text:
Talk:Electric organ

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Electronic organ. 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/20111203005708/http://www.rodgersinstruments.com:80/RodgersHistory to http://www.rodgersinstruments.com/RodgersHistory

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) 08:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

History of Electric Organs
The history of electric organs (sections: 1.2 Early electric organs (1897–1930s); 1.3 Tonewheel organs (1930s–1975); 1.4 Electrostatic reed organs (1934–1964))) should/could be made into an individual wiki article - even though it fits to this page since it's part of the history of the electronic organ. SwA (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole set of redirects through various articles related to electronic / electric organs is a bit of a mess, probably because electric organ goes to a completely different topic. I think a more important task is to improve this article's prose and referencing, which is quite lacking. The Hammond organ article itself is not so bad as there are a couple of dedicated book sources to the instrument, and perhaps some of the citations there can be recycled for this article. Certainly Mark Vail's "Vintage Synthesizers" does cover a wide variety of non-Hammond electric and combo organs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply and feedback. You are right, it's probably best to leave this section here. Also there is work to be done to the whole Electrophone category. I will try to add some information and sources in the future. Why did you delete the my redirect from the Hammond organ to the electric organ section of this page? To be more correct one would have to say that the hammond organ belongs to the electromechanical instruments group (http://network.icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/minisites/cimcim/documents/H-S_20classification_20final_20version_20_282013_29_20without_20editorial_20markings-2.pdf). In general electrophones can be devided into electric and electronic instruments. Whereas electromechanical and electroacoustic instruments are belonging to the electric group. So the hammond organ is an electric organ! (Tone wheels produces an electric signal!) If you don't want an extra page for electronic organs shouldn't we then at least redirect to the subsection here? SwA (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why did you delete the my redirect from the Hammond organ to the electric organ section of this page?" That was a mistake - sorry! I thought you were trying to change the lead to say the Hammond was an electronic organ (which it isn't), not trying to clean up the dogs' breakfast of redirects (which is fine). You are correct that as a general rule of thumb, if something has moving parts inside it, it's probably not "electronic", although things have recently got confusing as the Nord Electro, for example, is described as a "virtual electromechanical".
 * As for why electric organ doesn't come here, that's because it goes to the biology article. However, I think there's a good argument to be made that a typical reader wanting to read about the "electric organ" will be looking for the class of instruments. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the Nord Electro should be classified as an electronic instrument... I would like to see a separate article "Electric organ (music)" like there is for Electric piano and Electronic piano maybe someone has time and knowlage to create one. SwA (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * please read the discussion above before editing this article again! Actually some of the instruments (Tonewheel, Tellharmonium,...) in the history section of this page are not electronic but electric organs. In my opinion these should be moved to a separate page. --SwA (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Electric organ, replacing the dab page per WP:TWODABS. Although not unanimous, having read the discussion I think there is a consensus that "Electric organ" is the common name for this instruments, and also that the instrument is primary topic for the term, when compared with the biological term. — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Electronic organ → Electric organ (music) – This is a procedural nomination following this discussion, which saw electric organ moved to electric organ (biology) and the former converted to a DAB. Concerns were raised that that discussion that some "electric organs" are not technically "electronic" and thus provided a misnomer. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. "Electronic" feels like an artificial attempt to move away from the ambiguous Electric organ (ambiguous with the organ of electric fish), but it doesn't quite work.  Early organs didn't use electricity at all.  Then there was a period of use of electricity for power, Pipe_organ in particular.  These organs using electrical power were electric but not electronic.  Subsequently, electronics was introduced, and for a period the "electronic organ" would have been used to distinguish synthesised organ music from a mere electrically powered organ.  In modern times, the word "digital" has supplanted "electronic".  Consequently, the "elecronic organ" best refers to a particular period of technological development.   Better to call them simply "electric organs", a term that covers everything in the article, and to disambiguate from fish with "(music)".  Also, keep well clear of the electronic heart and other biological organs that will become not just electric but electronic.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Having read everything below, I continue to Support the rename Electronic organ → Electric organ (music) as a definite improvement. I Oppose User:Andrewa's alternative proposal as the biological subject of the electric organ is too significant, too entrenched in its literature as "electric organ" for there to be another topic as PrimaryTopic.  Electric organ (biology)/Electric organ (anatomy) used to be at the base name, I agreed it is not PrimaryTopic, but it has strong enough claims to prevent the other topic.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The musical instruments are the primary topic of both electric organ and electronic organ, and they are different topics. This is a bit tricky, as all electric organs are arguably electronic, as are all electric guitars. But in common use, in both guitars and keyboards, if the electronics generate the tone the instrument is electronic, while if they just amplify it (as in for example the Fender Rhodes, tonewheel organ and Gibson SG), the instrument is electric. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , just to double check - you know that electric organ is a disambiguation page, and the majority of your argument makes it sound like you support moving from "electronic" to "electric"? Primefac (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. See . Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support (change of !vote). This discussion has grown too messy for any better proposal to be properly discussed. This is at least an improvement, and addresses the most important issue. Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But prefer the proposal in below. I may yet be proven wrong about it being too messy. Andrewa (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping you participated in the previous RM, so your thoughts here are appreciated. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, per SmokeyJoe's cogent argument. bd2412  T 03:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: I agree that this move would be an improvement, in that the scope of the article is greater than just electronic organs. But I don't think we have justified the two-way DAB, and in that it may be a step backward, see below. And there's lots of room for discussion still about just what the scope of the article is or should be, by whatever name. Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I object to your relisting and undid it. Relisting is an administrative function, and involved parties should not do it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not object to that, but strongly suggest that some other party might now relist. It has not been previously relisted, and discussion has not yet concluded. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Relisting just removes it from the backlog and, contrary to common expectations, reduces exposure and makes it more likely for the discussion to be closed with no new participation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree this is contrary to common expectations, and possibly to reason as well... evidence? Andrewa (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Alternative proposal: Electronic organ -> Electric organ, over the two-way DAB, with a hatnote to the article on the biological/anatomical usage. The primary topics of both electric organ and electronic organ are the musical instruments, in fact even was surprised to discover the other use of electric organ. The non-musical sense of electronic organ is as yet esoteric, and unattested in sources. This article deals with all electric organs including electronic, tone wheel, frequency divider, digital and any others, and should continue to cover this topic (ongoing discussion on whether that includes some pipe organs and if so which does not affect this RM). Discussion on whether a more specialised article is needed at electronic organ or digital organ or both can also continue and does not affect this RM. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was surprised, yes, and having got over the surprise, I cannot deny that there is extensive reputable reliably sourced literature on the biological electric organ. It appears to be an entire field of research.  In contrast, the music "electric organ" is a narrow subtopic of Organ (music), with Organ_(music) combined Organ_(music) having small coverage, and the content of this article, Electronic organ, gives very little coverage to the "electric organ", it is instead a historical list of many types of organs, most not well described as either "electric" nor "electrical".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that this RM as it stands, moving to electric organ (music), is an improvement on the current setup. Andrewa (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal withdrawn to support original RM. Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move to Electric organ, with a hatnote to the other meaning. Common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree --SwA (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose as proposed. I've read through as much of the below back-and-forth as I can, and I don't see evidence that "electric organ" is a more WP:COMMONNAME than "electronic organ", or that there's distinction in the sources between organs that are "electric" and those that are "electronic". They both seem to be terms for the same things, and "electronic organ" is somewhat more common on Google Books ( vs. ) and JSTOR ( vs. ). Without more evidence that "electric organ" is preferable, I don't see the point of moving, especially as the current title is WP:NATURALDIS and thus avoids a parentheses.
 * That said, this subject does seem to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "electric organ" in a WP:TWODABS situation. Since the biology article was moved to electric organ (biology), this article has gotten 72.4% of the page views.|Electric_organ_(biology) It also appears to be far more common on Google Books and JSTOR. As such, I'd support redirecting Electric organ here, with a hat note pointing to the biological organ.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. See below. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Weak Support of original proposal (slight improvement) and Strong Support alternative proposal to move this to Electric organ per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME and the cogent argument below at ; with a hatnote to the biological meaning.. --В²C ☎ 23:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Electric organ is a two-way DAB, the other topic being electric organ (biology). Does anyone really question that the musical instrument is the primary topic for electric organ? I'm fascinated.

But there's another issue which should be taken up at talk:electronic musical instrument. That article, like this one, includes the Hammond for example as electronic. That is contrary to the usage with which I'm familiar, and not consistent with usage regarding the electric guitar... but English is not always logically consistent!

Similar points were made at Talk:Electric_organ_(biology), and also some rather bizarre claims... a pipe organ with an electric pump is not an "electric organ". (Any more than one with electro-pneumatic action is, but that would come closer.)

We badly need to consult some reliable sources, and will probably need to clean up our terminology quite a lot as a result. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... good point. This might be bigger than one RM. Either an RFC or a multi-page RM might be in order, just to sort everything out at once rather than piecemeal. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, "claims... a pipe organ with an electric pump is not an "electric organ", not sure what you are quoting, but I suspect either a misreading or a miswriting. A pipe organ with an electric powered pneumatic pump (the usual kind in the 20th century) would be an "electric organ" but not an "electronic organ". Also, I do dispute that the musical device is the primary-topic because the fish organ is treated as primary within the field of biology. Both terms are derivative of "organ", and that has no primary topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, I'm basing this on my experience as a long-time enthusiast (and I'll add sometimes even maintainer and even builder) of pipe and electric and electronic organs, and suggest again we all badly need to consult some reliable sources, and I'm having a look. The Wiktionary entry is not a reliable source of course, it still seemed worth a look but it repeats the same (IMO) mistake. It's possible I am out of date, but I found your claim that an electric blower turns a pipe organ into an electric organ rather startling. Very interested in your sources. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I too have helped build (rebuild and refurbish), and played a pipe organ. And pumped the belles, fun for a few minutes, not fun thereafter. Also the pipeless pipe organ. My point is that attempting to slot all electric organs at "electronic organ" is a clumsy, artificial, sometimes faulty, action, and that the fish electric organ disrupts all claims for PT. I actually find it grating to see "pipe organ" lumped with electric organs, but if I had someone point to the pipe organ and ask "is that electric" I'm afraid a simple "no" would mislead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)--SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 * True, if you were to say of an electrically blown organ "it's not electric" in many contexts it would be misleading. "The power is off, can we have the service by candlelight?" "No, the organ is electric." But I have sat in massage chairs that were electrically powered, and (thankfully) none of them were electric chairs. Similarly, not all electrically powered organs are electric organs.

 * Pipeless pipe organ and pipeless organ are sales jive IMO, that describe a particular style of electronic organ which is not a pipe organ but sounds and looks and plays (increasingly) like one. But if the terms are in common use we use them of course. It still doesn't make them pipe organs, except in a very specialised context.

 * Mechanical blowers came into widespread use at about the same time that couplers became common, for obvious reasons!

 * Agree that attempting to slot all electric organs at "electronic organ" is a clumsy, artificial, sometimes faulty, action and that it is grating to see "pipe organ" lumped with electric organs, in fact it it just plain wrong IMO.

 * But disagree that the fish electric organ disrupts all claims for PT. It only does this if it's a likely search term or is of long-term significance (or both), both relatively speaking. And it is neither. Andrewa (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I am quite curious, even though it strays off-topic, but why do you say grating to see "pipe organ" lumped with electric organs is wrong? It is because pipe organs are actually not lumped into this article (I think I mistaken thought there was more pipe organ content in this article, but I had mixed it up with the Organ (music) article).

 * I think that in practice that post is unsigned, suggest you sign it with three tildes so as not to put a misleading timestamp on it. And I do not say that grating to see "pipe organ" lumped with electric organs is wrong. I say that I agree with it. It's seeing "pipe organ" lumped with electric organs that is wrong. They are different instruments. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 * the fish electric organ disrupts all claims for PT. This is central to the question.  I was somewhat surprised that sources on aquatic biological electric organs used, very predominantly, the simple term "electric organ", somewhat counter-intuitively, even contrary to my understanding of an anatomical organ (the current generating tissues appears to be specialized cells, specialized from a wide variety of normal cells, and not an anatomical Organ (anatomy), it seems to me that electric organs lack the structural features of an organ).  Very interesting, and I find my self searching for "electric organ" to try to understand it more.  Obviously, it is a viable search term.  Long term significance?  Obviously it is.  Considerable scientific research has gone into it, it is common in the natural world, and may well be primordial.  That is more long term significance than a thousand years of a single species' music making, depending very much on how you look it at.  But most importantly, the reason for alleging a disruption of PT, is that both sorts of readers (fish anatomy vs music), are prone to astonishment on discovering their jump to their presumed primary "electric organ" sees them download a page on the other.  I wrote on this at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_41  You may or may not find that interesting, but I would be interested in hearing your response.
 * Note the separate problem with this status quo, that organs using electrons are not well distinguished from other electric organs as well as they are under the title "digital organ". Could we re-title this article as Digital organ?    — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The question regarding primary topic is not whether the biological term is used, or is a likely term, or is of significance. The question is whether, to the general reader (we are a general encyclopedia), the biological sense is as relatively common or relatively significant. I don't think the average reader even realises that numbfish etc (the numbfish is the only one of which I have experience in the wild) have anything called an electric organ even if they realise that they produce electric shocks. Again we need to look for evidence.
 * I don't think organs using electrons is a particularly helpful phrase, even worse than organs using electricity would be. Is it attested anywhere?
 * Not all electronic organs are digital. The frequency divider organ is electronic but not digital. Andrewa (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I need to stop editing from the phone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't stop! You are as always making relevant and valid points. No contribution is perfect (any more than any article ever is... that's an article (-> of faith here). I do not always agree with you but always value your contributions... and that is the very essence of collaboration. Fewer, more cautious contributions from yourself would I suppose be less stressful on us all, but IMO the project would be the poorer for it. But up to you of course.
 * This is far more complicated than I ever dreamed, see User talk:Andrewa/Pipe vs electric organ. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Are some pipe organs electric organs too
That is, there are hybrids that use both pipes and electronics to produce different sounds, and Rodgers organs (now owned by Roland Corporation which makes them one of the largest manufacturers of pipe organs in the world by the count of instruments sold) have produced some brilliant hybrids. This is not about those. It's originally about organs which produce their sound principally by pipes, in the traditional manner, but which are assisted by electricity to provide the wind pressure.

And I've suggested that organs that use electro-pneumatic action (once quite common and there are still lots around) and more recent hybrid actions such as on the Sydney Opera House Grand Organ should be added to the discussion, as they are even more electric.

I'm hoping this can be settled quite quickly one way or another. So as not to clutter this page with interesting external links that fail wp:RS, see User:Andrewa/Pipe vs electric organ and feel free to add to it. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between "electric" and "electronic"?
To clean up some misunderstandings and help you here is a citation from the Article about electric and electronic instruments from Grove Music Online:

"To the layman the terms ‘electric’ and ‘electronic’ are often not clearly distinguishable; since both electric and electronic devices clearly function by means of electricity, one is apt to use the words interchangeably or with only an imprecise notion of where the distinction between them lies. Technically, electronic devices form a subset of all electric devices, being those, broadly speaking, that incorporate thermionic valves or semiconductors. In common usage, however, ‘electric’ is normally applied not to the whole range of electrically powered devices, but simply to those that are not electronic.

''In discussing musical instruments it is useful to make a similar distinction between ‘electric’ and ‘electronic’ instruments: this article does so on the basis of the method of sound generation. The term ‘electric’ is used of two types of instruments: electroacoustic instruments, which produce sounds, albeit often virtually inaudible, by acoustic methods, and incorporate builtin microphones, pickups or transducers by means of which these vibrations are amplified; and electromechanical instruments, in which the mechanism itself produces no sound but creates a regular fluctuation in an electrical circuit which can be converted into an audio signal. The term ‘electronic’ is used of instruments in which the sound is generated by means of electronic oscillators or digital circuitry."''

Reading the above text I think it should be clear to everybody that there should be two pages: One for Electric Organ (music) and one for Electronic Organ (Please delete the above citation if it's a copyright violation!)--SwA (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Agree and thanks for a great source!

 * This would mean that an electric guitar and a hammond organ were both electric, as opposed to electronic, devices, as neither uses valves or transistors to create the sound. I use the subjunctive would because unfortunately I don't completely agree with Groves! The conclusion is fine but the logic is faulty. Essentially they are saying that an electric guitar would become electronic if it used active electrics (as many modern guitars do). Not so so far as common use goes. The potentiometers in virtually all electric guitars are electronic components, albeit passive ones. In that sense all electric guitars are electronic. But they are not typically electronic instruments.

 * Curiouser and curiouser, Fender do make at least one MIJ bass that incorporates a passive fuzz box. That is borderline to being an electronic instrument... but with passive electrics! Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Part of our problem is that English is not entirely logical. The difference between electric and electronic is context-dependent.

In general an electronic device is also electric, but not conversely. Most electric toasters are not electronic.

Some have tried (as Groves above) to distinguish on the grounds of whether there are electrical amplification circuits present, but this does not always work. An electric guitar with active electrics has such circuits but is not an electronic guitar. All musical instrument amplifiers are electronic devices, but their use is not restricted to electronic music.

And on the other hand, potentiometers such as are used in almost all electric instruments, whether electronic or not, to control the volume (and often other parameters as well) are sold as electronic components. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, an electric guitar is an electric instrument. Your argument is reasonable but the distinction mentioned above is made because of the source of sound (cf. Hornbostel-Sachs): The parts involved with creating the original sound wave of a traditional electric guitar are all electric (pickup and strings). In electric instruments electronic parts can be involved at a later stage (for example for amplification) but the distinction is made at the level of sound production! If however there really are electronic parts involved with the sound production in a specific electric guitar one could consider this specific instrument electronic... In musicological literature the above mentioned classification of electrophones is usually used so I would recommend using it also on wikipedia. --SwA (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you . Yes, this is an excellent point, as H-S is widely adopted in Wikipedia, see User talk:Andrewa/Pipe vs electric organ.

 * But as I note there, our article on Hornbostel–Sachs currently reads in part:

 * Present-day ethnomusicologists, such as Margaret Kartomi (page 173), and Ellingson (PhD dissertation, 1979, p. 544) suggest that, in keeping with the spirit of the original Hornbostel Sachs classification scheme, of categorization by what first produces the initial sound in the instrument, that only subcategory 53 should remain in the electrophones category. Thus it has been more recently proposed that, for example, the pipe organ (even if it uses electric key action to control solenoid valves) remain in the aerophones category, and that the electric guitar remain in the chordophones category, etc..

 * So it seems that more recent sources do not support the simplistic classification currently used by H-S for category 5 (electronic) instruments, and also by online Groves (as described in your previous post above). This attempt at classification has been overtaken by more recent events. It would, for example, see the Fender Jaguar Bass (introduced 2006) classified as an electronic musical instrument.

 * The Fender Jaguar Bass is typical of modern guitars using active electronics (commonly in my experience referred to in this context as active electrics to contrast with passive electrics). I own two such myself, one an acoustic 12 string guitar and the other an acoustic bass guitar. Neither of my guitars would be appropriate for inclusion in our article on electronic musical instruments, nor would current musicologists include either of them in H-S category 5, despite the official H-S classification as it currently stands. Andrewa (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm with you speaking about the Fender Jaguar Bass - I also wouldn't classify it as an electronic instrument but an electroacoustic instrument. My personal opinion is that the distinction between electroacoustic, electromechanic and electronic (= 3 categories of electrophones) would be the best. But then we would need three articles to cover all the organs out there. So for instruments like organ and piano the distinction between electric (=electroacoustic and electromechanic) and electronic might be enough for the article pages... About the “Present-day ethnomusicologists” – the source mentioned in the article is a 1979 dissertation, so it's actually outdated. However the most up to date H-S classification can be found here: Revision of the Hornbostel–Sachs Classification of Musical Instruments by the MIMO Consortium, 8 July 2011
 * The Fender Jaguar Bass is a solid body guitar. If it's electroacoustic... the mind boggles.
 * I'm coming to the view that, while H-S is useful in infoboxes, it has no relevance at all when it comes to Wikipedia article titles. It seems to regularly be counter to common usage, despite recent attempts. See User:Andrewa/Hornbostel Sux. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well yes, according to H-S the Fender Jaguar Bass actually is electroacoustic like every other electric guitar: "513 Electro-acoustic chordophones Electric guitar, Neo-Bechstein electric piano, Yamaha Electric Grand, electric violin" - There is just some mixup of terminology in common usage... and I also agree, you may be right that the H-S classification isn’t always good to use for wikipedia headings since its made for an ethnomusicology approach (comparing instruments all over the world) and also widely used by museums and organologists to classify instruments by their method of sound production (you also wouldn’t use the heading “box zither” for the page about early pianos, haha). But yes, it would be very useful to be used in infoboxes! I think we agree in most of our points. And I’d still suggest to make a distinction between “electric” and “electronic” organ like there is between Electric_piano and Electronic_piano... thanks for the discussion! :-) --SwA (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary topic
I propose that this sense of electric organ is the primary topic by reason of common usage. Most people would have some awareness of these electric organs, while only a few would realise that this is what the shock-producing tissues found in some animals are called. Searching on "Electric organ" music -Wikipedia gave me more than twice the number of ghits as "Electric organ" animal -Wikipedia.

By significance I would call either a tie or a slight advantage to music again. The electric organ was an enormously significant part of 20th century music, leading to the synthesizer, midi interface and electronic music. Is music as significant as biology? If so we have another win for the musical sense.

Comments welcome. If there is no consensus that there is a primary topic, or if there is no consensus as to what it is, then I'd support assuming that there is no primary topic and in this case that means keeping the two-way DAB at the base name. But I think it's worth having a go at building consensus that the musical instrument is the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No primary topic. Let the result of Talk:Electric_organ_(biology) stand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That RM did not resolve the question of whether there is a PT, you were in fact the only participant in it to express that view. Several others expressed doubt, one said there is a clear primary topic but did not say what it is, one supported a DAB but did not say why, and the closer supported a DAB for practical reasons and foreshadowed this RM. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do definitely hold the view. Attempting to slot all things biological into "electric organ" and all things musical into "electronic organ" is flawed.  The technical distinction between electric and electronic is too technical, and even if accepted, there is still cross-over both ways, at least one kind of musical organ is electric but not electronic, and at least one artificial biological organ is electronic.  Looking forward, it only gets worse.  New music organs are no long electronic, but "digital", and artificial biological "electronic organs" are increasingly coming.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with some of this, but... some of it is a bit strange...

Attempting to slot all things biological into "electric organ" and all things musical into "electronic organ" is flawed. Agree

The technical distinction between electric and electronic is too technical Rubbish. Too technical for what? Yes, it's tricky, but we have clear naming conventions that work well when they are followed, and here is no exception.
 * Too technical for the readership. Using this fine distinction will confuse many readers. Better to parenthetically disambiguate with "(music)" or "(anatomy)", consistent with the disambigiation of Organ (music) from Organ (anatomy). For both, the electrical kinds are subtopics, and generally speaking a subtopic should maintain consistency in titling with the parent topic, for the sake of the readership.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The consistency with organ {music) and organ (anatomy) is a valid argument, but it would be far stronger if our article was at organ (biology), that's currently a redirect... should we fix that? I think not, that sort of consistency is not a terribly strong argument. But more important, it's not the argument I was criticising at all. We do sometimes need to be aware of technical subtleties in our article titling. To ignore them or get them just plain wrong (as for example implying that the Sydney Town Hall pipe organ is an electric organ) is far more confusing. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

and even if accepted, there is still cross-over both ways Agree

at least one kind of musical organ is electric but not electronic Agree

and at least one artificial biological organ is electronic Agree

Looking forward, it only gets worse. Agree. Important to get it right.

New music organs are no long electronic, but "digital" Rubbish. All digital organs (musical and otherwise) so far and foreseeably are electronic (but I could design and build you one using only fluidics and maybe someone already has). Non-digital electronic organs are important historically, so we need to cover them. I think you mean we could cover the musical topic with two articles, one on electric organs and the other specifically on digital organs, and have no article on the topic of electronic organs but just cover the topic in those two. I don't think that helps.
 * Rephrasing with new characters underlined: New music organs are no long er commonly described and advertised as electronic, but "digital"
 * Agree. Actually they were never widely advertised as electronic in this country. They went straight from electric to digital in sales literature. Andrewa (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

and artificial biological "electronic organs" are increasingly coming Agree

But I really don't see where this is heading. Arguments on PT generally revolve around common use and/or cultural significance. Are you suggesting that in medicine, artificial electric organs and/or artificial electronic organs are relevant to this discussion? What about wp:ball? Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Two interspersed comments added above in blue. Where this is heading?  You are taking this backwards and forwards.  The question is whether to disambiguate organs with "(music)" and "(anatomy)", or to attempt natural disambiguation using the difference between "electric" and "electronic".  In the middle of this, you have posed a new question on whether electric organs (music) have PrimaryTopic status over biological electric organs.  By doing this, you risk obfuscating the question.  I disagree with your position on primary topic, and think that if you want to pursue it, do so AFTER the close of this "Electronic organ" → "Electric organ (music)" question.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Please, stick to the issues rather than making personal comments.

 * No, the choice is nothing like that. There are two unrelated issues. It would be better surely to sort both out now rather than need a second RM?

 * This subsection (which I started) is on the question of primary topic. There is another section above which I did not start that deals with that issue. And we seem to me to agree on it, whether or not it is too technical, but take that up in that section please.

 * I strongly suggest we keep the focus of these sections, to best avoid taking this backwards and forwards. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 * How about your try explicitly scoring options? For me, it would be:

 * Electronic organ (status quo) 4.5/10.  Not absurd, but ambiguous with Electric organ
 * Electric organ (music) 8/10.  Consistent with Organ (music).
 * Electric organ 3/10. Highly ambiguous with biological electric organs.

 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * That again confuses the two issues, but if you think it helps I'll have a go at . Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that electronic instrument currently is a primary redirect to electronic musical instrument and has been since January 2003, despite there being many non-musical electronic instruments, see electronic instrumentation. That again underlines the long-term significance of the topic areas of electric and electronic musical instruments. Andrewa (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Explicitly scoring options
As suggested above. Does that help? It seems rather subjective to me. Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Your non-answer to Primefac (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Electronic organ (status quo) 4.5/10.  Not absurd, but ambiguous with Electric organ.
 * Not ambiguous with "electric organ" at all, that just confuses the issues. Fails to cover the scope of the article, which includes tone-wheel organs for example. 1/10 as it's not completely absurd.
 * Ambiguous with the biological electrical organ, the primary topic for some people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If we were to allow that argument, we could retire the (disambiguation) suffix. Every DAB would be at its base name, as every line in it is likely to be the primary topic for some people. Andrewa (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. The assumption is that a large number of people aware aware of the biological electric organs, and not aware of musical electric organs. Maybe I am not completely convinced of this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what I understood the primary topic for some people to mean. It seems you mean the primary topic for many people. And again I ask, evidence? The first statement was trivial, the revised one is a lot stronger. But there's another problem... PT is one of Wikipedia's most important technical terms. We evaluate PT according to our own criteria. We very much consider other people's usage in doing this, but the PT criteria themselves are decided and interpreted by the Wikipedia community. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrewa. No no no.  I have written some things poorly, and you have misconstrued them worse, and attempting to get back on track from here looks hopeless.  Can we just agree to move this page to Electric organ (music), wrap this whole mess up, and then start a fresh RM on the question of  Electric organ (music)  → Electric organ, and start again on the question of PrimaryTopic of "Electric organ".  Do a proper, logical PT review based on the guideline.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that is now the best way forward. !vote will be updated accordingly. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Electric organ (music) 8/10.  Consistent with Organ (music).
 * 9/10. Unnecessary disambiguation. The musical use is the PT by both normal criteria. But not a big issue.
 * Electric organ 3/10. Highly ambiguous with biological electric organs.
 * 10/10. The ambiguity is perfectly resolved by disambiguating the esoteric use of the term, as per our normal practice and guidelines. There is no reason to deviate from them.
 * I think it helps. It tells me we are just wasting time talking about what is wrong with the status quo, in the end we neither support the status quo. The disagreement is about electric organ. That question is out of scope for this RM. This RM should be closed (somehow), and later you can start a RM at Talk:Electric organ. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is consensus to move, and we are working towards consensus on the destination. That seems a good reason to relist rather than close the RM to me. Not to you? Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Relisting is weird and useless. When participants start relisting, it resembles a WP:GAME. This is the wrong location, with inadequate notifications, to displace Electric organ, and I will oppose for reasons already stated. I support the proposal as stated, and on it your position is unclear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly is unclear about my position?
 * What a mess your mixed indents make!
 * , do you know what the problem is here? I am keen to answer clearly. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I honestly have no idea what's going on in this discussion between you two. I stopped paying attention once the discussion hit its third subsection. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for the reply., can you be specific on the important question for which I have given a non-answer that makes my position unclear? Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * If you wish to raise a behavioural issue please do so on my talk page. Andrewa (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's nothing "behavioural" as such, but extensive comment on tangential questions, without addressing the central question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fascinating... And that is not a behavioural issue? And you linked to WP:gaming the system above... Why? Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because participants relisting looks like gaming, not because I seriously think you are intentionally gaming. I actually think you mistakenly believe that relisting attracts wider attention.  If you want wider attention, I suggest inviting the list of authors of the article, from top down.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support inviting authors from that list. (Suggest also relisting (-> to give them a chance - pointless otherwise.) Suggest that we restrict to signed-in editors with more than 1 non-minor edit, and exclude bots, but not all that important. Any other appropriate filters you'd suggest? Just need to avoid canvassing of course, that's why I seek comments here rather than just doing it. Andrewa (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We might want to simplify the question before they arrive cold to find all this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a go a while back at . Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that a notification at the recently created two-way DAB currently at electric organ was really necessary, but technically you are right, it should be there and is now. Another reason to relist, surely? It may save some time later on, and costs very little. Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Where we are
Assessing consensus is of course for the closer (or relister). But here is why I think discussion should continue, and along which lines. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed
A move is required.

There is no need to disambiguate electronic organ, as non-musical electronic organs are rare and largely speculative. The musical use is the primary topic, in fact trivially so, as there are no other articles that could be titled electronic organ.

The term electric organ includes some musical instruments that are not electronic organs, but does not include all pipe organs that are electrically assisted, any more than the term electric chair includes electrically operated massage chairs.

Any dissent from these? Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It now also seems agreed that the move should be to the base name electric organ, see below. Andrewa (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not agreed
I believe that the musical use of electric organ is its primary topic. This is disputed.

 * It may be that this is now accepted, see below. Andrewa (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Are any others relevant?

I also think we badly need more input on this. The rambling and messy discussion above has (predictably) discouraged others from participating. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Analysis by another editor
I've chosen to approach this from first principles, rather than to comment on the existing debate.
 * 1) I had never heard of an "electronic organ" before I came across this article. I had to read some of it to assure myself that it's about what for over 50 years I have called "electric organs". I found the title confusing.
 * 2) "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC).
 * 3) I find it difficult to believe that anyone who knows the meaning of "electric organ" in biology does not also know its meaning in music. I find it easy to believe that many people who know the musical meaning do not know the biological one.
 * 4) Page views aren't everything, but the figures for the last 30 days are 4850 for music and 657 for biology.
 * 5) "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed" (from WP:TWODABS).
 * 6) My opinion. The musical meaning is the primary topic, and this article should be moved to Electric organ. An about hatnote should be added linking it to the biological article. Narky Blert (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Narky is right. The page views I was not sure about, they show near zero before recently, there might be a mistake.  I think I can agree, the biological electric organ is the subject of scientists, and all of them know about music.  When things are confusing, I sometimes resort to a google image search. The google image search for "electric organ" shows 80 musical organs before the first biology image.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about the biology/music question. But I don't agree about the "electronic" vs. "electric" - yes, it's reasonable that one might not know the difference of the two terms. But from a musicology/technical point of few calling a tonewheel organ (like the Hammond organ) an electronic organ is just simply wrong (I know that the term is used anyway). Isn’t a platform like wikipedia ment to educate people? So why not handle it like on the pages for Electric_piano and Electronic_piano (they even reference to each other with “Not to be confused with”). The problem at the moment is that this article handles the history of the electronic organ including its predecessor the electric organ. Because of that I can only suggest to leave the title electronic organ as long as there is no second article about electric organs in detail. --SwA (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The impression I get is that musicologists (as represented by H-S) are completely out of touch with common usage on the matter of electric versus electronic instruments... and not for the first time, castenets are still described as concussive rather than percussive, and the term percussion appears nowhere above castanets in the classification tree, while the clarinet was until recently described as a percussive reed. It's not their fault, rather organology is a specialised field with its own jargon which is not terribly useful in describing the instruments used by Booker T etc. in article titles for a general encyclopeda. Nor are they even consistent... I keep coming back to the Fender Jaguar Bass, which is no more part of electronic music than is the Fender Precision Bass, yet H-S regards one as electronic and the other as electric. Common usage (as exemplified in our own article which describes the Jaguar as an electric bass guitar, my emphasis added) is even a lot more logical in this case! Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: There is a similar problem in the German article about the electronic/electric piano. The terms are also mixed. But in the top section there is a short sentence describing the technical meaning of the terms. Maybe directing both electronic and electric organ to this article and explaining the difference in the top section would be a solution? What do you think? (Sorry, I’m kind of opening a new topic here...) --SwA (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This suggests to me that unless (or perhaps until) we have two articles, the title should be electric organ (the broader term) and electronic organ should redirect to a section of it. And the point has been made elsewhere, the term electronic organ was relatively shortlived in sales literature (if it appeared at all)... it went from being electric organ to digital organ (a still narrower term). Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal revisited
Consensus is of course assessed by the closer, not by an involved party like me. But I think we could and should help them a bit.

's proposal (their 6 above) seems to me to have consensus support in the discussion section they started. However this is not at all reflected in the poll above.

,, , , I think you should revisit your !votes. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I'll support any route which ends in WP:CONSENSUS (preferably quickly), leaves as many people as possible happy, and makes life easy for the closer - and, most importantly of all, makes life easy for the readers. That said: (1) makes a good point: "electronic organ" should perhaps be split out of "electric organ" as a sufficiently different topic. (2)  - Digital organ??? Pass me the smelling salts! Those have been around since C16 or earlier. Digital/pedal organs came later. (3) From memory, an early term was "Hammond organ" or just "Hammond" (as on e.g. "Green Onions" (1962)). By 1965, it had been shortened to "organ" (The One in the Middle - "Manfred Mann plays the organ"). It may then have got expanded to "electric organ" to include things like the Moog (the article mentions an "organ-style keyboard").
 * A certain class of musicologist might try to prescribe "correct" names for instruments - but how many of them can stick a harp in their shirt pocket? If a reader comes across a technical term somewhere and wants to learn more, Wiki should make it as easy as possible for them to get to the right place. Narky Blert (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Agree except digital organ is actually a likely search term and common name for a (relatively) recently developed class of instruments enjoying a great deal of current popularity. When I Google "digital organ" church choir I get 36,800 ghits, and all of the first few pages are relevant. And not sure the Moog was ever described as electric, I think it was always electronic, it is on the cover notes of my (vinyl!) copy of Switched-On Bach. But for the rest, exactly, and well put. The tone-wheel organ was indeed often just called the Hammond, as in Hammond for Dancing (hmmm, redlink, another of my vinyl archives see here for the cover and youtube). Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I think a link from digital organ to this article would also make sense as long as there is no separate article.. --SwA (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree that digital organ is a plausible search term and should redirect somewhere useful (e.g. here). My Inner Pedant was only objecting to its coinage. If it's in current use, readers need to be able to find it. (The liner notes to Switched-On Bach II as well (yep, vinyl! and Wendy Carlos was still Walter when I bought my copy) say "electronic" and "synthesizer", not "electric", and don't mention organs.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which further supports the view that the Moog is an electronic instrument, but that it's not any kind of organ despite what our article currently says, so relevant to the wider discussion but not to this particular RM. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 * My Opinion: (1) redirect all terms to this article and add terminology explanation: From a musicology/organology point of view the terms electric organ (electroacoustic, electromechanic) and electronic organ (analog, digital) point to specific features (sound generating mechanisms). Helping to systematically order and distinguish these instruments. For the common reader it may make no difference which term is used when they just want to find out something about these organs. So I think it’s a good idea to link all those (or some of them) to the already existing article, which summarizes/includes the history of all kinds of electro-organs (=my new term creation, haha). (2) maybe create two separate articles in the future for electric and electronic: If anybody finds time to create separate articles in the future it would be a valuable addition. But then it would be useful to link these two articles in the top section. (compare: Electronic_piano and Electric_piano) --SwA (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support both stages of this proposal. But I note it doesn't say what this article should be called.
 * Oh, sorry - about the title: I’m not sure about if “electronic” or “electric” organ is the most common or most known term. I think it’s best to use the more common. But then in the current state a title like “Electric and Electronic Organs” would suit it the best... --SwA (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to go with electric organ as the more general term. AFAIK there are no non-digital electric (or electronic) organs still in production, even the latest Hammond (brand) organs are digital. So in that sense, the others are obsolete; Collectors, enthusiasts and museums only. But the generic term is electric organ. The problem is, the web is clogged with sales jive from people who want to sell pipeless organs, digital organs, etc.. And the sales commissions on some of these instruments are a significant part of their cost, so there's lots of incentive to jive! Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We may as well look at the problematical article at electronic keyboard while we're at it... lots of good stuff there, well written but poorly sourced and rightly flagged with multiple issues since 2009. And there may be others, see Category:Electric and electronic keyboard instruments. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, interesting situation. Well we could open a discussion there about the subcategories... feel free to mention/tag me wherever you want to discuss. --SwA (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Musical Instruments looks moderately active, and I notice they have demoted me from member to honoured guest, presumably for inactivity. Perhaps we could organise an electric and electronic instruments working bee. Andrewa (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I still support the original proposal. I am much, but not entirely, weakened on opinion about the PrimaryTopic for "electric organ".  Music appears much bigger, but within the biological literature, "electric organ" is never disambiguated from music, which leaves open a small concern of astonishment. I find myself wishing for more clarity on the music subjects of "electric organ" vs "electronic organ" vs "digital organ" vs keyboard synthesizers that can include organ music amongst everything else.  I am definitely not as far into this as Andrewa or Swa.  I grew up familiar with "pipe organs" vs "electric organs", as found, one or the other or both, in churches and halls.  An "electronic organ" sounds like a reference to more modern synthesised music, and I understood to have transitioned sometime since the 1970s into "digital music".   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I rather like the phrasing of point 3 above: I find it difficult to believe that anyone who knows the meaning of "electric organ" in biology does not also know its meaning in music. I find it easy to believe that many people who know the musical meaning do not know the biological one. Perhaps this could even be a third primary topic criterion, I think we already apply it from time to time but I've never seen it as well expressed before. Of course it relates to usage, but it's a different and I think helpful way of looking at usage. Their point 4 regarding page views (of which I am not normally a fan) is relevant too IMO, 4850 for music and 657 for biology looks significant. Andrewa (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Is usage changing
The latest analysis by makes me wonder whether part of the problem here is that usage is changing.

The tonewheel hammond was in its day certainly called an electric organ, and never an electronic organ. Similarly, the frequency divider organ was in its day always called electronic, it was also electric but the distinction between electric and electronic was universally understood and important both to the fans and to the salespeople of both instruments.

But today's Hammonds (capital to indicate brand) are electronic, and perhaps the distinction between electric and electronic is blurring in common use. (And the Hammond Organ Company would certainly now like it forgotten, in the interests of their current sales objectives!)

There is a grating inconsistency between this usage for keyboard instruments and that with regard to electric guitar, which I would argue is the most significant electric or electronic instrument so far (with the electric/electronic keyboard a close second). But English is not always logical, and it is not our quest here to reform it. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Electric organ. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rodgersinstruments.com/RodgersHistory
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201122808/http://myorgan.sourceforge.net/ to http://myorgan.sourceforge.net/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103071538/http://www.jungleboffin.com/mp3/organ/ to http://www.jungleboffin.com/mp3/organ/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Kawai T50.jpg

WURLITZER 4000 electric organ prototype SER NO. 323224
I desperately need someone who has any information on this organ. 2603:6011:1200:37FA:F083:A72C:37F9:DFCB (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electric organ


text:
Coloured Petri net

Coloured Petri nets are a backward compatible extension of the mathematical concept of Petri nets.

Coloured Petri nets preserve useful properties of Petri nets and at the same time extend the initial formalism to allow the distinction between tokens.

Coloured Petri nets allow tokens to have a data value attached to them. This attached data value is called the token color. Although the color can be of arbitrarily complex type, places in coloured Petri nets usually contain tokens of one type. This type is called the color set of the place.

Definition 1. A net is a tuple N = (P, T, A, Σ, C, N, E, G, I ) where: In coloured Petri nets, sets of places, transitions and arcs are pairwise disjoint P ∩ T = P ∩ A = T ∩ A = ∅ Use of node function and arc expression function allows multiple arcs connect the same pair of nodes with different arc expressions.
 * P is a set of places.
 * T is a set of transitions.
 * A is a set of arcs
 * Σ is a set of color sets. This set contains all possible colors, operations and functions used within the coloured Petri net.
 * C is a color function. It maps places in P into colors in Σ.
 * N is a node function. It maps A into (P × T) ∪ (T × P).
 * E is an arc expression function. It maps each arc a ∈ A into the expression e. The input and output types of the arc expressions must correspond to the type of the nodes the arc is connected to.
 * G is a guard function. It maps each transition t ∈ T to a guard expression g. The output of the guard expression should evaluate to a Boolean value (true or false). If false, t cannot be fired.

 * I is an initialization function. It maps each place p into an initialization expression i. The initialization expression must evaluate to multiset of tokens with a color corresponding to the color of the place C(p).

A well-known program for working with coloured Petri nets is cpntools.

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

title: Coloured Petri net


text:
List of railway lines in Finland

This is a list of railway lines on the Finnish rail network, including lists of stations on the most important lines. The lines and the stations are owned by the Finnish Transport Agency. VR Group has a monopoly on passenger transport. As of 2011, it is the only operator of freight trains as well even though freight transport is open for private companies.

Line 1: Helsinki–Turku (Rantarata/Kustbanan)

{|
 * - style="vertical-align:top"

Line 5: Helsinki–Vaasa

 * - style="vertical-align:top"

Line 9: Turku–Pieksämäki

 * Turku Harbour
 * Turku Central
 * Loimaa
 * Humppila
 * Toijala
 * Tampere
 * Orivesi
 * Jämsä
 * Jyväskylä
 * Hankasalmi
 * Pieksämäki

Line 13: Helsinki–Oulu

 * Helsinki Central
 * Pasila
 * Tikkurila
 * Lahti
 * Kouvola
 * Mäntyharju
 * Mikkeli
 * Pieksämäki
 * Suonenjoki
 * Kuopio
 * Siilinjärvi
 * Lapinlahti
 * Iisalmi
 * Sukeva
 * Kajaani
 * Vaala
 * Utajärvi
 * Muhos
 * Oulu
 * - style="vertical-align:top"

Line 14: Helsinki–Nurmes

 * Helsinki Central
 * Pasila
 * Tikkurila
 * Lahti
 * Kouvola
 * Lappeenranta
 * Joutseno
 * Imatra
 * Simpele
 * Parikkala
 * Kesälahti
 * Kitee
 * Joensuu
 * Eno
 * Uimaharju
 * Vuonislahti
 * Lieksa
 * Kylänlahti
 * Höljäkkä
 * Kohtavaara
 * Nurmes

Line 16: Savonlinna–Parikkala

 * Savonlinna (current)
 * Pääskylahti
 * Kerimäki
 * Retretti
 * Lusto
 * Punkaharju
 * Parikkala
 * }
 * }

International line A: Helsinki–Moscow

 * Helsinki Central
 * Pasila
 * Tikkurila
 * Lahti
 * Kouvola
 * Vainikkala
 * Vyborg
 * St Petersburg Finland terminal
 * St Petersburg Ladozhsky terminal
 * Tver
 * Moscow Leningradsky terminal

Other lines

 * Line 2: Karis–Hanko (Hanko–Hyvinkää railway)
 * Line 3: Helsinki–Tampere
 * Line 9: Turku–Tampere–Jyväskylä–Joensuu
 * Line 11: Tampere–Haapamäki–Seinäjoki
 * Line 12: Helsinki–Kotka
 * Line 13: Helsinki–Kuopio–Oulu
 * Line 18: Iisalmi–Ylivieska

 * See also: Lapponia (train)

Future lines

 * Arctic Railway
 * Helsinki City Rail Loop
 * Helsinki–Turku high-speed railway
 * Itärata
 * Lentorata

title: List of railway lines in Finland


text:
User:Dagda~enwiki

Dagda is a nickname I have used for some time, it doesn't have any direct connection to the mythical Irish god The Dagda, although I do enjoy reading and researching mythologies. Other interests include, cooking, wine and whiskey, painting, and music.

title: User:Dagda~enwiki


text: User:TrinityC

title: User:TrinityC


text:
Category:Looking Glass Studios games

These games were created or co-developed by the now-closed Looking Glass Studios.

title: Category:Looking Glass Studios games


text:
Talk:Higher Life movement

Theodore Monod?
Does anyone know who Theodore Monod, referenced here, was? He wasn't the Dean of Canterbury in 1874 or any other time, as far as I can tell - certainly Canterbury Cathedral don't seem to think so. Shimgray 13:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See Adolphe Monod, whose full name was Adolphe-Louis-Frédéric-Théodore Monod. DFH 19:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The main article no longer refers to him. DFH 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Higher Life movement. 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/20080320234616/http://www.dbts.edu/5-1/5-14.asp to http://dbts.edu/5-1/5-14.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008094601/http://www.babylonfalls.org/forchristians/exchangedlife11july06.html to http://www.babylonfalls.org/forchristians/exchangedlife11july06.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) 18:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Original document
Hello. Thank you for the comments. In Bernie A. Van De Walle, The Heart of the Gospel: A. B. Simpson, the Fourfold Gospel, and Late Nineteenth-Century Evangelical Theology, Wipf and Stock Publishers, USA, 2009, p. 93: "Despite similarities, Simpson's sanctification doctrine included its own distinctives, not duplicating either Keswick or Holiness soteriology". The official website says: Conversion and Sanctification in the Christian & Missionary Alliance, awf.world, Brazil, 1992 : "He differed in some notable ways from the teachings of his contemporaries: he rejected the perfectionism of the Wesleyan-methodists; he did not accept the suppressionism of the Keswick movement." And "In these respects, the C&MA is distinct from the Keswick movement. The Alliance heritage is more life and work affirming. Our actions in the world do make a difference and are meaningful." Despite some influences from the Holiness movement and the Higher Life movement, the Alliance has distinct beliefs, especially because it believes in progressive sanctification. Van De Walle : p. 99: "Nevertheless, Simpson still held to a progressive understanding of sanctification, whereas Palmer believed that sanctification is received in some kind of terminal and complete form." (see also [“progressive” experience on official website]). Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Nathan B2, please read WP:RS, which states that an article should consist of "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Your edit covertly removed the position taken by mainstream academics in reliable sources, along with those references themselves. This is unacceptable. I didn't notice that you made such a change until I saw the edit summary of User:AnomieBOT who restored the references you deleted without an edit summary. Your own references that you added state that "Often the assertion is made that Simpson held to a Keswick-type view of sanctification" and that "Simpson operates within a Keswick framework". My rewording is enough of a WP:COMPROMISE in that it acknowledges that "Albert Benjamin Simpson differed from historic Keswickian beliefs in that he believed in progressive sanctification". A minority view of one author does not warrant erasing what the plurality of academic consensus states and such behaviour also violates the aforementioned policy. If you attempt to WP:CENSOR reliably sourced information again, I will not hesitate to revert you. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Some editors got it wrong. This is why the position of the official website of the organization, confirmed by other editors who are not deceived, must be clarified before the one which is not recognized by the organization. Identifying_and_using_primary_sources and Identifying_and_using_primary_sources : "Primary sources be reliable, and they  be used.  Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources”. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the website of hate group (a primary source) states that they do not promote racism, that does not make it true. The very policy you cite (WP:SECONDARY) discourages the use of primary sources and instead states that "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources". Remember, WP:TRUTH, which affirms that would secondary sources state, rather than what you might perceive as "the truth" is what is included in articles. The position of the one author you added has been included in the article. That will suffice, though even still, it should probably be attributed per WP:ATT since it differs from what other sources say while at the same time acknowledging that "Often the assertion is made that Simpson held to a Keswick-type view of sanctification". Apart from this, the website you provided says nothing about not being Keswickian in theological orientation. AnupamTalk 23:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . The point raised is a controversy that can be ambiguous. But in this case, it is a belief that is explicitly contradictory. Specialized literature confirms the official position of the organization. The official website says: “he did not accept the suppressionism of the Keswick movement” and Bernie A. Van De Walle, The Heart of the Gospel: A. B. Simpson, the Fourfold Gospel, and Late Nineteenth-Century Evangelical Theology, Wipf and Stock Publishers, USA, 2009, p. 93: "Despite similarities, Simpson's sanctification doctrine included its own distinctives, not duplicating either Keswick or Holiness soteriology". The majority position must therefore be explained before contradictory opinions. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the website (a primary source) states that he "he did not accept the suppressionism of the Keswick movement". That does not make him non-Keswickian; that simply means he departs from historic Keswickian teaching. Leonard Feeney might have advocated a stricter interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus but that does not make him non-Catholic. Anyways, I can include this point in the article in the last sentence of the paragraph. AnupamTalk 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . Bernie A. Van De Walle, The Heart of the Gospel: A. B. Simpson, the Fourfold Gospel, and Late Nineteenth-Century Evangelical Theology, Wipf and Stock Publishers, USA, 2009, p. 94 : "Other than an 1885 invitation to speak at one of their conferences, Simpson had little formal contact with the British Keswick movement". --Nathan B2 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:ATT, I've attributed the personal view of Bernie A. Van De Walle, who believes that Simpson separated from historic Keswickian theology. Since you included the quote parameter, that can be accessed through the references. AnupamTalk 00:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . Wiki: Keswick movement (…) that espouses a distinct teaching on the doctrine of entire sanctification. Simpson believed in progressive sanctification”. The link with the subject is weak. Many publishers see the beliefs as part of the holiness movement (George Thomas Kurian, Mark A. Lamport, Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States, Volume 5, Rowman & Littlefield, USA, 2016, p. 462). This opinion should also be mentioned. For the sake of neutrality and consistency with the articles, one of the two opinions contradicting that of the organization should not be favored. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, User:Nathan B2. The link with the subject is not weak but meets what the sources state, including those you have provided. I've included the minority opinion of the one author you cited, along with the majority view per WP:RS. What is in the article now is enough of a WP:COMPROMISE with what you wanted to be included. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We have plenty of references, including your own, that characterize Simpson and his denomination as Keswickian; you do not get to remove them because you don't like it. AnupamTalk 00:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Either the article can read as it does now since Bernie A. Van De Walle is cited, or you can modify the sentence to state: "Albert Benjamin Simpson departed from historic Keswickian beliefs, however, in that he believed in progressive sanctification and rejected suppressionism." The references make it clear who is making the claim. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. AnupamTalk 00:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . 3 references confirm : Bernie A. Van De Walle quotes various authors (Gilbertson and McGraw) + Gordon T. Smith 1992 + the official website), compared to 2 references to the contrary. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No User:Nathan B2, I don't agree with your changes. Bernie A. Van De Walle only quotes Gilbertson and McGraw, which you have not presented here. I agreed to a WP:COMPROMISE version with you. Please do not cross the line. I've added "unique distinctives" to the lede, which makes it clear that the Christian Missionary & Alliance affirms a modified form of Keswickian theology. AnupamTalk 01:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . The important thing is :Simpson and the Alliance believe in progressive sanctification. And that will be correct. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you have accepted the revision. I will leave your addition of "progressive" intact. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again User:Nathan B2 you are modifying what we agreed to. Please stop. The plurality of sources characterize the CMA as Keswickian. I've included the minority opinion. Please do not modify it further. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . This is to mention the influence of the holiness movement also cited in the sources. And that will be correct. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No! This article is about the Higher Life movement and not the holiness movement. The reference I added specifically states that the CMA accepted the Keswickian view and rejected the Wesleyan-Holiness view. Please do not edit war as the recent revision is most accurate. The article about the CMA has a paragraph on how it departs from Wesleyan-Holiness doctrine. It is WP:UNDUE here. AnupamTalk 01:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Blackwood
Sir Stevenson Arthur Blackwood, K.C.B., general secretary of the General Post Office, is notable enough that there probably should be an article about him. He was a high-ranking civil servant and an evangelical preacher; and father of Algernon Blackwood. But he was not one of the Earls of Chichester and not even related to them. Orange Mike |  Talk  01:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Higher Life movement


text: User:Slamdo

title: User:Slamdo


text:
Castle of Frankenstein

Castle of Frankenstein is an American horror, science fiction and fantasy film magazine first published between 1962 and 1975 by Calvin Thomas Beck's Gothic Castle Publishing Company, distributed by Kable News. Larry Ivie—who also was cover artist for several early issues—and Ken Beale edited the first three issues. Writer-artist Bhob Stewart edited the magazine from 1963 into the early 1970s. Although promoted and sold as a "monster magazine," readers were aware that Castle of Frankenstein, at the time, was the only nationally distributed magazine devoted to a legitimate and serious coverage of B movies. In addition to its central focus on classic and current horror films, Castle of Frankenstein also devoted pages to amateur filmmakers and fanzines. Its advertising pages sold full-length silent feature films such as The Lost World and The Golem: How He Came into the World.

History
Following employment as an editor for publisher Joe Weider, Calvin Beck (1929–1989) entered the monster magazine arena in 1959 with his one-shot issue Journal of Frankenstein, which featured John Zacherle on the cover and had a small circulation. As an experiment, Beck printed part of the run on slick paper. After a hiatus and a title change, Beck returned with Castle of Frankenstein #1 in 1962.

Beck claimed that since his magazine carried no outside advertising, a standardized schedule was unneeded. Issues were published whenever they were completed, leading to an erratic, irregular schedule. Distribution also varied; while many well-stocked periodical outlets did not carry the magazine, some less-likely outlets (such as grocery stores) did.

The magazine ran 25 issues, plus one annual (the 1967 Fearbook); the final issue of this initial run was published in 1975.

In 1999, publisher Dennis Druktenis revived both Castle of Frankenstein (releasing 10 more issues) and the original title Journal of Frankenstein (releasing five more issues). 2021 In 2021, publishers Don and Vicki Smeraldi once again revived "Castle of Frankenstein," issuing #36 in October, with plans to release new issues twice a year every spring and fall. In 2024, the Smeraldis were inducted into the Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards' Monster Kid Hall of Fame.

Contributors
In addition to book reviews by Charles Collins and Lin Carter, contributors included Barry Brown, Richard A. Lupoff and William K. Everson.

Inspired by the ratings and reviews of films in Cahiers du Cinéma, Stewart introduced a similar system with the "Comic Book Council". Commentary and ratings of underground comics were juxtaposed with reviews of mainstream comics. Another feature was the "Frankenstein Movieguide", an attempt to document all fantastic films seen on television with capsule reviews written by Joe Dante and Stewart. Included were experimental and foreign art films.

With new art and reprints of vintage fantasy art, the magazine published such artists as Aubrey Beardsley, Hannes Bok, Harry Clarke, Virgil Finlay, Jim Steranko, Wally Wood and Weird Tales illustrator Matt Fox. Color photos rather than paintings were used on the covers of issues 6-14. With issue 11's cover photo of Leonard Nimoy, Castle of Frankenstein was the first magazine to feature Star Trek as a major cover story. Other issues displayed cover paintings by Robert Adragna, Marcus Boas, Bok, Frank Brunner, Maelo Cintron, Larry Ivie, Russ Jones, Ken Kelly, Los Angeles painter Tom Maher and Lee Wanagiel.

Interior art included graphic stories by Ivie, Brunner, Bernie Wrightson and the team of Marv Wolfman and Len Wein, plus the first published comics page by Marvel artist-writer-editor Larry Hama. Castle of Frankenstein also carried an original comic strip, Baron von Bungle by Richard Bojarski, which gave a humorous twist to the world depicted in Universal horror films.

Books
Beck, with an editorial assist by fantasy fiction scholar Haywood P. Norton, assembled the paperback anthology The Frankenstein Reader (Ballantine Books, 1962). The book republished vintage horror-fantasy tales by E. F. Benson, Ambrose Bierce, Robert W. Chambers, Ralph Adams Cram, Charles Dickens, Amelia B. Edwards, Katharine Fullerton Gerould, Richard Middleton, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, Robert Louis Stevenson and H. G. Wells.

In Heroes of the Horrors (Macmillan, 1975), Beck wrote illustrated biographies of six leading horror film stars (Lon Chaney Sr., Lon Chaney Jr., Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre, Bela Lugosi, Vincent Price) and writers such as Robert Bloch and Richard Matheson. The book reworked information previously published in Castle of Frankenstein articles.

Bhob Stewart and Beck then collaborated on Scream Queens: Heroines of the Horrors (Macmillan, 1978), containing illustrated biographical profiles of 29 fantasy film actresses and directors. The book included an article by actor Barry Brown, research by Drew Simels, and articles on Alice Guy-Blaché, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Veronica Lake, Elsa Lanchester, Agnes Moorehead, Mary Philbin, Barbara Steele, Vampira, Fay Wray and others. Scream Queens also incorporated material from the Castle of Frankenstein files of manuscripts and still photographs.

title: Castle of Frankenstein


text:
Naval Air Station Oceana

Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana or NAS Oceana is a United States Navy Naval Air Station located in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

The station is located on 23.9 square kilometers. It has total of 250 aircraft deployed and buildings valued at $800 million in plant replacement value. The total Navy community (which includes spouses) numbers around 20,000 people.

The base is under the jurisdiction of Navy Region Mid-Atlantic and is the headquarters of Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic and Carrier Air Wings 1, 3, 7 and 8. As home to all East Coast strike fighter jet squadrons, the Naval Air Station is classified as a master jet base.

The airfield is known as Apollo Soucek Field, named after Lieutenant (later Admiral) Apollo Soucek, a Navy test pilot who set the global altitude record in 1930 by flying a Curtiss "Hawk" biplane to an altitude of 43,166 feet.

Constructed in 1941, and officially commissioned in 1943, NAS Oceana has been home to carrier-based aircraft since its inception. The field serves as home for 14 deployable Strike Fighter squadrons operating the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a Strike Fighter Fleet Replacement Squadron, an adversary squadron, and a logistics squadron. Additionally, NAS Oceana operates Dam Neck Annex, a separate military installation that is home to other non-flying commands, including various school houses, and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress, a practice carrier landing field, in nearby Chesapeake, VA. The air station is not open to the public except one weekend each year, usually in September, when it hosts the NAS Oceana Air Show.

History
In November 1940, the U.S. Government acquired the land (around 1.1 km2) that would eventually become Naval Air Station Oceana. At that time, the surrounding area was mainly farmland susceptible to flooding, but it served as a useful outlying field for the rapidly expanding naval air force headquartered at NAS Norfolk and allowed units to work up for deployments away from the crowded base there. At first the US Government constructed a small airfield with 32 officers and 172 enlisted men. In December 1940 began the construction of asphalt runways, which were completed by November 1941.

In 1943, the United States Congress approved a project for the expansion of the station to allow for the deployment of up to 160 officers and 800 enlisted men, plus the construction of longer runways. At the same time, the station was changed to Naval Auxiliary Air Station. Airspace and airfield facility restrictions precluded NAS Norfolk from serving as the home station for tactical air units, and in the 1950s NAS Oceana was designated to the status of Master Jet Base to serve that purpose, being nominated Naval Air Station.

NAS Oceana has grown to become one of the largest and most advanced air stations in the world, comprising 6,820 acres (including Dam Neck Annex). Obstruction clearances and flight easements total an additional 3680 acre. Its four runways, three measuring 8000 ft in length and one measuring 12,000 feet, are designed for high-performance aircraft. NAS Oceana's primary mission is to train and deploy the Navy's Atlantic Fleet strike fighter squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers stationed at NAS Oceana fly approximately 219,000 training operations each year.

Under the Navy's Master Jet Base concept, all Type/Model/Series (T/M/S) aircraft were home-based at one field with associated intermediate maintenance and training facilities. In the 1960s, NAS Oceana became the home to all East Coast based F-4 Phantom II squadrons. Fighter Squadron 101 (VF-101) established a detachment at NAS Oceana in its role as the Fleet Readiness Squadron (FRS), formerly known as the Replacement Air Group or "RAG", that trained aircrews and maintainers to operate the Phantom (at the time, VF-101 operated out of NAS Key West, Florida). After the F-14 Tomcat arrived on the scene in 1976, VF-101 transitioned to Tomcat operations and Phantom training operations shifted to newly established Fighter Squadron 171 (VF-171) to handle Atlantic Fleet training for the F-4 Phantom until it was retired from service in 1984. The last F-14 was retired on September 22, 2006. At one time, in addition to fighter aircraft, all of the Atlantic Fleet's A-6 Intruder medium attack squadrons were also home-based at NAS Oceana, along with VA-42 as the associated Fleet Readiness Squadron charged with training all east coast A-6 pilots, bombardier/navigators and A-6 maintenance personnel. The A-6E was retired from the Fleet in 1997.

Additionally, NAS Oceana became home to the F/A-18 Hornet in 1999 following the Navy's closure of NAS Cecil Field, Florida as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.

Aside from its military function, NAS Oceana was an alternative landing site for NASA's Space Shuttle until the program ended in 2011.

On April 6, 2012, an F/A-18D assigned to VFA-106 took off from NAS Oceana, encountered dual engine failure and crashed into an apartment complex in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Both pilots ejected safely, and there were no fatalities.

Current operations

Home to seventeen strike fighter squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets and F/A-18 Super Hornets, the base is the sole East Coast Master Jet Base and home to all the east coast strike-fighter (VFA) units (excluding VFA-86 and Marine Corps VMFA squadrons). Training is conducted by VFA-106 Gladiators in their F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Tomcat training was conducted by VF-101 Grim Reapers. NAS Oceana was host to the "Tomcat Sunset" reunion from 21 to 23 September 2006, where over 3000 former and current aircrew and maintainers came together to celebrate the retirement of the F-14 from active Fleet service. NAS Oceana also was the location where the F-14 took off for the last time for final flight of the type when F-14D, Bureau Number (BuNo) 164603, Modex 101, of Fighter Squadron 31 (VF-31) was ferried from NAS Oceana to Republic Airport in East Farmingdale on Long Island, NY for permanent static display at the Northrop Grumman facilities where the Tomcat was originally built.

During the 2005 round of BRAC base closures, it was decided that NAS Oceana could remain open only if certain conditions were met. The most contentious of these requirements was that the city of Virginia Beach buy and condemn approximately 3,400 residences and an unknown number of businesses in crash zones surrounding the base. The BRAC commission proposed moving the fighters to Cecil Field, a recently deactivated naval air station located near Jacksonville, Florida if NAS Oceana was not able to meet that and several other conditions. The plan was initially met with optimism by Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton, even though Cecil Field had already been converted into a joint civil-military airport with helicopter operations by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida Army National Guard and an associated commerce park dominated by major aerospace firms such as Northrop Grumman and Boeing performing major maintenance and overhaul work on a variety of military jet aircraft. The senior Navy leadership ultimately expressed disinterest in moving the Master Jet Base back to the Jacksonville area, having only deactivated Cecil Field less than six years earlier and moving all its Atlantic Fleet F/A-18 squadrons from the former NAS Cecil Field to NAS Oceana. In October 2005, the city of Jacksonville removed itself from the process.

On December 20, 2005 the Virginia Beach City Council passed numerous ordinances enacted to satisfy BRAC, but did not act to condemn any of the homes in the designated areas. In a November 2006 referendum, citizens of Jacksonville voted to leave the Cecil Field Airport and Commerce Center in civilian hands under the Jacksonville Aviation Authority, effectively halting any future plans of relocation.

In addition to the squadrons listed, there are numerous other commands present as "tenant" commands at Oceana:
 * Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic, formerly known as Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Department (AIMD) Oceana. One of six centers for naval aviation maintenance, FRC provides Intermediate and Depot level maintenance support to the tenant squadrons and SeaOpDet technicians to aircraft carriers home-ported on the East Coast.
 * Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic, the command that serves as "Commodore" of all east coast Hornet and Super Hornet squadrons when not forward deployed with their respective carrier air wings.
 * Strike Fighter Weapons School Atlantic (SFWSL) a Type Weapons School staffed by Strike Fighter Weapons & Tactics (SFWTI) instructors where F/A-18 aircrews go for "graduate level" training in air-to-ground ordnance delivery and air-to-air tactics.
 * Landing Signal Officer School (LSO School), where pilots selected to be LSOs (also known as "paddles"...which is a very old term from the days when the LSO actually signaled to the approaching aircraft with brightly colored paddles) go to learn how to "wave" planes aboard the "boat" (aircrew speak for the aircraft carrier).
 * CVW commands, or Carrier Air Wing Commanders (also called CAG, which is an old term derived from the previous name for these commands, Carrier Air Groups), which are responsible for all squadrons in an air wing when actually on board a carrier or when preparing for overseas deployment. Carrier Air Wings One, Three, Seven, and Eight       maintain headquarters at NAS Oceana.
 * Strike Fighter Composite Squadron 12 (VFC-12), a Navy Reserve F/A-18A+ Hornet squadron that provides adversary/aggressor training services to Atlantic Fleet strike fighter squadrons.
 * Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 56 (VR-56), a Navy Reserve C-40 squadron that provides worldwide operational support airlift for deployable U.S. Navy Fleet units and shore establishment commands.
 * Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Virginia Capes (FACSFAC VACAPES, call sign GIANT KILLER), which is responsible for surveillance, management and sea and air traffic control of the Virginia Capes warning areas for training purposes, as well as surveillance duties in support of Homeland Defense.
 * Construction Battalion Unit 415 (CBU 415), a Navy Seabee Battalion.
 * Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Unit Oceana (CNATTU Oceana), which trains Navy and Marine Corps aircraft maintainers on the F/A-18 and operates both A and C schools.
 * Marine Aviation Training Support Group 33, a United States Marine Corps training administration command, primarily supporting USMC aviation student and instructor staff personnel assigned to the F/A-18 Fleet Readiness Squadron, VFA-106.
 * A branch Medical and Dental clinic under the command of Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, VA.

Outlying field controversy
Plans by the Navy to construct a naval outlying landing field supporting both NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point in eastern North Carolina, initiated in 2006, met with fierce opposition by local residents and environmentalists. Concerns about the ecological impacts of the field, along with noise concerns voiced by residents, led to the abandonment of the initially planned sites for the OLF, along with a delay in the project's environmental impact statement.

In early 2011, the U.S. Navy announced it was suspending plans for the construction of the outlying landing field until at least 2014. In November 2013, the US Navy announced it was cancelling plans for a Navy OLF in North Carolina.

Carrier Wings
Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic
 * Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW-1), assigned to: USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
 * Carrier Air Wing 3 (CVW-3), assigned to: USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
 * Carrier Air Wing 7 (CVW-7), assigned to: USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)
 * Carrier Air Wing 8 (CVW-8), assigned to: USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)

Tenant squadrons
Notes:

Environment
In mid-May 2017, 94,000 usgal of jet fuel spilled from a storage tank, and also spread onto adjoining properties and waterways, notably Wolfsnare Creek. The installation worked closely with local communities to assist with emergency relocation and issuing water. Fishermen were warned to refrain from fishing, crabbing and other recreational activities in the area. Affected wildlife was identified and helped as part of the cleanup.

title: Naval Air Station Oceana


text:
User:Cherubino

"The other might be right" (Gadamer)

My nickname, is a Breeches role in The Marriage of Figaro by Mozart.

My Pictures. My primary account at the German Wikipedia, where i'm an admin: de:Benutzer:Cherubino.

de:Benutzer:Cherubino fr:Utilisateur:Cherubino ru:Участник:Cherubino

title: User:Cherubino


text:
User talk:Corn Man

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Cate 13:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Alphax τεχ 14:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. -- Rama 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * He's back. I blocked him for another month. --Heron 16:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
Please unblock me. --Corn Man 10:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked again. --Corn Man 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Pages on "dating experts"
I'd advise against creating any more pages for these "dating experts". There's no indication that they meet WP:BIO, our notability guideline for people, and including email addresses and myspace pages looks suspiciously like WP:SPAM.--Kchase T 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
You may like to see here about the user who keeps reverting said page.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during August 9 2006 (UTC) to Episodes of Lost (season 3)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 1 month for blatant vandalism, a good example of which is this edit. If you wish to contribute usefully, please do so after the block expires. Friday (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Guinnog 14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Corn Man