text:
Fowler (crater)

Fowler is a large lunar impact crater that lies in the northern hemisphere on the Moon's far side. It lies to the south-southwest of the crater Esnault-Pelterie, and north of Gadomski. Overlying the eastern rim and intruding into the interior is Von Zeipel.

The outer rim of this crater has become worn and rounded by impact erosion until it has become little more than an irregular slope down to the interior depression. A number of small craters lie along the rim and the inner wall. An impact along the northeast rim, just north of Von Zeipel, has a relatively high albedo and is surrounded by a skirt of bright material. This is indicative of a relatively recent impact that has not had time to darken due to space weathering.

The eastern part of the interior floor is partly overlaid by the outer rampart and ejecta from Von Zeipel. The southern floor is marked by an arc of small impacts. The northern floor is more level and is marked only by a few small craterlets.

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

title: Fowler (crater)


text:
Hydropark in Kyiv

Hydropark, or Hidropark (from Гідропарк) is a landscape-recreational park on the Dnieper River in Kyiv, Ukraine.

History
It was created as an entertainment complex with mainly water activities: beaches, boating, water attractions. It is located on Venetsiiskyi (Венеційський) and Dolobetskyi (Долобецький) islands; the Venetian Bridge connects these islands. Venetsiiskyi Island is connected with the rest of Kyiv by two bridges: the Metro Bridge to the right-bank city and the Rusanivka bridge to the left-bank city. The Hidropark station of Kyiv Metro is located on Venetsiiskyi Island.

Current activities available: number of beaches (including one for children and one for nudes), boat and catamarans rental, ping-pong and tennis, paintball and football, water attractions, restaurants, casino and Sun-City Slavutych disco club (right on the beach), open-air gym (Soviet era heritage) and riverboat excursions.

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

title: Hydropark in Kyiv


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Irate

I've blocked Irate for 24 hours for violating the temporary injunction against editing pages other than his user pages and this arbitration case (see ). — Matt Crypto 19:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Maddington railway station

Maddington railway station is on the Transperth network. It is located on the Armadale Line, 17.7 kilometres from Perth Station serving the suburb of Maddington.

History
From 26 December 1895 until February 1952, Maddington was the junction for a 700-metre branch line to Canning Racecourse.

In 2013, a major upgrade was completed to the station.

Services
Maddington station is served by Transperth Armadale Line services.

The station saw 334,839 passengers in the 2013-14 financial year.

title: Maddington railway station


text:
User talk:McDonaldsIsHiring-ApplyToday!

How many edits are you going to make in the sandbox?? The sandbox is for experiments, NOT McDonald's promotions. Georgia guy 19:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

douchebag
I used to work at McDonalds and I think you are a douchebag.

title: User talk:McDonaldsIsHiring-ApplyToday!


text:
Mahakoshal

Mahakoshal or Mahakaushal is a region of central India. Mahakoshal lies in the upper or eastern reaches of the Narmada River valley in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur is the largest city in the region. Nimar region lies to the west, in the lower reaches of the Narmada valley.

Mahakoshal is now predominantly a Hindi-speaking area, although it is actually the native region of Dravidian languages such as Gondi, Pardhan and Bharia. Due to the prevalence of Gondi the region is also called Gondwana by Gondi speakers. Other languages used in the region include Bagheli and Marathi.

Geography
The Vindhya Range forms the northern boundary of the region; north of the Vindhya Range lie the regions of Malwa to the northwest, Bundelkhand to the north, and Bagelkhand to the northeast. Chhattisgarh state lies to the east, and the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra state lies to the south across the Satpura Range. Cities and districts of the region include Jabalpur, Shahdol, Katni, Chhindwara, Narsinghpur, Mandla, Dindori, Seoni and  Balaghat.

History
Dynasties that held the territory include the Gonds, Kalachuri, Satavahanas, and Marathas. During the British Raj Mahakoshal was part of the Central Provinces which contained two distinct linguistic regions: Mahakoshal (Hindi and Gondi) and Vidarbha (Marathi). The two linguistic regions could not be fully integrated as a unit owing to regional and cultural differences.

title: Mahakoshal


text:
Green Country

Green Country, sometimes referred to as Northeast Oklahoma, is the northeastern portion of the U.S. state of Oklahoma, which lies west of the northern half of Arkansas, the southwestern corner the way of Missouri, and south of Kansas.

Alternate definitions
While the name's usage can be traced to the early part of the 20th century, it was popularized in the 1960s by the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and Recreation as one of six travel destination regions within the state. Said tourism designation is an 18-county region including Pawnee, Osage, Washington, Nowata, Craig, Ottawa, Delaware, Mayes, Rogers, Creek, Tulsa, Wagoner, Cherokee, Adair, Sequoyah, Muskogee, Okmulgee, and McIntosh counties. Another alternate usage of the term can include solely the immediate vicinity of Green Country's principal city, Tulsa; the Tulsa Metropolitan Area or the city of Tulsa proper is often referred to as "Green Country" in its own right. In this case, the terms "Tulsa Metropolitan Area" and "Green Country" are used interchangeably. Average precipitation totals in Green Country are generally above 40 inches per year. The area is also one of the most populous regions of Oklahoma, and is home to some of its largest cities.

Geography
Northeastern Oklahoma has the state's second largest city, Tulsa. In addition to the area's foliage and rolling hills, it has more lakes than any other geographical area of Oklahoma, as well as more than half of the state's registered state parks. Oklahoma is one of only four states with more than 10 ecoregions, but six of its 11 ecoregions are located in northeastern Oklahoma.

The heavily wooded Ozark Mountains and their foothills dominate most of northeast Oklahoma from the immediate Tulsa vicinity south and eastward towards the Arkansas state line, containing both evergreen pine and deciduous forests. In its western counties, the far eastern extent of the Great Plains transition to woodlands through the Cross Timbers region.

This area includes most of Oklahoma's portion of the Flint Hills, some of which is the protected by the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve near Pawhuska, one of the last remnants of tallgrass prairie in the United States. Prairie terrain is most apparent in a strip of Green Country's northern section, which borders Kansas, running roughly from Bartlesville to Miami, where the landscape is a mix of true prairie and forest. A small portion of the Ouachita Mountains extend into the southern areas of northeast Oklahoma, though the Ozark highlands are the primary range in the area.

Northeast Oklahoma has a land area of 13247 sqmi, comprising 18 entire counties. The region comprises about 19.3 percent of Oklahoma's land area, and is larger than the state of Maryland.

Political geography
Based on commuting patterns, the adjacent micropolitan area of Bartlesville, is grouped together in the (CSA). The population of this wider region is 998,438—more than one-fourth of Oklahoma's population—as of 2012.

The 2010 census population of Green Country was 1,301,716 inhabitants, about 30 percent of whom were concentrated in the city of Tulsa.

Counties of the Green Country region (per Oklahoma Department of Tourism and Recreation)

 * Adair County
 * Craig County
 * Creek County
 * Cherokee County
 * Delaware County
 * Mayes County
 * McIntosh County
 * Muskogee County
 * Nowata County
 * Okmulgee County
 * Osage County
 * Ottawa County
 * Pawnee County
 * Rogers County
 * Sequoyah County
 * Tulsa County
 * Wagoner County
 * Washington County

It includes the Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge, Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas River, Canadian River, Grand River, Illinois River, and Verdigris River.

Infrastructure
The Tulsa International Airport is the primary commercial flight operation in Green Country. Also in the area, the Tulsa Port of Catoosa and Port of Muskogee are Oklahoma's only seaports, connecting the state directly with international trade routes. From either of these two ports, goods may be transported via the Arkansas River's connection to the Mississippi River.

Intercity bus service is provided by Greyhound Lines and Jefferson Lines. Within the Tulsa metro, Tulsa Transit provides local service.

The area's highway system is dominated by turnpikes. Toll roads account for the primary highways in and out of the city of Tulsa in almost every direction. The Will Rogers Turnpike serves the city to the northeast, the Turner Turnpike to the southwest, the Cimarron Turnpike to the west, The Muskogee Turnpike to the southeast, and the Cherokee Turnpike to the east.

Interstate 44 is the primary thoroughfare and runs diagonally through Green Country, exiting on the southwest and northeast corners. All portions of the road through northeastern Oklahoma exists as a toll road, except for in the city of Tulsa. Interstate 40 straddles the southernmost border of Green Country, while other highways include the north-south Highway 75 (not a turnpike), The Muskogee Turnpike, the north-south Highway 69, Highway 169, and the east-west Highway 412. In addition, Historic U.S. Route 66 runs (with breaks) between the Kansas line and Stroud, the southwesternmost town in the region.

Cities and towns

 * Tulsa
 * Owasso
 * Broken Arrow
 * Bartlesville
 * Jenks
 * Bixby
 * Skiatook
 * Claremore
 * Cleveland
 * Okmulgee
 * Muskogee
 * Miami
 * Tahlequah
 * Vinita
 * Pryor
 * Oologah
 * Sapulpa
 * Sand Springs
 * Stilwell
 * Nowata
 * Pawhuska
 * Wagoner

title: Green Country


text:
Barzakh

Barzakh (Arabic: برزخ ) is an Arabic word meaning "obstacle", "hindrance", "separation", or "barrier". In Islam, it denotes a place separating the living from the hereafter or a phase/"stage" between an individual's death and their resurrection in "the Hereafter". It is also considered as a place where souls rest until the day of judgement. It bears resemblance to the Intermediate state in Christianity.

Some scholars believe that good Muslims will have a heavenly experience during this time, and sinners will experience suffering; while some Shia scholars believe the experience will not be like the physical pain or pleasure of the temporal world.

Scholars have different definitions of Barzakh. According to Ghazali, Barzakh may be the place for those who go neither to hell nor to heaven. According to Ibn Hazm, Barzakh is also the place for unborn souls, which are elsewhere described as residing in the lowest of the seven heavens, where an angel blows them into the wombs of women.

Etymology
The word comes from the Arabic Root b-r-z meaning a thing jutted out, a protruding object in reference to its surroundings, a barrier. Some argued that the word is borrowed from an Iranian language, either Parthian or Middle Persian.

Quran and hadith
Mentioned only three times in the Quran, and just once specifically as the barrier between the corporeal and ethereal, Barzakh is portrayed as a place in which, after death, the spirit is separated from the body – freed to contemplate the wrongdoing of its former life. Despite the gain of recognizance, it cannot utilize action. The other two occurrences refer to Barzakh as an impenetrable barrier between fresh and salt water. While fresh and salt water may intermingle, an ocean remains distinct from a river.

In hadith, Ibn al-Qayyim cites that, albeit not mentioned in the Quran, souls in Al-Barzakh would be grouped with others matching in purity or impurity.

Significance of body and soul separation
In Islam, the soul and the body are independent of each other. This is significant in Barzakh, because only a person's soul goes to Barzakh and not their physical body. Since one's soul is divorced from their body in Barzakh, the belief is that no progress or improvements to one's past life can be made. If a person experienced a life of sin and worldly pleasures, one cannot try to perform good deeds in order to reach Jannah. Whatever one does in his or her lifetime is final and cannot be changed or altered in Barzakh. However, there is belief that the fire which represents the own bad deeds can already be seen in Barzakh, and that the spiritual pain caused by this can lead to purification of the soul.

Interpretations
In mainstream Sunni and Shia Islam, Barzakh has been defined as "an intermediary stage between this life and another life in the Hereafter"; "an interval or a break between individual death and resurrection"; "The Stage Between this World and the Hereafter"; the period between a person's death and his resurrection on the Day of Resurrection. Based in least in part on the verse "Before them is a Partition till the Day they are raised up." (Q.23:100) Some scholars believe that good Muslims will have a heavenly experience during this time, and sinners will experience suffering; while some Shia scholars believe there is no experience of physical pain or pleasure in Barzakh.

Mainstream scholarly discourse
Some Muslim scholars stress the importance of Barzakh, while others simply ignore it.

 * Modern Muslim thinkers de-emphasize Barzakh, and focus instead on a person's individual life and the Day of Judgment. In this view, the state of Barzakh is simply looked past and skipped once a person dies.
 * Muslim scholars who do believe in Barzakh still have varying interpretations of this intermediate state based on different traditions. Some traditions suggest that a person's deeds in their life will affect their experience in Barzakh. In these traditions, the state known as "Azaabul-Qabr," will be one where a person is punished for his or her deeds in their past life. While those in a second state known as "Tan'eemu Ahlit-Taa'ah Fil Qabr," will receive the blessings and bounties of Allah because of his or her faith and good deeds.
 * Al-Ghazālī states, "After the First Blast, all created beings shall abide for forty (it is unknown if it is a year or month or etc.) in the Intermediate Realm barzakh. Then shall God quicken Seraphiel, and command him to deliver the Second Blast, as He has said (Exalted is He!): Then shall it be blown again, and lo! they stand, beholding : they shall be on their feet, watching the Resurrection."
 * Al-Zamakhshari explains Barzakh to mean hā'il, "an obstacle." His adaptation of the meaning of the word coincides with mentions of Barzakh in Quran 25:53.
 * Abdullah Yusuf Ali referred to a Barzakh state as a "quiescent state." The soul lies in a resting state until Yawm al-Qiyāmah.

Sufism
In Sufism the Barzakh or Alam-e-Araf is not only where the soul resides after death, but also a place it can visit during sleep and meditation.

Ibn 'Arabi defines Barzakh as the intermediate realm or "isthmus". It is between the World of Corporeal Bodies and the World of Spirits, and is a means of contact between the two worlds. Without it, there would be no contact between the two and both would cease to exist. It is described as simple and luminous, like the World of Spirits, but also able to take on many different forms just like the World of Corporeal Bodies can. In broader terms Barzakh, “is anything that separates two things”. It has been described as the dream world in which the dreamer is in both life and death.

Barzakh can also refer to a person. Chronologically between Jesus and Mohammad is the contested Prophet Khalid. Ibn 'Arabi considers this man to be a “Barzakh” or the Perfect Human Being. Chittick explains that the Perfect Human acts as the Barzakh or "isthmus" between God and the world. Ibn 'Arabi's story of Prophet Khalid is a story of Perfect Human being.

Khalid's story is of a Prophet whose message never emerged because before he died, he told his sons to open his tomb forty days after his death to receive the message of Barzakh. The sons, however, feared they would be looked down upon for opening their dead father's tomb, therefore they decided not to exhume their father. Thus, his message was never shared. An Ottoman scholar explained that for Khalid to give the knowledge of Barzakh he would have to travel through the different worlds and then return, but because he was not exhumed, his message was never heard. Ibn 'Arabi explains that because this mission ended in failure, it does not conflict with The Prophet Mohammed’s statement: “I am nearest of men to Jesus son of Mary, for there is no prophet between him and me."

Shia
The idea of Barzakh in Shia is significant though in a perspective and manner different from Sufism. The Prophet and Shia Imams, particularly the 6th Imam – Imam Jafar As-Sadiq, have explained through various hadiths the treatment, condition, processes, and other intricate details regarding the passage of Barzakh. In Shia theology, there are seven checkpoints in Barzakh. The first being kindness/trust/wilayah. Second is salaat. Third is zakaat/khums. Fourth is fasting. Fifth is hajj. Sixth is cleanliness. Seventh is rights. It is believed that the terms and conditions to understand Barzakh are limited in scope and full comprehension because it is Shia's belief that it is incomprehensible, to a certain degree, until one actually reaches the realm beyond our physical world. A common analogy used is that of a baby in the womb. Just as the baby cannot possibly begin to understand the vast outside world until they experience it for themselves, we cannot hope to understand what Barzakh entails until we transition there ourselves. Though despite this obstacle, the Shia Imams, as cited through various sayings, have explained Barzakh to a significant degree as compared to other sects within Islam.

Contemporary interpretations and uses
The term has also found its way into more contemporary, non-religious sectors of life. At least three bands have adopted the name Barzakh, including an Indonesian Jakarta black metal band, a Tunisian oriental metal band and Naqash Ali Shawkat band. Additionally, Barzakh was used as the title of a 2011 documentary following citizens of a war-torn Chechen community searching for a lost friend who they believe may have transitioned from our physical world to the realm of Barzakh.

Barzakh and Christian intermediate state
According to the belief of some Christians, intermediate state is a middle area after physical death. This is a temporary place, similar to Barzakh. Because they have this in common, some believe that they are the same idea or concept. Barzakh is actually closer to the idea of intermediate state than other similar concepts. In this place, people await their final judgment in Christianity, much like some definitions of Barzakh in Islam. The Quranic idea of aʿrāf (“the heights”) is closer to that of Christian purgatory, not intermediate state. Aʿrāf is also thought of as a place where souls go whose good and bad deeds are too evenly matched to go directly to Paradise or the Fire.

title: Barzakh


text:
User:UnholyDiver

Currently living in London, England.

Interests
Music (Heavy Metal, Classical, Folk, Neo-classical, Ambient, Prog-rock), art, nature, food, technology, martial arts, poetry, literature.

title: User:UnholyDiver


text:
Talk:Great Northern Electrics

This article duplicates the Northern City Line article, which describes the same line. I would recommend merging them both, preferably keeping the Northern City Line as the article name. (Our Phellap 19:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))

title: Talk:Great Northern Electrics


text:
Kenwick railway station

Kenwick railway station is located on the Transperth network. It is located on the Armadale Line, 15.8 kilometres from Perth Station serving the suburb of Kenwick. The station has been closed since 20 November 2023 as the Armadale line has been temporarily shut down for construction works.

History
Kenwick station opened in 1914. In 1982–83, the platforms were extended. The station closed on 31 March 2014 for a six-month upgrade. It reopened on 27 October 2014.

Opposite the station lies a connection to the Kwinana freight line.

Services
Kenwick station is served by Transperth Armadale Line services.

The station saw 148,340 passengers in the 2013-14 financial year.

title: Kenwick railway station


text:
Royal William

"Royal William" can refer to

 * Royal William, a 32-gun fifth rate ship of the Royal Scottish Navy, renamed HMS Edinburgh in 1707 following the Act of Union, and sunk in 1709
 * HMS Royal William, two ships of the Royal Navy
 * SS Royal William, Canadian ship launched in 1831 and the first ship that crossed the Atlantic Ocean almost continually under steam power 1833. (Later sold to the Spanish Navy)
 * Royal William rose, a red hybrid tea rose, registered in 1984 by the German rose firm Wilhelm Kordes

title: Royal William


text:
Category:Cybernetics

Cybernetics is a transdisciplinary approach for exploring regulatory systems with feedback, their structures, constraints, and possibilities. Cybernetics is relevant to the study of systems, such as mechanical, physical, biological, cognitive, and social.

title: Category:Cybernetics


text:
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-04-11/Encarta editing

 * Magnus Manske noted that the oblique reference on Encarta's feedback information page to "open-content encyclopedias found elsewhere on the Web" was "a not-so-subtle hint that this feature has been brought about by Wikipedia".

The quote attributed to Magnus was not actually made by him, but me. See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-April/038716.html. Pcb21| Pete 19:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that! I've corrected it now.  Worldtraveller 20:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Category:Crown corporations of Canada

This category collects federal and provincial crown corporations in Canada.

title: Category:Crown corporations of Canada


text:
Rudi Carrell

Rudi Carrell (born Rudolf Wijbrand Kesselaar; 19 December 1934 – 7 July 2006) was a Dutch entertainer. Along with famous entertainers such as Johannes Heesters and Linda de Mol, he was one of the most successful Dutch personalities active in Germany.

He worked as a television entertainer and hosted his own show; the Rudi Carrell Show ran first in the Netherlands, and then for many years in Germany. As a singer he had a number of hits, including a Dutch version of "A Windmill in Old Amsterdam", and acted in several movies.

Eurovision Song Contest
Carrell represented the Netherlands at the Eurovision Song Contest 1960 with the song "Wat een geluk" ("What luck"). He finished 12th out of 13, scoring just two points.

Rudi Carrell Show
The Rudi Carrell Show and its successors were a huge success in Germany from the 1960s to the 1990s. The show included a similar concept to Star Search or Pop Idol and brought many well-known German pop stars and actors to prominence, such as Alexis and Mark Keller. It also featured comedy sketches.

His show was also popular in some non-German-speaking European countries, such as Slovenia.

During this time he also hosted other popular shows, including Am laufenden Band, Rudis Tagesshow, Herzblatt, Die verflixte 7, and 7 Tage, 7 Köpfe.

Controversial humor
In 1987, Carrell caused a diplomatic rift between Germany and Iran with a sketch in which veiled women threw their undergarments at someone dressed like Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian government responded by expelling two German diplomats and permanently closing the Goethe Institute in Tehran.

Death
In an interview in November 2005, Carrell confirmed to the magazine Bunte that he was suffering from lung cancer. He died on 7 July 2006 in Bremen, Germany, aged 71.

title: Rudi Carrell


text:
Division of Petrie

The Division of Petrie is an Australian Electoral Division in Queensland.

History
The division was created in 1949 and named after Andrew Petrie (1798–1872), a noted civil engineer, pioneer, and explorer, and the first free settler in Brisbane (1837).

The electorate has a higher-than-average percentage of pensioners and self-funded retirees, and is mainly residential, with some light industrial and commercial activities.

Originally a safe Liberal seat, it has become much more marginal since the late 1970s. From 1975 to 2022, it was held by the party of government for all but one term.

Ahead of the 2016 federal election, ABC psephologist Antony Green listed the seat in his election guide as one of eleven which he classed as bellwether electorates.

In the 2022 federal election, Luke Howarth retained the seat with 54.4% of the vote, resulting in the seat becoming marginal after the election.

Boundaries
Since 1984, federal electoral division boundaries in Australia have been determined at redistributions by a redistribution committee appointed by the Australian Electoral Commission. Redistributions occur for the boundaries of divisions in a particular state, and they occur every seven years, or sooner if a state's representation entitlement changes or when divisions of a state are malapportioned.

Petrie is located in the northern suburbs of Brisbane, and since a redistribution ahead of the 2010 Federal Election has been centred on the Redcliffe Peninsula.

In the City of Moreton Bay, it includes Clontarf, Kippa-Ring, Margate, Redcliffe, Rothwell, Deception Bay, Scarborough, Woody Point, North Lakes, Mango Hill, Griffin and part of Burpengary.

In the City of Brisbane, it includes Bald Hills, Bracken Ridge, Carseldine and Fitzgibbon, and parts of Aspley and Bridgeman Downs.

title: Division of Petrie


text:
Talk:Orfeo Programme

please don't delete the context header until you explain what the heck this is. RickK 19:50, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orfeo Programme


text: Template:Boston class cruiser

title: Template:Boston class cruiser


text:
Beckenham railway station

Beckenham railway station is a temporarily closed railway station on the Transperth commuter rail network in Western Australia. It is located on the Armadale line, 13.8 km from Perth Station serving the suburb of Beckenham. It closed on 20 November 2023 so the station could be rebuilt as part of the Victoria Park-Canning Level Crossing Removal Project.

History
The station opened in 1954 as Higham. The additional station, with two others on the Armadale line, marked the introduction of diesel-mechanical railcars on Perth's metropolitan passenger railways. Higham was renamed Beckenham in 1969. The platforms are staggered across William Street to minimise the time the level crossing is closed to road traffic.

In March 2014 an $8.1 million upgrade to the station and adjacent car parks was completed.

On 20 November 2023 the station closed for 18 months to allow it to be rebuilt as part of the Victoria Park - Canning Level Crossing Removal.

Future
Beckenham Station will be rebuilt as part of the removal of the William Street level crossing. This is currently being constructed as part of a Metronet project for the removal of level crossings on the Armadale line. A new Beckenham station will be built on the north side of William Street to reduce the station’s footprint, with new public space under the elevated rail line. The station was not originally in the project scope but was added following a funding commitment from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after he won the 2022 federal election.

Services
Beckenham Station is served by Transperth Armadale line services. Services to and from the Thornlie spur line run non-stop through the station.

The station saw 191,969 passengers in the 2013-14 financial year.

title: Beckenham railway station


text:
Talk:Durham County Cricket Club in 2005

Purge the cache

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Durham County Cricket Club in 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050809235911/http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/BDESH-A_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/BDESH-A_DURHAM_07AUG2005.html to http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/BDESH-A_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/BDESH-A_DURHAM_07AUG2005.html
 * Added tag to http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/ENG_LOCAL/NLS/SCORECARDS/11SEP2005/YORKS_DURHAM_NLS_11SEP2005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durham County Cricket Club in 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050925064847/http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/ENG_LOCAL/NLS/SCORECARDS/24APR2005/DURHAM_SURREY_NLS_24APR2005.html to http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/ENG_LOCAL/NLS/SCORECARDS/24APR2005/DURHAM_SURREY_NLS_24APR2005.html
 * Added tag to http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/ENG_LOCAL/CC2/SCORECARDS/01-04JUN2005/WORCS_DURHAM_CC2_01-04JUN2005.html
 * Added tag to http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/ENG_LOCAL/CC2/SCORECARDS/26-29JUL2005/SOMERSET_DURHAM_CC2_26-29JUL2005.html
 * Added tag to http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/ENG_LOCAL/NLS/SCORECARDS/21AUG2005/SOMERSET_DURHAM_NLS_21AUG2005.html
 * Added tag to http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/ENG_LOCAL/NLS/SCORECARDS/04SEP2005/DURHAM_KENT_NLS_04SEP2005.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Durham County Cricket Club in 2005


text:
Fox (crater)

Fox is a small lunar impact crater on the far side of the Moon. It is named after the American astronomer Philip Fox. It lies near the northern rim of the crater Wyld, and to the southeast of Babcock. This crater is bowl-shaped, with a roughly circular rim, simple sloping walls and a relatively level, featureless interior. There is some talus along the northern inner wall.

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

title: Fox (crater)


text:
Talk:Andrew McDermot

Untitled
Lead paragraph needs to be reworked so it is clear why he is notable. Have to read for a long time to figure it out. Fawcett5 19:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to work on it sometime this week or next weekend. I don't think I've looked at that article since I created it a while ago. Thanks for the suggestion. CWood 01:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, hi Christie, I didn't even realise it was your article - should have figured though given the subject area. Fawcett5 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Andrew McDermot


text:
Talk:Engine

engine - disambiguation
morris da moose says this page sucks cause me spent like an hour searching for a pic of a car engine and not 1 found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.87.243 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain the difference between a motor and an engine in the article? basilwhite 18:45 EST Feb 11, 2006

this should be a disambiguation page. strictly, an engine is a device that converts heat into work. new uses of the word are obviously quite different

Yes, please add a disambiguation page. Was just looking for a link for "engine" in the "video game engine"/software sense.

The Difference Between an Engine and a Motor
I have also been puzzled by the difference between an "engine" and a "motor." I think this is a question that is best answered by someone who has the credentials to do so, but I would like to provide two references and state my opinion on the subject.

Frederick J. Carranti, P.E. of Syracuse University posted a message defining the two terms. He defines a motor as a "device which converts electrical energy into mechanical energy." Then he goes on to define engine as a "device that converts chemical energy or heat energy into mechanical energy."

The Wikipedia Article on Internal combustion engines states that "although the terms sometimes cause confusion, there is no real difference between an 'engine' and a 'motor.'" That statement is not referenced, so personally I do not find that to be a credible source for information.

I have yet to find any source that defines the two terms opposite of the first source that I referenced, therefore I think the controversy is only whether or not there is a difference.

I think the first source defined the difference well and should be taken into account in the related Wikipedia articles on the subject. I would, however, like there to be a more stable reference that can be cited rather than just a forum post. SpikeBoy 06:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

An engine basically converts chemical energy (fuel) into kinetic energy. A motor does the opposite i.e. converts electrical energy into kinetic energy.

A generator set converts chemical energy (fuel) into kinetic energy then into electrical energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.105 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 * What is a motor car? Dolphin51 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymologically speaking, a "motor" is something that produces movement —whereas an "engine" is a device. For all intents and purposes, they are semantically equivalent (although an electric motor is usually implied by modern usage). --Aaagmnr (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A motor is a device that makes mechanical shaft power by conversion of some other form of energy. An engine does that through a heat cycle. You have an electrical motor, and a gasoline, or steam, or heat engine. An engine is a subset of motors.

The problem is that all of you must be too young and do not care about history. I am not old but I devour history-related stuff. Let me explain. You are all in 2022 but you must check the historic use of both words. Go back in time. Initially, no one used neither "engine" nor "motor". They used other words that might sound very funny now. In rough chronological order, in Greece, no later than the 1st. century BC, they called it aeolipile; in 1551 Ottoman Empire, Taqī al-Dīnin called it "spiritual machine" (do not ask me to write it in its original language, please, but it was used to turn a spit); in England, initially, professor Gerbertus did not even care to give a name to it but it was a part of his organ (not that "organ", you, filthy-minded Wikipedian); but later the English got steam jacks (yeah, spiritual machines!!). Finally, in 1606, the Spaniard Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont got a patent for what he called "ingenios de vapor" (yes, you guessed right, engines!!!, in this case, steam engines). The English kept calling it "steam engine" as Ayanz did but the Spanish, at some point switched to "máquina de vapor"; and, in most European languages they call them "steam machines".

So, let us summarize a bit before we go even deeper: The steam engine WAS NOT a steam engine at those times. And a DC motor WAS not a DC motor. We use these terms as retronyms. Then, a lot of years later, the word "engine" got the spotlight and later, "motor". The former for steam engines and the latter for electric motors (DC only at those times).

Then, at some point, I guess around the end of the 19th century, they started to use the word "motor" for the internal combustion engines (ICEs). Even several companies and government agencies still keep this word as a part of their names, e. g., (Department of Motor Vehicles). And no one complained like you do because, at that time, they were already synonyms. I don't know when they started to use the word "motor" for electric motors. I do know they used funny names initially, too. Faraday called his motor "apparatus for revolution of wire and magnet". And by 1830s, it was strictly distinguished between the magnetic-electro machines, i.e. electric generators; and electro-magnetic machines, i.e. electric motors. But, I guess a good way to find out is to check all patents related to these inventions and check the words and names they used every year. So, that is your final project for the term, kids. Find out and then let me know. The best one gets extra credits!!

So, in short, "engine" and "motor" are indeed synonyms. At least, in the broad sense, they are and current dictionaries support such equivalence. An ICE is a motor and a DC motor is an engine.

Now, lets us talk about the state of things for other languages. In Spanish, they now only use "motor" and the word "ingenio" still exists but its use to mean "machinery" is now considered obsolete except for sugar mills which are called "ingenios azucareros". In French they use "engin" to designate a machine intended to supplement workers in their tasks of lifting, transport, excavation, construction, demolition, etc; and, they use "motor" for both engine and motor. In German, they use "motor". So, in most European languages, they DO NOT have this problem. Everything is a motor!!

So, now, you know it and I know it. But, let us stick to current convention for the sake of a healthy communication. So, what is the current convention? In fact there is a "general" convention with several "exceptions". The following 5 statements make up the general convention:

1. A prime-mover is an artifact that accomplishes minimally one of two functions: energy conversion. This function "follows" the other explained below.

2. The other possible function is fuel storage (a form of chemical energy storage); or, energy "generation" or energy storage (in the form of something that is not considered "fuel" in the strict sense). This function can be performed by the prime-mover or, by an additional device. Whether the additional device is considered a part or not of the prime-mover is material for another lengthy discussion. However, only if this function is being carried out, the one mentioned above can kick in. Not the other way around.

3. Prime-movers can be classified as engines or motors. (Remember that this is the CURRENT convention and it has been changing and may continue to do so).

4. The other function of an engine is fuel storage.

5. The other function of a motor is energy generation (e. g., a dynamo); or, non-fuel energy storage (e. g., electric battery).

Now comes the most shocking thing: STEAM ENGINES ARE NOT ENGINES, THEY ARE MOTORS!!! I will explain this below:

Steam engines, FIRSTLY, GENERATE the steam (which is the working fluid of this heat engine). This steam holds the energy needed as input by the steam engine to continually operate. How the engine generates the steam maybe considered irrelevant. What we should now mention now is that there is an "external" combustion to accomplish that generation of energy. You might even think that another engine (where the external combustion is happening) is such engine. Additionally, this "generation" of energy may be misleading for the students of Thermodynamics (energy can only be transformed) but this "generation" is simply a "previous" transformation of energy. The output energy of this previous transformation is used as input energy by the steam engine.

Steam engines, SECONDLY, CONVERT the energy kinetic energy of the steam to produce mechanical work. The extended version of this process starts with heat which is the flow of thermal energy into the steam. This thermal energy is molecularly associated with the kinetic energy of the steam. The kinetic energy of the steam is transferred to one or more pistons when the steam exerts work on them. And from then on, several pieces of machinery allow the "transmission" of this kinetic energy (with losses obviously as this is the real world, guys).

Now, remember, stick to the convention and ALSO to exceptions. Steam engines are an exception. Rocket motors are an exception (fortunately, many call them engines).

I have to say that, of all the languages I speak, English is the only one that currently uses two words the usage of which is currently based, purposely or by chance, on the general convention with its very few exceptions.

(This was the "short" version. The "real deal" is in one of my storage media).

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Um, if this is 2022 then why are you answering a question from 2010?  Stepho  talk 07:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Loose definition
"An engine is something that produces some effect from a given input." Sorry, "some effect"? Mechanical/Kinetic energy may fit better?

'modern' engines
This section is extremely skewed. After a huge time jump from the previous section, it briefly hints that other types of engine have existed and then goes on to the history of the internal combustion engine - which ought to be covered by internal combustion engine.

General
This should be the top-level article linking into the various types of steam engine, various types of ICE, and other engines, which surely include windmills, watermills, HEP turbines, etc, etc EdJogg 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally. And with removal of most of ICE stuff. Intro is horrible, Usage and Antiquity sections are on the right path. Someone get editing ! Jimbowley (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

An internal combustion engine is not a heat engine. They take in fuel and output work. Combustion of the fuel/air increases the temperature of the working fluid, not heat transfer. Heat engines take in heat and output work. For example, Stirling engines, steam engines and steam turbine (Rankine) cycles are heat engines. Heat engines can involve the burning of fuel or not. If fuel is burned it is strictly to create a hot medium which will then transfer heat into the heat engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.147.25 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft Engine
"Again an aircraft will have many motors installed for operation of its many auxiliary operations and services, but aircraft are propelled by engines, in this case, jet engines." This is not strictly accurate. Not all aircraft have multiple motors, not all even have an engine(s), as in the case of gliders and balloons. Also, not all aircraft that use an engine(s) use jet engines, as in the case of prop planes. If there is no objection in the next month or so I will remove the sentence. 67.160.147.2 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

 * ......A "turbo prop" IS a turbine powered aircraft engine. Everyone please remember, there IS a difference between a engine and a motor. Motors (with the exception of new brushless motors)have windings, commutator and brushes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.18.140 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Saying "IS" in all caps isn't an argument, it's just shouting. As has been sufficiently cited at Engine, some reliable sources say engine and motor are not the same, but other reliable sources do say, in spite of the chagrin it may cause, that an engine is a motor and a motor is an engine. No matter how much one group or another wants to prescribe politically correct (or scientifically correct or engineeringly correct) language, the rest of the world is not obligated to fall into line. People misuse words, and those who would punish them for it aren't always able to do so.A Wikipedia article that fails to inform readers that some sources don't use a technical term in the way that a certain group of engineers approves of is concealing true information simply because a group doesn't like it. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not censored. See also Linguistic prescription, Political correctness, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Text moved from Drive shaft article.
I removed this sentenct from the lead paragraph of the Drive shaft article: "Most engines or motors deliver power as torque through rotary motion: this is extracted from the linear motion of pistons in a reciprocating engine; water driving a water wheel; or forced gas or water in a turbine." Rather than just destroying it, I'm placing it here in case anyone wants to merge it into this Engine article, where it may be more appropriate. -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * This sentence (or some other explanation to this effect) should definitely appear here.
 * Together the explanation about different cases, where Linear motors do otherwise.
 * Thinking about it.... Should the Magnetohydrodynamic drive also be mentioned? 2A02:908:898:9640:0:0:0:F17 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of 'coex' image
...because it is of a coffee machine, not an engine!! (Sorry, I hit return before edit summary was finished.) EdJogg (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

air breathing engines section
that section links to itself multiple times, it is redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.212.38 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Engine cooling
A new section should be added to the article called Engine cooling. I placed a link at the see also section, but this is not enough, it needs its own section in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.57.202 (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And why? Seems to me that is a detail best covered on the page about the Internal combustion engine. This is a general page; I don't see any need to clutter it up with technical details, especially as the cooling system of an engine is really a separate system, not a part of the actual engine itself..45Colt 14:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

Air quality
The ranges you can produce from a real engine are so vast why bother including statistics that are destined to be wrong? Emissions vary based on air fuel ratios, load, cyclinder geometry, catalytic converter, etc. etc. etc. I can pick a couple of the figures stated here as wrong straight away based on an emmisions test I got on my own car, the rest are arguable at best. Modern cars are very clean in comparison to a few decades ago, let's hear about all those technologies, not what a 5 litre V8 released in the 70's. And rather than a roundabout way of attributing global warming to engines, let's hear a real statistic about the conribution of private-owned automotive engines to the greenhouse effect, e.g. jackdiddlysquat% 192.198.151.37 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition
I changed the definition to An engine is a generator that produces mechanical force and motion from another form of energy (eg a fuel source, compressed gas (eg air) or electricity). [1]It is also referred to as a prime mover.

A engine is a generator as seen at the generator article

This is more clear to understand and more accurate ? I'm guessing that a generator that generates mechanical force from another mechanical force or a fuel from a mechanical force (eg as with flowing water, ... as a power source) isn't called anything at all (weirdly enough). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 * In light to make the articles even more in line the definition could btw be changed to An engine or mechanical generator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Article needs almost a complete rewrite
The article seems to be mostly about internal combustion engines, but steam engines, electric motors, gas turbines (that are not necessarily driven by steam or internal combustion), external combustion engines are more where it needs to be. It needs to cover everything; it's not about horizontally opposed versus anything; that's in internal combustion.

It's just all wrong right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 * It seems like you've done just that. Is it OK now? (The high level of vandalism means that I don't actively watch this page, and I haven't visited recently -- I've only looked briefly at the diffs since 22nd Sept, of which there are many(!), not the finished article.)
 * In November 09, you removed this section:
 * The term is used in computer science in "search engine", "3-D graphics game engine", "rendering engine" and "text-to-speech engine", even though these "engines" are not mechanical and cause no mechanical action (this usage may have been inspired by the "difference engine", an early mechanical computing device). — EdJogg — (continues after insertion below.)
 * No, because articles aren't defining terms, they're defining things. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.- Wolfkeeper 16:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely a search engine (eg) is a 'thing', albeit one in the strange world of software...? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is it the same kind of thing? The kind of thing we're covering in this article is something that turns some form of energy into motion. That's not what a search 'engine' does.

 * That's what I'm saying, just because they're referred to (in English, and not necessarily any other language) as 'engine', doesn't mean that they are engines in the sense of the article. That's the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia; a dictionary is specifically about the word itself and all that things that it refers to, an encyclopedia is about a thing or a single type of thing that a phrase refers to.- Wolfkeeper 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I would have thought that use of the word 'engine' in these instances warranted a mention here. (Also, how does the word 'engineer' relate?) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's normally OK to mention it, but you shouldn't cover it, not even in subarticle summary format.- Wolfkeeper 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia already has numerous articles about engines that are not heat engines, such as search engines and other computer software. They are all listed at Engine (disambiguation). There is no need to turn the primary article on Engine into another disambiguation page.  Dolphin  ( t ) 23:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the cleanup page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. Tobby72 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Rockets!
All well and good, but a liquid rocket is powered by engines and a solid rocket is powered by motors. As both are doing exactly the same thing (providing motive force to a vehicle) in pretty much the same way (converting chemical energy into kinetic energy), this begs the question as to whether you guys have difinitively resolved the engine vs. motor thingie. In 30 years as a combustion engineer (including solid rockets, gas turbines, and diesels), I never bothered to resolve this question, heard anyone explain it, or even ask someone (like a professor), but I suspect it may have something to do with thermodynamic cycles. Engines generally are following one (diesel engines, gas turbines, liquid rockets, etc.), while motors don't (solid rockets, electic motors, etc.) - just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Motor"?
Why does the word "motor" link to here? An engine is different from a motor. Whether it's a stub or not, there needs to be a separate article for a motor. The two can not be interchangeable here, and it is incorrect usage of terminology. ForestAngel (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 11:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the redirect and created a page distinctly for motor. It's pretty empty, but hopefully, for the time being, it can exist to create the distinction and quell confusion between an "engine" and a "motor."--JC Berger (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 * You need to get agreement here before splitting the article.Embrittled (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 * It's too pedantic a distinction for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not say it's wrong to call an engine a motor. Because it's not wrong; it's perfectly correct English. Redirect Motor here and stick one line in Engine somewhere saying in some highly formal circumstances the distinction between motor and engine is considered important. Like maybe on an exam or something you'd get a point taken off. Who else cares? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What is important to find out is how we started to use the word "motor" instead of engine to refer to an internal combustion engine (ICE). The steam-powered machines dominated the power market and I guess someone decided to use the word "motor" to get some distance from the past. I also guess something similar happened with the DC motor. But, I am pretty sure the inventors and early innovators of the DC motor never used the word "motor" as I am quite sure the inventors of the ICE never used the word "motor" either. I know Benz used the word "motor" in his patented car. There are several companies and government agencies bearing the word "motor" as a reminder of that (marketing?) decision. However, the word "engine" came back to claim its rightful place, so no one checks the motor of his car but the engine nowadays. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary article: 'engine'
Just found an interesting (recent) article at the Oxford English Dictionary site about the evolution of the word 'engine':
 * Link: Aspects of English --> Word Stories --> "engine"

It may help further shape this article. (Not by me, though, this time I'm just passing through...) -- EdJogg (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that's some interesting stuff. I'd like to see something about that on here as well; I think it's relevant to the topic. Only I'm not much of an editor, and I don't know if that is considered reference material or not. Seems legit to me..45Colt 14:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

magnetic engines
overunity motors via youtube

magnetic motors

magnetic engines

magnetic generators

Don548 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Don't even think about adding such crackpot pseudo science anywhere that isn't clearly labelled as a wiki pseudoscience zone. They do not belong anywhere near this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, they are engines/motors in the sense that they use the potential energy of the magnets to move a bit, move a bit to the point where they come to a complete and total halt ;-). It would probably be a learning point for the readers to actually include them; they might learn something (like why they don't do anything useful).Rememberway (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are nothing of the sort. Don548's links are describing "free energy" or "overunity" motors. These are not some mere "stored energy" device (we should probably have an article on rubberband motor after all), they are fraudulent attempts to claim a fantastical device exists, when it clearly does not. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * No, they are stored energy devices, not overunity. The guy running the video usually charges them up with their hand... and then they do something as the magnets get on average closer together.Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * And they're not usually fraudulent, just totally clueless ;-) These kinds of videos are so funny. I often watch them just for a laugh. "all I have to do is put an electromagnet..." ... um no?Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * But seriously, I think that the Wikipedia has a duty to point them to where they can best get a clue. We are supposed to be a educational and reference tool after all.Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that debunking fakery is within the encyclopedic scope. However this has to be done clearly as such, so it should take place in articles that are clearly about that, nothing else. We shouldn't mix it in with articles on real engines or motors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * We just need to stick to reliable sources and NPOV. I must admit I don't know of any reliable source treatment of it, but there may well be.Rememberway (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarify combustion efficiency section
It sounds like the combustion efficiency section is referring to the early 20th century, when four cylinders had about 40 hp and V-8s had what? The 1930s Ford flathead V8 engine had about 65 hp. It doesn't make sense to compare 1920-1930 40 hp I4s with 1960s and later 250-450 hp V-8s. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, typical European small cars did have that sort of power in the 1960's. A VW Beetle had a 36hp engine. A Mini had about the same. Perhaps some were making more, but even sports cars rarely broke 100hp back then. I suppose 60hp is a more realistic number on average. Only expensive and/or large cars had more power. But, during this period there were lots of American 2-barrel V8's making only about 150hp, and there were also lots of straight-six powered cars sold in the US that often fell under or around 100hp. I agree that this sentence is generalizing and misleading. MOST cars sold in the US were not hi-po versions. .45Colt 13:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

Motors aren't always electrical.
I know this has been hashed over ten thousand times, but the sentence saying " An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source" is wrong. A motor does NOT have to be driven by electricity, hence "pneumatic motor", etc. Perhaps a motor is a device that converts energy into motion, but it does not have to be powered by electricity. And just as my two cents, I subscribe to the school of thought that says a motor is something that powers or imparts motion, while an engine is something that converts heat into work. Therefore, a an engine is a type of motor, but a motor is not an engine. .45Colt 13:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

I have been editing this article for some time now and am currently attempting to clean it up: indeed, among the most teething problems are that it covers combustion engines too deeply and often repeats content in certain areas. I am open to suggestions and would not mind some help with areas concerning engines other than petrol engines. Hayazin (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism
I know security is not Wikipedia's issue, but has anyone noticed the amount of anonymous vandalism constantly occurring on this page and how many edits are constantly reverted either by registered users or by ClueBot? Maybe it's the wrong page on which to talk about this subject, but it's been disturbing me. I started some months ago a personal effort to give this page some new life, and it's been only preserved. And if it occurs on this page, it can certainly spread to more vital articles.

Just felt like I had to say it. Hayazin (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Broad scope articles like "engine" or "steam locomotive" don't work under WP's "everyone can edit" model. Stop worrying about it, you'll go mad otherwise. Also no-one needs an article on "engines", everyone knows what they are already (and Randy keeps telling us this). Work on the questions that need answering instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 * As long as it is easy for anyone to edit articles, there will be people who vandalise articles. Disenfranchised people use vandalism as a way to say "Take notice of me, I exist!" This is human nature. We can't solve all the world's issues, so we just keep cleaning up our corner of the world and get on with life.  Stepho  talk 10:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/intern-co.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821175006/http://reference.howstuffworks.com:80/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm to http://reference.howstuffworks.com/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218171021/http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204034636/http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter1.html to http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://reference.howstuffworks.com/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

can anyone clarify
engine (disambiguation) states An engine is a device that converts potential energy into mechanical work.

however, this article says

''Motor and engine later came to be used largely interchangeably in casual discourse. However, technically, the two words have different meanings. An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, air, or hydraulic pressure, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source.[4] However, rocketry uses the term rocket motor, even though they consume fuel''.

as I read this I think of the context of a gravity battery driving an electric motor

should the description in engine (disambiguation) be made more specific?

My intuition is that wikipedia would be better off with *all* 'overloaded' words being a disambiguation page, to force users to think twice about what context they really mean (engine (motor), whatever..)

MfortyoneA (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This is an urban legend. The overwhelming majority of sources say that motor and engine are interchangeable. These claims "technically, the two words have different meanings" are copiously lacking in sources. The weasel word "technically" is a red flag. "Technically" in what field? Physics? Law? The reason scolds get so angry when you "misuse" engine and motor is that they don't have a case. They lack sources and they know it. I would challenge anyone to show widespread sourcing for the definitions "A motor is a mechanical or electrical device that creates motion" and "An engine is a device that converts potential energy into mechanical work." Any reliable dictionary will tell you that both engine and motor mean any kind of device that converts any form of energy into work or motion. All these pages, engine, engine (disambiguation) and motor (disambiguation) should be changed to respect the sources, and remove the unsourced opinions and original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing I can say is that 'motor' makes me initially think of vehicles, whereas the word 'engine' seems equally applicable in static installations. but again I don't have any precise definition. of course a 3d printer (and plenty of industrial equipment) would have 'electric motors' aswell. hmmm. MfortyoneA (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make what anyone "thinks of"? Look at the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * What somebody thinks is not useful as a definition in the article. However, common perceptions and misconceptions are very useful in discussions about the article so that we know how to present the definition.  Stepho  talk 04:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Some dictionary definitions: Major dictionaries seem to agree that 'motor' and 'engine' are the same thing. Counter examples are, of course, welcome. I suspect the split came about when hybrids became popular. The internal combustion engine was sometimes called a motor and sometimes an engine depending on where you live. Electric motors were always called motors. So it makes sense to keep calling the electric motor as the motor and then force the oily part to take the other choice - engine. My 3¢ worth of armchair etymology.  Stepho  talk 04:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engine - a machine that uses the energy from liquid fuel or steam to produce movement
 * http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/motor - a device that changes electricity or fuel into movement and makes a machine work
 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motor - any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion
 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engine - a machine for converting any of various forms of energy into mechanical force and motion

 * I amended the offending explanation on the disambiguation page. It now better matches what is stated at Engine. See my diff. Dolphin  ( t ) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "The words motor and engine are interchangeable." There is the assignment of terms electric motor and combustion engine that comes about not just from convention, but because of the common intuition about the meaning of words having an understanding of differences. So while there may be a combustion motor, there is yet to be an electrical engine (even though the links say the opposite). It seems "engine" is loaned onto objects which are complex and whose workings come from some some combustion like principle. A lot of this may be just because the word "engine" is bound to old-type motors and there is a need (a need of the natural language) to reserve the word "motor" for new-type engines. -Inowen (nlfte) 07:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, such reasoning is based on anecdotes and folk law. Eg, in England they often talk about a 'motor' in their car and often call the entire car a 'motor' (short for 'motorcar' and similar to how some people shorten 'automobile' to 'auto') - but this is just popular slang. In more technical circles, steam engines are often split into the gas generator (eg, the boiler) and the motor (eg the piston assembly which converts steam pressure into motion) - but that is just convention in a certain field. For diesel electric locomotives, they talk about 'traction motors' for the electric motors connected to the wheels. The gist of 'engine' is something that produces work. Or even more general, something that produces an effect (eg the engine of the Earth produces a magnetic field). The gist of 'motor' is something that produces motion (ie a particular form of work). But its all vague and fuzzy and I would be reluctant to make it more specific than that.  Stepho  talk 10:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * If there is any "need" to reserve motor for one thing and engine for another, this need hasn't been demonstrated. Who is it who needs this distinction to be made? Why? There is copious evidence that engine and motor are almost always synonyms. A slight connotation can exist, but it's usually not there. These are facts. There's absolutely zero evidence that it's "wrong" to use the as synonyms in standard English, and if you try "correcting" anyone this way, you make a fool of yourself.The error we see repeatedly with engine and motor is someone pedantically lecturing "Well, ACTUALLY..." and claiming there is a "technical" difference, without defining for us what "technically" is supposed to mean. In rare and obscure cases where you are in some narrow field in which there needs to be a distinction between these two terms, you can agree to observe this distinction about motion and energy. But any such distinction doesn't carry over into general use. The OED definitions emphasize that they are usually the same thing: motor A machine that supplies motive power for a vehicle or other device with moving parts; (in later use) esp. one powered by electricity, internal combustion, or compressed air. Cf. engine n. 9. engine 9. The part of a car, boat, aircraft, or other vehicle which provides propulsive force; (in later use) esp. one powered by internal combustion. Cf. motor n. 5a, power plant n. dictionary.com says motor a comparatively small and powerful engine, especially an internal-combustion engine in an automobile, motorboat, or the like. engine: a machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy or power to produce force and motion. The first synonym for motor? engine. And vice versa. American Heritage is one of the few dictionaries that takes anything like a strong position: engine a. A machine that converts energy into mechanical force or motion. b. Such a machine distinguished from an electric, spring-driven, or hydraulic motor by its use of a fuel. And yet... A-H says motor  A device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, especially an internal-combustion engine or an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power.Again and again and again dictionaries tell us a motor can be internal combustion OR electric.You can't call this usage slang. That's incorrect. Not a single dictionary does that. The closest we can come to that is Encarta Dictionary that says it is "informal" to all an automotive engine a motor. Besides taht outlier, they all treat it as standard English.Terms like hopefully or literally, could still be called problematic in a few circles, but engine and motor don't even come close to those. This article can say it's true that a few have guys tried to push everyone into making a strong distinction between motor and engine, but clearly they lost. It never caught on because they never showed us their evidence, because they have none. Wikipedia shouldn't be giving any support to this myth, other than mentioning it in passing, and reassuring readers that it's not wrong to say a car has a motor, which is the engine, a rocket has a motor, which is the engine. Does anyone every say "electric engine"? Yes:, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Well there are language tendencies which are found in England which even English people would say are of strictly 'English English' form and wouldn't likely be found in other places as these things don't develop naturally and instead are rather quirky in origin. There is also what is in the Common Language spoken by Americans and others which has differences which seem to add up. The "need" I spoke of above was qualified to natural language, where what people speak comes about by the people honoring what it is people need to be able to say, and not by what some old queen or other wants. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a time when the root of engine meant "produces power by consuming fuel", excluding turbines or electric motors. The word engine existed before electricity, and before internal combustion. The Latin root means genius, cleverness, and sometimes trickery. There's definitely no argument that the current equivalence of motor and engine is a degenerate usage. The desire to drive a wedge between the words seems to begin in the mid 20th century, and never caught on. Anyway, a really good discussion of this by an MIT professor is What’s the difference between a motor and an engine?We're going to need to rewrite engine (disambiguation) and motor (disambiguation) to stop pushing this false distinction. The statements we have now, "An engine is a device that converts energy in one form into mechanical energy" and "A motor is a mechanical or electrical device that creates motion", are contradicted by too many sources, which say those are only particular definitions, but they are in no way the primary definitions. They should say some thing like "An engine is a machine that powers a vehicle or device, especially one that converts energy or fuel into mechanical energy. In standard English engine and motor are synonyms, while in some specialized jargon they are distinct." and "A motor is a machine that provides power to a vehicle or device, especially one powered by electricity, or fluid flow. In standard English engine and motor are synonyms, while in some specialized jargon they are distinct." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 * In my experience "engine" and "motor" are absolutely not interchangeable. (I'm on the West Coast of the US, if that matters.) "Engines" are big, powerful, dirty, rumbling things that put off fumes and need regular servicing, while "motors" are little electrical things. If you said, "The motor in my car is really loud," people would probably wonder if you were talking about the motor for your fans or your windshield wipers or something. Likewise, if you started talking about the "engine" in your vacuum cleaner (or in your garbage disposal, or your wall clock, or your ceiling fan, or your wristwatch), people would look at you like you'd grown a second head. And I honestly can't remember a time or place it's ever been otherwise. We would also say that a diesel locomotive has big "engines", while a streetcar has an electric "motor".

 * Are you seriously saying that people where you're from would ask you to take a look at the engine in their garbage disposal, or say the engine in their wristwatch needs to be serviced? --Infinitum11 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Are you seriously saying that your anecdotal experience in your localised area must absolutely apply to the rest of the world? The British often refer to the motor in their car. If you don't know that then I find it hard to take you seriously as a knowledgeable expert in worldwide usage. For 2 uses of 'electric engine, see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-31/there-s-a-5-600-electric-moonshot-for-your-combustion-clunker and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbkxVpoYEM .  Stepho  talk 21:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * You are writing about the common usage of these two words in the region where you live. What is written in Wikipedia must be based on reliable published sources to allow independent verification - see WP:VERIFY. Dolphin ( t ) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I looked at the cited entries in Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com. One dictionary makes engines sound like a kind of motor, and the other dictionary makes a motor sound like a kind of engine. I don't see these sources using the same definitions for both terms. Why would the article include a sentence saying the two terms are synonymous, when the cited sources don't say that? It seems like that sentence should be deleted. It seems to assert something beyond what the dictionaries are saying; and there seem to be many people here, presumably all native English speakers and presumably not anywhere close to me, who disagree with that assertion as well. --Infinitum11 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * If an engine is a type of motor and a motor is a type of engine, then that is practically the definition of synonymous.  Stepho  talk 11:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I can clarify. You are all in 2022 but you must check the historic use of both words. Go back in time. Initially, no one used neither "engine" nor "motor". They used other words that might sound very funny now. The steam engine WAS NOT a steam engine at those times. And a DC motor WAS not a DC motor. We use these terms as retronyms. Then, a lot of years later, the word "engine" got the spotlight and later, "motor". The former for steam engines and the latter for electric motors (DC only at those times). Then, at some point, I guess around the end of the 19th century, they started to use the word "motor" for the ICEs (several companies and government agencies still keep this word as a part of their names). And no one complained like you do because at that time, they were already synonyms. (https://books.google.com.ec/books?id=hygxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA3). I don't know when they started to use the word "motor" for electric motors. But, I guess a good way to find out is to check all patents related to these inventions and check the words they used every year. So, in short, they are synonyms. But, I think it is wise to stick to the current usage of both words to avoid confusion. An ICE is a motor and a DC motor is an engine. You know it and I know it. But, let us stick to current convention for the sake of a healthy communication. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger from Prime mover (locomotive)
I'm proposing that we merge some of the contents from there after carving out all the original research and unverifiable statements. There's no reason to have a separate page each for yacht engine, train engine, motorcycle engine, tank engine, lawn mower engine and so on. Graywalls (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose  First of all, we should have articles on motorcycle engine, marine diesel engine etc. Engine is a huge topic, and sub-articles is entirely appropriate.
 * Secondly, this article is not here to decribe an engine type, but to describe a particular and somewhat arcane term related to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 * alternate target could be locomotive terms list. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose For most laymen, an engine is a part of a vehicle, such as the engine in a car, truck, motorcycle, plane. The use of engine to mean an entire vehicle such as a railway locomotive is a specialist term. I would not merge them.  Stepho  talk 20:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Very confused I cannot work out what the current underlying naming concept is!  Prime mover (engine) redirects to Engine.  And there is Locomotive. And there is Prime mover (tractor unit). In line with Andy Dingley above, as far as I can tell Prime mover (locomotive) should be renamed to Locomotive (engine)?  Aoziwe (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 * To clarify for the confused, a prime mover is not a locomotive as a whole, it's the main engine in a diesel-electric locomotive. The term is used to distinguish the diesel engine from the electric traction motors; the prime mover turns a generator that supplies power to the traction motors that actually turn the wheels.
 * I agree with Andy that engines are a broad enough topic to have daughter articles on specific classes, and so oppose a merger. I do think there does need to be some clarification of the titles and redirects, but no merger. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

engine; Expelling carbon is inhaling oxygen
ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.236.236 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 * What? Can you explain in sentences of more than one word ?  Stepho  talk 00:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead expansion
As I found the article earlier today, the lead was stuck in a pedagogic rut and not doing a great job of painting a broad picture or summarizing the article content. I took a stab at this, and added a fair amount of new material. The resulting prose strikes me as adequate, but not great. Perhaps I went slightly deeper into the weeds on emissions than I should have, but that's a hot topic these days (pardon my small pun).

In any case, I'm a fly-by-night editor, who visits many articles, often makes a small change, sometimes makes a more substantive, and then moves along to the next thing. In order to travel light, I take little ownership in my past contributions; feel free to edit at will. — MaxEnt 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Engine


text:
People's Union

People's Union may refer to:

Political parties

 * People's Union (Belgium)
 * People's Union of Estonia
 * People's Union (Iraq)
 * People's Union (Italy)
 * People's Socialist Union (Ivory Coast)
 * People's Union (Nigeria)
 * People's Union (Russia)
 * People's Union (Slovakia)
 * People's Union for Wallis and Futuna
 * Hungarian People's Union (Hungary)
 * Kenya People's Union (Kenya)
 * Leonese People's Union (Leon, Spain)
 * Spanish People's Union (Spain)

Other uses

 * People's Freedom Union (United States)
 * People's Union for Civil Liberties (India), a human rights body

title: People's Union


text:
Marius Barbeau

Charles Marius Barbeau, (March 5, 1883 – February 27, 1969), also known as C. Marius Barbeau, or more commonly simply Marius Barbeau, was a Canadian ethnographer and folklorist who is today considered a founder of Canadian anthropology. A Rhodes Scholar, he is best known for an early championing of Québecois folk culture, and for his exhaustive cataloguing of the social organization, narrative and musical traditions, and plastic arts of the Tsimshianic-speaking peoples in British Columbia (Tsimshian, Gitxsan, and Nisga'a), and other Northwest Coast peoples. He developed unconventional theories about the peopling of the Americas.

Youth and education
Frédéric Charles Joseph Marius Barbeau was born March 5, 1883, in Sainte-Marie, Quebec. In 1897, he began studies for the priesthood. He did his classical studies at Collège de Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatière. In 1903 he changed his studies to a law degree at Université Laval, which he received in 1907. He went to England on a Rhodes Scholarship, studying at Oriel College, Oxford, from 1907 to 1910, where he began his studies in the new fields of anthropology, archeology and ethnography, under R. R. Marett. During the summers he would attend École des hautes études de la Sorbonne and École d'anthropologie. In Paris he would meet Marcel Mauss who would encourage him in his anthropological studies.

Field work
In 1911, Barbeau joined the National Museum of Canada (then part of the Geological Survey of Canada) as an anthropologist under Edward Sapir. He worked there for his entire career, retiring in 1949. (The GSC subdivided in 1920. From that period, Barbeau was with the Victoria Memorial Museum, later renamed in 1927 as the National Museum of Canada).

At the beginning, he and Sapir were Canada's first and only two full-time anthropologists. Under those auspices, Barbeau began fieldwork in 1911–1912 with the Huron-Wyandot people around Quebec City, in southern Ontario, and on their reservation in Oklahoma of the United States, collecting mostly stories and songs.

In 1913, the German-American anthropologist Franz Boas, then affiliated with the American Folklore Society (AFS), convinced Barbeau to specialize in French-Canadian folklore. Barbeau began collecting such material the following year. In 1918, Barbeau became president of the AFS.

In 1914, Barbeau married Marie Larocque. They had a family together.

Beginning in December 1914, Barbeau carried out three months' fieldwork in Lax Kw'alaams (Port Simpson), British Columbia, the largest Tsimshian village in Canada. He collaborated with his interpreter, William Beynon, a Tsimshian hereditary chief. The anthropologist Wilson Duff (who in the late 1950s was entrusted by Barbeau with organizing the information) has called these three months "one of the most productive field seasons in the history of [North] American anthropology."

Barbeau and Beynon had a decades-long collaboration. Barbeau wrote an enormous volume of field notes—which are still mostly unpublished. Duff has characterized this as "the most complete body of information on the social organization of any Indian nation". Barbeau eventually trained Beynon in phonetic transcription, and the Tsimshian chief became an ethnological field worker in his own right. Barbeau and Beynon conducted field work in 1923–1924 with the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum Tsimshians and the Gitksan, who lived along the middle Skeena River. In 1927 and 1929, they had field seasons among the Nisga'a of the Nass River.

In 1929, Barbeau removed the Ni'isjoohl totem pole, hand-carved in the 1860s, from a Nisga'a village. The pole depicts the story of Ts'wawit, a warrior who was next in line to be chief before he was killed in a conflict with a neighbouring nation. The Nisga’a nation says the pole was taken by Barbeau without its consent while members were away from their villages for the annual hunting and food harvesting season, and it was later sold it to the museum in Scotland. In August 2021, a delegation of Nisga'a leaders travelled to Edinburgh to request the transfer of the 11-metre pole back to their territory. The museum said its board of trustees approved the First Nation's request to transfer the pole to its home in northwest B.C. Chris Breward, the director of National Museums Scotland, said in a statement the institution is pleased to reach an agreement allowing the pole to be transferred to its people and the place where its spiritual significance is most keenly understood.

Barbeau is a controversial figure as he was criticised for not accurately representing his Indigenous informants. In his anthropological work among the Tsimshian and Huron-Wyandot, for instance, Barbeau was solely looking for what he defined as "authentic" stories that were without political implications. Informants were often unwilling to work with him for various reasons. It is possible that the "educated informants," whom Barbeau advised his students to avoid, did not trust him to disseminate their stories.

Academic career
In 1942, Barbeau began lecturing at Laval and at the University of Ottawa. In 1945, he was made a professor at Laval. He retired in 1954 after suffering a stroke. He died February 27, 1969, in Ottawa.

Theories
Barbeau also did brief fieldwork with the Tlingit, Haida, Tahltan, Kwakwaka'wakw, and other Northwest Coast groups. He emphasized trying to synthesize the various migration traditions of these peoples, in order to correlate them with the distribution of culture traits. He was trying to reconstruct a sequence for the peopling of the Americas. He was an early champion of the theory of migration from Siberia across the Bering Strait. This narrative, while recognized as largely accurate by modern anthropologists and geneticists, is still strongly disputed by many Indigenous nations who claim origin in North America.

His more controversial theory is that the Tsimshianic-speaking peoples, Haida, and Tlingit represented the most recent migration into the New World from Siberia. He believed that their ancestors were refugees from Genghis Khan's conquests, some as recently as a few centuries ago. In works such as the unpublished Migration Series manuscripts, the book Alaska Beckons, and numerous articles with such titles as "How Asia Used to Drip at the Spout into America" and "Buddhist Dirges on the North Pacific Coast", he eventually antagonized many of his contemporaries on this question. His thesis has been discredited by analysis of linguistic and DNA evidence.

Under Beynon's influence, Barbeau promoted the idea among western academics that the region's oral histories of migration have real historiographic value. They were long discounted because they did not conform to European traditions as accounts. Barbeau and Beynon's theory has been proven to have some merit, when taken with evidence-based data such as climate, astronomical and geological events.

Barbeau was an early proponent of recognizing totem poles as world-class high art. His opinion that they were a post-contact artistic development has been decisively disproved.

Ethnomusicology
Barbeau's primary contribution to ethnomusicology was primarily around collection. He was interested in music from a young age receiving musical education from his mother. Through his career, he would be concerned with music's influence on anthropology. He would be named one of the first Canadian ethnomusicologists

Barbeau was concerned with having all Canadians experience folk music. He often used trained Canadian musicians as folk music performers to bring the music to a wider audience. He received minor criticism for utilizing an American singer, Loraine Wyman.

In 1915, Barbeau would initiate the Museum collection of French-Canadian songs. Later in 1916, he set off on a recording expedition along the St. Lawrence river. His objective was to record every French Canadian folk song. He returned with notation for over 500 songs and some folk legends.

Cultural legacy
Barbeau was a prolific writer, producing both scholarly articles and monographs, and books that presented Québecois and First Nations oral traditions for a mass audience. Examples include The Downfall of Temlaham, which weaves ancient Gitksan oral traditions with contemporary contact history. His The Golden Phoenix and other collections for children present French-Canadian folk and fairy tales.

From his fieldwork and writings on all aspects of French-Canadian creative expression, numerous popular and scholarly publications were produced. His work is credited with contributing significantly to the rise of Québecois nationalism in the late 20th century.

Awards and honours
Between 1916 and 1950, Barbeau served as associate editor of the Journal of American Folklore. During that time he edited ten issues of the journal which primarily focused on Canadian folklore.

In 1922, Barbeau became the founding secretary of the Canadian Historical Association. In 1929 he became a founding board member of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society.

In 1950 Barbeau won the Royal Society of Canada's Lorne Pierce Medal. In 1967 he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. In 1969, Barbeau Peak, the highest mountain in Nunavut, was named after him.

In 2005, Marius Barbeau's broadcasts and ethnological recordings were honoured as a MasterWork by the Audio-Visual Preservation Trust of Canada. His extensive personal papers are housed in the former National Museum of Man, since 2013 known as the Canadian Museum of History.

In 1985 the Folklore Studies Association of Canada (Wikidata) established the "Marius Barbeau Medal" to recognize persons making remarkable contributions to Canadian folklore and ethnology.

Portrait
An authorized bronze portrait bust of Barbeau was created by Russian-Canadian artist Eugenia Berlin; it is installed in the collection of the National Gallery of Canada.

Selected works

 * (1915) "Classification of Iroquoian radicals with subjective pronominal prefixes." Ottawa: Geological Survey of Canada. Memoir no. 46. GEOSCAN.
 * (1915) Huron and Wyandot Mythology, with Appendix Containing Earlier Published Records. Ottawa: Geological Survey of Canada. Memoir no. 80. GEOSCAN.
 * (1923) Indian Days in the Canadian Rockies. Illustrated by W. Langdon Kihn. Toronto: Macmillan.
 * (with Edward Sapir) (1925) Folksongs of French Canada. New Haven: Yale University Press.
 * (1928) The Downfall of Temlaham. Toronto: Macmillan.
 * (1929) "Totem Poles of the Gitksan, Upper Skeena River, British Columbia." Ottawa: National Museum of Canada. Bulletin no. 61. GEOSCAN.
 * (1933) "How Asia Used to Drip at the Spout into America," Washington Historical Quarterly, vol. 24, pp. 163–173.
 * (1934) Au Coeur de Québec. Montréal: Zodiaque.
 * (1934) Cornelius Krieghoff: Pioneer Painter of North America. Toronto: Macmillan.
 * (1934) La merveilleuse aventure de Jacques Cartier. Montréal: A. Levesque.
 * (1935) "Folk-songs of Old Quebec." Ottawa: National Museum of Canada. Bulletin no. 75. GEOSCAN.
 * (1935) Grand'mère raconte. Montréal: Beauchemin.
 * (1935) Il était une fois. Montréal: Beauchemin.
 * (1936) The Kingdom Saguenay. Toronto: Macmillan.
 * (1936) Québec, ou survit l'ancienne France (Quebec: Where Ancient France Lingers.) Québec City: Garneau.
 * (with Marguerite and Raoul d'Harcourt) (1937) Romanceros du Canada. Montréal: Beauchemin.
 * (1942) Maîtres artisans de chez-nous. Montréal: Zodiaque.
 * (1942) Les Rêves des chasseurs. Montréal: Beauchemin.
 * (with Grace Melvin) (1943) The Indian Speaks. Toronto: Macmillan.
 * (with Rina Lasnier) (1944) Madones canadiennes. Montréal: Beauchemin.
 * (1944) Mountain Cloud. Toronto: Macmillan.
 * (1944–1946) Saintes artisanes. 2 vols.  Montréal: Fides.
 * (1945) "The Aleutian Route of Migration into America." Geographical Review, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 424–443.
 * (1945) "Bear Mother." Journal of American Folklore, vol. 59, no. 231, pp. 1–12.
 * (1945) Ceinture flechée. Montréal: Paysana.
 * (1946) Alouette! Montréal: Lumen.
 * (1947) Alaska Beckons. Toronto: Macmillan.
 * (1947) L'Arbre des rèves (The Tree of Dreams). Montréal: Thérrien.
 * (1950; reissued 1990) Totem Poles. 2 vols.  (Anthropology Series 30, National Museum of Canada Bulletin 119.)  Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.  Reprinted, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec, 1990. Individual chapters available in pdf on the website of the Canadian Museum of History.
 * (1952) "The Old-World Dragon in America." In Indian Tribes of Aboriginal America: Selected Papers of the XXIXth International Congress of Americanists, ed. by Sol Tax, pp. 115–122.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 * (1953) Haida Myths. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.
 * (1954) "'Totemic Atmosphere' on the North Pacific Coast." ''Journal of American Folklore, vol. 67, pp. 103-122.
 * (1957) Haida Carvers in Argillite. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.
 * (1957) J'ai vu Québec. Québec City: Garneau.
 * (1957) My Life in Recording: Canadian-Indian Folklore. Folkways Records
 * (ed.) (1958) The Golden Phoenix and Other Fairy Tales from Quebec. Retold by Michael Hornyansky.  Toronto: Oxford University Press.
 * (1958) Medicine-Men on the North Pacific Coast. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.
 * (1958) Pathfinders in the North Pacific. Toronto: Ryerson.
 * (et al.) (1958) Roundelays: Dansons à la Ronde. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.
 * (1960) Indian Days on the Western Prairies. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.
 * (1960) "Huron-Wyandot Traditional Narratives: In Translations and Native Texts." National Museum of Canada Bulletin 165, Anthropological Series 47.
 * (1961) Tsimsyan Myths. (Anthropological Series 51, National Museum of Canada Bulletin 174.)  Ottawa: Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
 * (1962) Jongleur Songs of Old Quebec. Rutgers University Press.
 * (1965–1966) Indiens d'Amérique. 3 vols.  Montréal: Beauchemin.
 * (1968) Louis Jobin, statuaire. Montréal: Beauchemin.
 * (1973) "Totem Poles of the Gitksan, Upper Skeena River, British Columbia." Ottawa: National Museum of Canada. Bulletin no. 61, (ed. Facsimile).

title: Marius Barbeau


text:
Queens Park railway station, Perth

Queens Park Station is a temporarily closed railway station on the Transperth network. It is located on the Armadale and Thornlie lines, 11.4 kilometres from Perth Station serving the suburb of Queens Park, Western Australia.

History
Queens Park Station opened in 1899 as Woodlupine, being renamed Queens Park on 16 April 1912.

In 2012, the station was refurbished.

Future
As part of a Metronet project for several level crossing removals on the Armadale line, Queens Park Station will be rebuilt as an elevated station and the Hamilton Street and Wharf Street level crossings will be replaced with elevated rail. The planned design has Queens Park Station about 100 m closer to Hamilton Street, and the passenger car park underneath the elevated railway. The new station will initially be accessed via stairs and lifts, and its design will allow escalators and fare gates to be added in the future. The new station platforms will be side platforms, as opposed to the current island platforms. This is to reduce the impact of the bridge structure on the surrounding area. The platforms will also be built to the length of a six-car train, as opposed to the current station which only has a length of a four-car train.

Services
Queens Park Station is served by Transperth Armadale and Thornlie line services.

The station saw 238,960 passengers in the 2013-14 financial year.

This station is also served by the twice daily B pattern which is meant as a school special

title: Queens Park railway station, Perth