan Alexander Emmanuel is a Canadian political and religious activist. He is the founder and former president of the Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre (ECP Centre) and an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage in Canada. He is now the president of Freedom Press Canada Inc., a niche publishing company that he founded in 2003.

Early life and career
Emmanuel was raised in Waterloo, Ontario as part of a nominally Lutheran family. After earning a Bachelor of Arts degree and attending divinity school in the United States, he was ordained as a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly. He operated a small freight delivery company in Ontario's Niagara region in the 1990s, and served as the pastor of Living Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Vineland. He later worked toward a Master's degree at McMaster University's Divinity School, writing about the efforts of early Christian apologists to lobby Roman Emperors.

In 1999, Emmanuel founded Equipping Christians for the Public-square. He remained its president for several years, before resigning in 2008.

Emmanuel was a candidate for the socially conservative Family Coalition Party in the Lincoln electoral division in the 1995 Ontario provincial election. He was quoted as saying, "It's time to have a principled party that understands there's a higher power than the government, a power we believe is God." Emmanuel argued that problems of unemployment and economic development could only be solved by a free-market system, and called for the government to shift welfare services to community organizations. He also opposed the Progressive Conservative Party's workfare proposal, which he described as "nothing more than slavery". He finished fourth against Progressive Conservative candidate Frank Sheehan.

Emmanuel ran against prominent federal politician Sheila Copps in a 1996 by-election as a candidate of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada. In this campaign, he called for harsher prison sentences and an increased focus on the rights of victims. He argued that Canada's Young Offenders Act should be abolished and corporal punishment reintroduced to schools, and was quoted as saying, "If an eleven-year-old murders someone, I think his life should be taken." He finished ninth in a field of thirteen candidates. Emmanuel also ran for the Christian Heritage Party in the 1997 federal election, and finished fifth against Liberal incumbent Walt Lastewka. Later, he described both the Family Coalition Party and the Christian Heritage Party as political dead ends.

Social conservative activism
Emmanuel became more involved with right-wing and socially conservative campaigns in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In April 2003, he organized a "Canadians for Bush" rally in Queenston Heights, Ontario, to support the American invasion of Iraq. The rally was attended by several prominent federal and provincial politicians, including Stockwell Day and provincial cabinet ministers Jim Flaherty and Tim Hudak.

Emmanuel's organizational role in the rally drew attention to controversial statements he had made in previous years. The New Democratic Party of Ontario (NDP) issued a press release with excerpts from several of Emmanuel's writings, asserting that he had described gay men as "sexual deviants" and Islam as "as far from peace, as hell is from heaven" in separate articles written in 2002. NDP legislator Rosario Marchese called on Hudak and Flaherty to disengage themselves from the rally in light of these statements. A spokesperson for Hudak responded that the minister had not known about Emmanuel's articles before seeing the press release, and that the pro-American rally should not be "sidetracked" over the matter.

As executive director of the ECP Centre, Emmanuel organized several public forums throughout 2003 to discuss same-sex marriage and the extension of Canada's hate speech laws to cover statements made against gays and lesbians. Most speakers at these events were social conservatives who opposed both legislative initiatives, although some speakers took different views.

Emmanuel campaigned against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Canada in 2005, organizing several rallies across the country, including one outside Parliament Hill in Ottawa and another at Queen's Park outside the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Emmanuel sought to include non-Christian groups in these events, inviting Jewish and Muslim representatives as speakers. He also sought to build connections with the American Christian right. Notwithstanding his efforts, same-sex marriage was granted legal recognition throughout Canada in the summer of 2005.

Concerns were raised in this period about the influence of Emmanuel's organization over Conservative Party nominations in some ridings. In particular, his endorsement of three candidates at a rally in Kemptville, Nova Scotia was seen as helping those candidates secure party nominations in their ridings. Asked about the matter, Emmanuel said, "It's time we stopped apologizing and started defending who we are. The evangelical community in Canada, by and large, and socially conservative Catholics, are saying we have been far too heavenly minded and thus we have been of no earthly value for far too long, on too many fronts." He declined to say how many of his adherents had secured Conservative Party nominations, arguing that the media would portray his campaign as the infiltration of the party by "right-wing fanatics." He also stated that his group was non-partisan, and that he was not working as an agent of the Conservative Party.

In a 2005 interview with the Hamilton Spectator, Emmanuel described homosexuals as "sexual deviants" and that homosexuality is "a choice," said that he regarded it as "the wrong choice, a bad choice," and further argued that "the state shouldn't sanction wrong choices." He acknowledged that his views would be hurtful to some readers, but argued that this did not make his opinions hateful.

During this period, Emmanuel sought to distance himself from statements he had made three years earlier that were critical of Islam. Discussing a 2002 article in which he favourably cited Franklin Graham's description of Islam as an "evil and wicked religion," Emmanuel said, "I know the religion itself isn't that [evil and wicked] but it was a polemical piece ... written in the context of 9/11." He added, "Polemics doesn't define a man. As I get old and more mature, I realize polemics has its place, but you have to be careful."

In late 2005, Emmanuel undertook a speaking tour of the United States. He argued that Canada's political establishment was attempting to export a liberal culture to the United States via the United Nations, and encouraged Canadian citizens living in the United States to vote against the Liberal Party in the 2006 federal election. During the election itself, he campaigned for the next parliament to revisit the issue of same-sex marriage. Later in the year, Emmanuel told a conference in Washington, D.C. that Christians were discriminated against in Canada.

2009 Progressive Conservative leadership contest
Emmanuel resurfaced in 2009 as campaign manager for Randy Hillier, in the latter's bid to lead the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. During this campaign, Emmanuel and other figures in the Progressive Conservative Party called for the abolition of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Hillier finished last in a field of four candidates on the first ballot and gave his support to the eventual winner, Tim Hudak.

Endorsements
Stockwell Day has endorsed Emmanuel, writing "[w]hether promoting friendship between nations or rallying for family and faith, Tristan has worked diligently to promote conservative causes in Canada."

Writings
Emmanuel is the author of a book entitled, Christophobia: The Real Reason Behind Hate Crime Legislation, in which he argues that hate crime legislation in Canada has resulted in a loss of religious freedom. He is also the author of the 2006 book Warned: Canada's Revolution Against Faith, Family, and Freedom Threatens America.

title: Tristan Emmanuel


text:
Power noise

Power noise (also known as rhythmic noise, rhythm 'n' noise, and occasionally as distorted beat music) is a form of industrial music and a fusion of noise music and various styles of electronic dance music. It should not be confused with "power electronics", which is not influenced by electronic dance music and is closer to harsh noise. Its origins are predominantly European.

1990s
Power noise takes inspiration from Spanish industrial act Esplendor Geometrico, active since 1980, and other artists such as Le Syndicat, active since 1982. The Belgian group Dive also anticipated the style in the early '90s along with a number of releases on the harder or harsher end of the techno spectrum such as several early vinyl EP releases by Aphex Twin. The term "power noise" was coined by Raoul Roucka of Noisex in 1997, with the track "United (Power Noise Movement)". The genre was exposed to the U.S. industrial scene by the electro-industrial act Wumpscut, who signed Noisex to the label Mental Ulcer Forges.

The first power noise artists were mostly German. In addition to Noisex, these included Asche, Morgenstern, P·A·L, Synapscape, and Feindflug. The Belgians Axiome, Hypnoskull, Imminent, Ah Cama-Sotz, Sonar, and This Morn' Omina, also developed the genre. Black Lung, an Australian, and Orphx, Canadians, were also active in the style at this time. Japanoise musicians, such as Merzbow, Aube, and Contagious Orgasm, have also made use of prominent rhythms.

2000s-2010s
Notable power noise artists who emerged in the 21st century include Iszoloscope, Antigen Shift, Prospero, Drillbit, Tarmvred, Converter, Terrorfakt, Alter Der Ruine, Panzer Division, C/A/T, Dreamcrusher, Death Spells, and Xotox.

Characteristics
Typically, power noise is instrumental, based upon a distorted kick drum from a drum machine such as a Roland TR-909, and often uses militaristic 4/4 beats. Sometimes a melodic component is added, but this is usually secondary to the rhythm. Power noise tracks are typically structured and danceable, but are occasionally abstract. This genre is showcased at the annual Maschinenfest festival in Oberhausen, Germany, as well as Kinetik Festival in Montreal, Canada.

Some groups, such as Combichrist and Dulce Liquido, practice power noise along with aggrotech. Others, such as Tarmvred, meld the style with breakcore. Others still, merge elements of IDM, such as Endif.

There has often been very similar sounds coming from the techno scene which at times has been embraced by those into rhythmic noise such as the late 1990s/2000 era Speedy J, or releases on labels like Uncivilized World.

In the current decade, there has been a resurgence of the harder, harsher and more experimental sounds in techno which crosses over a lot with the sounds of rhythmic noise although this is usually just known as industrial techno, instead of rhythmic noise or power noise, because these two scenes are often unaware of each other. For example, the artist Ancient Methods (one of the artists responsible for the resurgence of industrial techno), sampled P·A·L's track Gelöbnis on one of his first releases and has also later released music on Hands Productions which is one of the first labels that started pushing the rhythmic noise style back in the 90s.

There has also been and continues to be crossover within other sounds and scenes such as the breakcore and IDM scenes.

title: Power noise


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Fitzgerald

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reid Fitzgerald
Vanity. Delete. Revived 00:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no concrete claim to notability. Kappa 01:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reid: Keep fighting the system! Mindmatrix 01:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * These damned things should be speedyable. Delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


text: User talk:65.50.157.185

title: User talk:65.50.157.185


text:
Luigi Serafini (artist)

Luigi Serafini (born 4 August 1949 in Rome) is an Italian artist and designer based in Milan. He is best known for creating the Codex Seraphinianus, an illustrated encyclopedia of imaginary things in what was believed to be a constructed language. This work was published in 1981 by Franco Maria Ricci.

Career
During the 1980s Serafini worked as an architect and designer in Milan. His objects were often defined by a metalanguage aptitude, like the chairs Santa and Suspiral or the lamps and the glass for Artemide. He has created scenery, lighting and costumes for the ballet "The Jazz Calendar" by Frederick Ashton at Teatro Alla Scala and also worked for the Piccolo Teatro di Milano. He has created set designs acronyms/logos for RAI, and worked with Federico Fellini on La voce della luna.

He has a laboratory of ceramics in Umbria, and exhibits his work regularly, especially in the Netherlands. He has been a visiting artist at the Banff Centre, and has exhibited at the Fondazione Mudima di Milano, the XIII Quadriennale, the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna (National Gallery of Modern Art) in Rome, Futurarium in Chicago, and Didael Gallery in Milan. In 2003 he made a polychrome bronze sculpture, Carpe Diem, and other bas-reliefs for the Materdei subway station in Naples. In July 2008, he completed a polychrome installation "Balançoires sans Frontières" (Altalene senza Frontiere) in Castasegna, Switzerland.

In May 2007, he held an "ontological exhibition", Luna Pac, at PAC in Milan. His work has been profiled in many Italian media and art publications.

Codex Seraphinianus
The Codex Seraphinianus was originally released in a limited edition of 5000 copies in 1981. It has been reprinted on five occasions, first in a 1983 English language edition; then in Spanish and French in the 1990s, again in a limited number of 5000 copies each; and finally in more widely printed editions in 2006 and 2013. In 2013, Serafini also released a deluxe, signed and numbered limited edition of 600 copies. (300 in English and 300 in Italian)

Roland Barthes was interested in the Codex. In 1981 Italo Calvino wrote an essay on it, which can be found in Collezione di sabbia (Sand Collection) by Mondadori. The French choreographer Philippe Decouflé was inspired by it. Douglas Hofstadter wrote about it at length.

In a talk at the Oxford University Society of Bibliophiles held on 11 May 2009, Serafini stated that there is no meaning hidden behind the script of the Codex, which is asemic; that his own experience in writing it was closely similar to automatic writing; and that what he wanted his alphabet to convey to the reader is the sensation that children feel in front of books they cannot yet understand, although they see that their writing does make sense for grown-ups.

Other works
In 1984 Serafini illustrated Pulcinellopedia (piccola), under the pseudonym P. Cetrulo (published by Longanesi), with a suite of pencil drawings about the Neapolitan masque of Pulcinella. It was reprinted in 2016.

The catalogue from Serafini's Italian retrospective, Luna-Pac: Serafini, remains the only comprehensive publication of his oil paintings, drawings, sculptures, installations, and landscape art.

Serafini has also illustrated books, including an edition of Franz Kafka's story "In the Penal Colony" and a 1988 book entitled Etimologiario by Maria Sebregondi in the style similar to the Pulcinellopedia. In 2009 Serafini illustrated Le Storie Naturali, a reinterpretation of Les Histoires Naturelles (Nature Stories) by Jules Renard, published by Rizzoli in a signed, limited edition of 600. This book features numerous pockets containing leaves of fantastic plants printed on heavy paper stock and die-cut to leaf shape.

Other unpublished works and illustrations are reported to exist, but aside from the occasional exhibit of art (from clay figurines to plastic and polychrome sculpture to furniture and small installations), they are not available or publicly catalogued. Serafini started working on his own website, luigiserafini.com, in the mid-2000s but since 2009 it only shows a blank page.

title: Luigi Serafini (artist)


text: Template:State buildings in Northern Ireland


text:
User talk:Qanddatcu

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

For more information click  here . You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 01:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qanddatcu


text:
User talk:Özdemir

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

For more information click  here . You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 01:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Özdemir