text:
Talk:UFO (band)

Rewrite
I'm currently rewritting this page as it was plagiarized from All-Music. Part one is done, and I will attempt to finish the rest within the next day or two. Please bear with me. - MordredKLB 18:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite done. Hopefully the page looks a little more professional now as well as a little more accurate. - MordredKLB 17:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice, good job, just braught it up to date with a few minor edits.--Vulk 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Created a stub page for Laurence Archer, and added the link to it on this page. PloKoon13 16:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Paul Raymond link takes the user to the infamous pornographer - not the UFO guitarist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.253.216 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link for Paul Raymond so it directs to the correct person. Also need to know how I can direct the link for Flying compilation as it is listed on the wiki. I have tried several times but can't seem to do it correctly. Ray From Texas (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Couldn't find the link you mentioned above - which one is it? I've also amended the link to Paul Raymond so it goes straight to his page rather than the disambiguation page. Does anyone know why there's a distinction between Greatest hits and Compilation albums? Personally I think all the albums listed under greatest hits should go under compilations. Before anyone bites my head off have a look at the track listings on some of them as they overlap a lot.Andrewself (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UFOCurrentLineup.jpg
Image:UFOCurrentLineup.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Genres
Good work, but is it really necessary to have a reference to that UFO was a Hard Rock band ? PontusEriksson,Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPEriksson (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Set list
From concert in Portland Oregon, October 30, 2009

Saving Me

Daylight

Mother Mary

Let it Roll

Loser

Hell Driver

Cherry

Only You Can Rock me

Ain't No Baby

Love to Love

Mystery Train

Too Hot to Handle

Lights Out

Encore

Rock Bottom

Stop Breaking Down

Doctor Doctor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregon Rider (talk • contribs) 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Space rock
UFO did originally form as a space rock outfit. Sources such as The Rough Guide to Rock support this. I believe we should put space rock (early) in the infobox. Thoughts? RG (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Well .. Allmusic do not list them so - 'space metal' is the closest they manage. They cite hard rock, heavy metal and arena rock.  Although, purely for me, this whole genre / we must find a pigeon hole for everyrhing /  obsession is somewhat pointless.  It is not particularly illuminating to anyone except the wholly committed - who usually disagree forever over the various nuances anyway !

 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are an space rock/metal band; only for the first two albums of their existence. They're also one of the creators of that specific genre, but they went to a hard rock/heavy metal band. Future releases on UFO, such as their newest album do employ space rock/metal--but it's very limited to how they're doing it. And, by the way, Allmusic sucks at describing some music. Especially, the black metal, death metal and thrash metal genres. They call death metal this: death/thrash. Or if they're popular at all, it would pop/rock. I would source it but it's by a source that sucks at what they're doing. I love their reviews on Allmusic though, don't me wrong. It's what the genres that they describe it as that piss me off. Anyway, if it was up to me: source it if your have a link. But you know what? People are going to take it off, you know that right? panicpack121 8:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on UFO (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131103232150/http://sebastianbach.proboards31.com/index.cgi?board=band&action=display&thread=2265 to http://sebastianbach.proboards31.com/index.cgi?board=band&action=display&thread=2265

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on UFO (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130415010434/http://www.soniclibrarian.net:80/about.html to http://www.soniclibrarian.net/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on UFO (band). 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://www.webcitation.org/6GDd4cDSG?url=http://www.beatsworking.tv/UFO/family80to89.html to http://www.beatsworking.tv/UFO/family80to89.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5jiyqCLn0?url=http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=114611 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=114611

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Mick Bolton
Not the same Mick as the fellow who was in Mott the Hoople for a time? The little info I have found says they are different people. AMCKen (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Dubious
Article says, "... formed the band in 1968. Originally calling themselves Hocus Pocus, the group changed their name in October 1969 to UFO, in honour of the London club where they were spotted by Noel Moore, who signed them to the Beacon Records label .... "

Noel Moore could not have spotted the band at the UFO Club, which closed permanently in Sept 1967, if the band did not form until 1968. Nurg (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Looking through the edit history ...
 * 24 Sep 2004 ... 203.125.200.133
 * Originally known as Hocus Pocus, the group, which took the name UFO in honor of a London club, debuted in 1971 with UFO 1.
 * 29 Aug 2006 -- 15:06 by 82.209.219.175
 * Originally taking the name Hocus Pocus, the group changed their name to UFO in honor of a London club and was spotted by Noel Moore who signed them to his Beacon label.
 * "High Stakes and Dangerous Men: The Story of UFO" (2013) Neil Daniels "An important encounter with Noel Moore of Beacon Records, at the UFO club in London in October 1969, caused the band to rename their outfit UFO."
 * At this point, a book which could have been a primary source seems to have copied Wikipedia because as noted the club closed in 1967. Circular sourcing.
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Guinness_Encyclopedia_of_Popular_Mus/UHgkAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22hocus+pocus%22+%22phil+mogg%22&dq=%22hocus+pocus%22+%22phil+mogg%22&printsec=frontcover
 * Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, 1992 has no mention of the UFO Club. Just "With a name change to UFO". I'll give it a little while but I think the UFO band/UFO Club link should really be deleted off this page and UFO_Club. Cancerward (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, statement is unsourced and not found in Guinness Encyclopedia, removing. See https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofpo0008unse/page/332/mode/2up?q=ufo Cancerward (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, 1992 has no mention of the UFO Club. Just "With a name change to UFO". I'll give it a little while but I think the UFO band/UFO Club link should really be deleted off this page and UFO_Club. Cancerward (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, statement is unsourced and not found in Guinness Encyclopedia, removing. See https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofpo0008unse/page/332/mode/2up?q=ufo Cancerward (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

When did the band become inactive
The article says that they became in active in 2024, though all statements say they became inactive in 2022 after their tour was cancelled. Anyone object to this change. Mewhen123 (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:UFO (band)


text:
File:Snake-crop.jpg

crop of Green_snake_on_wall_drain.jpg in commons

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

title: File:Snake-crop.jpg


text:
Agrippa (astronomer)

Agrippa (Ἀγρίππας; ) was a Greek astronomer. The only thing that is known about him regards an astronomical observation that he made in 92 AD. Ptolemy writes that in the twelfth year of the reign of Domitian, on the seventh day of the Bithynian month Metrous, Agrippa observed the occultation of a part of the Pleiades by the southernmost part of the Moon.

The purpose of Agrippa's observation was probably to check the precession of the equinoxes, which was discovered by Hipparchus.

The lunar crater Agrippa is named after him.

title: Agrippa (astronomer)


text:
Talk:Kul Sharif Mosque

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Changantonio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

phony?
i suspect that this article is an elaborate fake, and that the pic has been doctored. anybody agree? SaltyPig 18:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Suspect? How about www.google.com? Search, read and then "suspect". --Irpen 19:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * i trust you aren't assuming that wasn't done. that would be pretty asinine. SaltyPig 21:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is full of suspect assertions, but the new mosque is not fake. Actually, CIS presidents are meeting today in Kazan, so I have seen the mosque a couple of times in the news. IMHO its look is ugly. --Ghirlandajo 20:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ghirlandajo, can you verify the pic's authenticity? it looks more like a computer painting (very good one) than a pic. SaltyPig 21:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, check a close-up linked to from within the article. Next, try to google for "Kul Sharif". Here some of the websites I found:
 * http://kulsharif.rin.ru/eng/mainpage.html
 * http://www.imam.ru/mecheti.html
 * http://www.1000kzn.ru/article/ru/944/407/ (
 * http://www.visitkazan.ru/ru/news/news6.html
 * http://www.reproflex.ru/Arch-5.htm
 * http://www.e-islam.ru/kulwarif/ --Ghirlandajo 20:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * thanks, Ghirlandajo! would love to know what was done to that pic to make it look so computer generated (parts of it anyway), but your spelling cleared up the rest for me. appreciate it. SaltyPig 20:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"the largest mosque in Europe" ...
... should be the Süleymaniye in Istanbul, don't you think so? --Magadan ?!  11:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the article about it: "The Süleymaniye Mosque (Turkish: 'Süleymaniye Camii') is an Ottoman imperial mosque located on the Third Hill of Istanbul, Turkey. It is the second largest mosque in the city, and one of the best-known sights of Istanbul." It's not even the largest in Instanbul, lol. 195.113.149.177 (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No sources provided
Some of the article's statements are totally unfounded such as this one "Qolsharif is considered to be one of the most important symbols of Tatar aspiration to independence and liberty.". Either there must have been some sources refering to people or newspapers saying that or it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.188.198 (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All this nonsense doesэt write by Tartars, but stupid foreign Islamists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.80.170.74 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Other buildings on site?

 * What buildings were on the site of the Qolsharif Mosque after the original was demolished until the recent replacement was built? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Qolşärif Mosque. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090814194536/http://www.russian-mosques.com:80/ShowMosque.aspx?regionCode=TA+&cityName=Kazan&mosqueID=44a33076-df45-4e74-82a2-7913fe0465a6 to http://www.russian-mosques.com/ShowMosque.aspx?regionCode=TA+&cityName=Kazan&mosqueID=44a33076-df45-4e74-82a2-7913fe0465a6

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) 11:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kul Sharif Mosque


text:
Asterophora

Asterophora is a genus of fungi that grow as parasites on mushrooms. The genus contains four species, which have a widespread distribution, especially in temperate areas. The most recently described species, A. salvaterrensis, was found in Pinus pinaster forests in Galicia (northwest Iberian Peninsula). Asterophora species are characterized by the massive production of chlamydospores in their fruit bodies and by the production of carminophilous lysosomes in their basidia. A frequently used but synonymous genus name is Nyctalis. The chlamydospores have been classified in the genus Ugola, which is an anamorphic name.

title: Asterophora


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tustena

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Tustena
No notability established. Was an add, remains mainly as linkspam. --S.K. 18:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator CDC   (talk)  18:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. *drew 01:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whitejay251 03:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tustena


text:
User:Dunheroin

Alex Jackson Michaels
I began investigating UFO reports in the Northern California area in April 1957 with the National Investigations Group on Aerial Phenomena (NIGAP), which was directed by the UFO research pioneer Captain Donald T. Menzies, USMC (Ret.). I became acquainted with Dr. James E. Anderson through his contacts with the Los Angeles NIGAP Subcommittee from 1962 to 1970. After NIGAP's demise in 1973, I joined the Friends UFO Network (FUFON) and the then newly-formed Center for UFO Research (CUFOR).

I have researched over 1800 Bay Area reports, including alleged landings, UFO photo cases, close encounters with physical effects on witnesses and terrain, alleged "abduction" reports and other UFO-related phenomena. A prolific writer, I have contributed over 75 articles on various aspects of the UFO question to numerous UFO journals and newsstand magazines. I wrote the book Defending Yourself Against Aliens and co-authored Grand Canyon Contacts with parapsychologist D. Allen Roge. My newest book Icestorm, is a biography of scientist and UFO researcher Dr. James Anderson.

title: User:Dunheroin


text:
Hypocrite Channel

The Hypocrite Channel is a small channel in Massachusetts Bay, located within the city limits of Boston. It's also located within the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. The channel runs between the islands of Half Tide Rocks, Calf Island, Little Calf Island, and Green Island.

title: Hypocrite Channel


text: User talk:207.213.160.74

title: User talk:207.213.160.74


text:
Talk:Acoustic impedance

This article has weaknesses. Is this the standard way to present this material? It feels show-off-y rather than trying to be useful. 99% of readers can get a useful understanding of impedance without hitting them over the head at the very beginning with a confusing Fourier/Laplace duality and a similar time domain / frequency domain schizophrenia. In my opinion, this kind of information, if included at all, should be moved to the end--i.e. after the useful stuff-- and the reader should be gently led into it as the underpinnings of a frequency-domain interpretation. 108.51.128.84 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC) The description of the different (?) concepts of characteristic impedance, specific impedance, and other impedances (?) needs to be completely clear, and only then assigned usually employed symbols for the concepts. The article must not assume the reader's knowledge of the meanings of different Z's, neither define stuff in terms of them, just mention them as frequently used symbols. Symbol use is not consistent around the world, and thus sentences like the characteristic acoustic impedance $$Z_0$$... should rather be the characteristic acoustic impedance, (often denoted $$Z_0$$). As as my understanding of this is not completely clear, I cannot make the improvement, and I ask someone who knows to do it. 78.91.40.207 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Distinction has to be made between:
 * the characteristic acoustic impedance $$Z_0$$ of a medium, usually air (compare with characteristic impedance in transmission lines).
 * the impedance $$Z \ $$ of an acoustic component, like a wave conductor, a resonance chamber, a muffler or an organ pipe.

 * This seems to differs from the electrical definition of impedance in that wave conductors and organ pipes would be considered transmission lines, not components, and would have a characteristic impedance. — Omegatron 18:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Very well observed, Omegatron: the input impedance of a wave conductor will vary with its termination and a great deal of its impedance is explained by transmission line behavior. Think about it in physical terms: you can in fact "look through" a wave conductor. A sound wave within the conductor will be affected by the reflection at the end of the tube and the measured impedance at the entrance will vary accordingly. A closed-end organ pipe is maybe an exception, since its impedance can be expressed as a "fixed" (but still cyclical) component. The termination finds an electrical analogy in a short circuit. In reality however, the acoutical short circuit in an organ pipe is not ideal. The closed end is not optimal rigid and often vibrates. The sound wave will therefore loose some energy and will not be 1:1 reflected.Witger 06:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the analogy is actually closer. Electrical transmission lines and impedances are idealisms anyway.  I believe a closed and open organ pipe is equivalent to a short circuit or open circuit terminated transmission line.  Of course there is no such thing as a perfect short or perfect open, and some leakage will occur.  — Omegatron 02:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron! An open end organ pipe is terminated by what is called a radiation impedance. The term is well known in RF applications. In acoustics it finds applications in solving noise problems in air conditioning systems. The radiation impedance has been also mathematically derived for an ideal sound source in a flat wall (as far as I remember with very complicated Bessel functions). The radiation impedance depends on the radius of the pipe and its proportion to the wavelength. Also exhaust pipe systems of cars benefit from the radiation impedance: this is (one) of the reasons why very noisy engines have several exhaust outlets (though maybe one preceeding muffler casing) and why the tail pipe is usually the longest length of the muffler system. In the particular case of an exhaust pipe: if the open end would be really a "open circuit" with infinite impedance, then the tail pipe wouldn't add up in the insertion loss of the system.Witger 07:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Very cool. That should probably be added to the article.  — Omegatron 13:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it safe to say that characteristic impedance doesn't change with frequency? I would think that there are limits to the sounds that can go through air, but maybe that's a different concept? Does air have an acoustic absorption spectrum or something when you get above ultrasound? — Omegatron 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

-Yes characterisic impedance is usually assumed be a constant under normal acoustic conditions. It is not usually considered to be frequency dependent. Unless the the acoustic variables (pressure, density, etc) become extremely large with respect to the ambient characteristics, one can assume that it is constant. There should be a dedicated page on absorption in Air as it can be very complex. emh203 10:57 7, May 2007 (EST)

There is a table of other materials at in rayles that we could convert and include. — Omegatron 03:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I get some time :-), there needs to be some more ellaboration of all the types of impedance used in acoustics. This topic is a large source of confusion.  I'll try to get everything with proper citations, etc.  What is on the page is mostly correct but there needs to be some discussion about how and when the relationships are valid and where the relationships come from.  There also needs some topics added such as Radaition impedance of a source.   emh203 10:57 7, May 2007 (EST)

Frequency dependence of characteristic impedance
The characteristic impedance of a fluid is density * sound speed. In a dispersive medium the sound speed varies with frequency and all real media are slightly dispersive. As density is independent of frequency it follows that the characteristic impedance must vary with frequency. Thunderbird2 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In air, I believe velocity becomes spatially variable at frequencies above 26KHz (dispersion transition frequency) - below that frequency, it remains essentially constant. I've not seen any data to date that suggests below this frequency, sound velocity varies signficantly - assuming typical conditions with respect to atmospheric pressures and molecular composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.32.89 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Electrical impedance is often used in cases where it varies, hopefully slowly, with frequency. In that case, one can use the Fourier transform and analyze the problem in frequency space. Many electronic systems are close enough to constant over a wide frequency range.  One that is not so constant, is the electrical load of a loudspeaker, partly due to the acoustic impedance loading it. Gah4 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Electrical impedance is often used in cases where it varies, hopefully slowly, with frequency. In that case, one can use the Fourier transform and analyze the problem in frequency space. Many electronic systems are close enough to constant over a wide frequency range.  One that is not so constant, is the electrical load of a loudspeaker, partly due to the acoustic impedance loading it. Gah4 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Electrical impedance is often used in cases where it varies, hopefully slowly, with frequency. In that case, one can use the Fourier transform and analyze the problem in frequency space. Many electronic systems are close enough to constant over a wide frequency range.  One that is not so constant, is the electrical load of a loudspeaker, partly due to the acoustic impedance loading it. Gah4 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Impedance confusion
There seems to an error relating to acoustic impedance here. Taking the Kinsler 'fundamentals of acoustics' book as authority (sect 10.4): Rayl is the unit of specific (and characteristic?) acoustic impedance,z, not acoustic impedance, Z, (the units Pa.s/m in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayl support this - that section makes this mistake too though). The unit of acoustic impedance is the acoustic ohm (Pa.s/m^3)

Also, looking at the external link http://www.sengpielaudio.com/RelationshipsOfAcousticQuantities.pdf the term acoustic impedance there actually refers to specific acoustic impedance. Presumably people often use the term 'acoustic impedance' to mean 'specific acoustic impedance', but since both are defined here we should keep them distinct. I'm still fairly new to acoustics (and wikipedia), so would appreciate comment before I amend the article. Pgj98r (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Complex impedance
The section on complex impedance is self-contradictory and the edit of 23:25, 25 February 2010 is definitely wrong. When I get the chance I will try to figure out what actually should be said about complex acoustic impedances, but failing that the paragraph added in February should be removed unless someone has an objection.

I was reading this page, and realized that the previously mentioned paragraph was completely wrong and saw this note. I went ahead and deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejeffrey (talk • contribs)
 * This section is still contains errors and misleading statements as of Feb. 21, 2011. For instance, the particle velocity and pressure are in quadrature phase.  When one is at an extremum, the other is zero; it is just like kinetic and potential energy in the pendulum problem.  There is a phase difference between the two quantities; what I think the section intends to say is that the phase relationship does not normally vary.  However, it can, and in some special media, the displacement (velocity) can actually be in reverse phase with the applied force (pressure), giving an effectively negative mass density.  Such effects can occur without violating causality.  This page largely pertains to dispersionless acoustics far from resonance, and should be corrected accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwestafer (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect if one goes through the analogy to electrical impedance, this will all be more obvious. Saying the particle velocity and pressure are in quadrature phase only works if the signal is sinusoidal. In electrical systems, there are some where the (complex) electrical impedance varies (a lot) with frequency. One of the more common is the impedance of a loudspeaker. (And much of the reason is due to the acoustic impedance.) Electrically, one can consider the Fourier transform, and look at the problem in frequency space, which allows for non-sinusoidal signals. Gah4 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect if one goes through the analogy to electrical impedance, this will all be more obvious. Saying the particle velocity and pressure are in quadrature phase only works if the signal is sinusoidal. In electrical systems, there are some where the (complex) electrical impedance varies (a lot) with frequency. One of the more common is the impedance of a loudspeaker. (And much of the reason is due to the acoustic impedance.) Electrically, one can consider the Fourier transform, and look at the problem in frequency space, which allows for non-sinusoidal signals. Gah4 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect if one goes through the analogy to electrical impedance, this will all be more obvious. Saying the particle velocity and pressure are in quadrature phase only works if the signal is sinusoidal. In electrical systems, there are some where the (complex) electrical impedance varies (a lot) with frequency. One of the more common is the impedance of a loudspeaker. (And much of the reason is due to the acoustic impedance.) Electrically, one can consider the Fourier transform, and look at the problem in frequency space, which allows for non-sinusoidal signals. Gah4 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Phase
I deleted a paragraph of uncited reasoning about the phase. Once the conclusions will be convincingly backed up by reliable references, the paragraph may be restored. --Maxim 62.149.15.226 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Molecules" and "particle velocity"
I don't see the point of mentioning molecules or particles in the introduction. A basic understanding does not requite reference to atomic theory, and in fact acoustics was well developed in the 19th century before Einstein's work on Brownian motion firmly established atomic theory. The fact that acoustics did not establish atomic theory shows that atomic theory is not needed to understand acoustics. One needs to think of mater as a bulk medium to understand sound, but the reader should be saved the extra effort of deriving bulk properties from the properties of the constituent molecules. "Particle velocity" should be written as something like velocity of the medium or matter velocity. David R. Ingham (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Electrical impedance
It seems that the analogy to electrical impedance should be mentioned peripherally but early on, because some people such as electrical engineers are familiar with electrical impedance but not with acoustic impedance. David R. Ingham (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Complex resistance
Maggyero, how can you write "Acoustic impedance is the complex representation (also called analytic representation) of acoustic resistance" when acoustic resistance is one component of acoustic impedance. The whole cannot be a representation of the part. By the way, you should only link an item once per WP:OVERLINK. This is not the only example, Pa and other units seem to have ended up linked numerous times. SpinningSpark 04:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Spinningspark, if you look at the article Analytic signal you will see that the analytic representation fa(t) of a signal f(t) is defined as:
 * $$f_\mathrm{a}(t) = f(t) + i\mathcal H[f](t),$$
 * where $$\mathcal{H}$$[f] is the Hilbert transform of f. So the whole can be a representation of the part.
 * Since acoustic resistance R is defined as:
 * $$R(t) = \left[p * Q^{-1}\right]\!(t),$$
 * where
 * $$*$$ is the convolution operator;
 * Q−1 is the convolution inverse of Q,

the analytic representation of acoustic resistance Ra is called acoustic impedance and denoted Z:
 * $$Z(t) = R_\mathrm{a}(t) = R(t) + i\mathcal{H}[R](t) = R(t) + iX(t) = \frac{1}{2}\!\left[p_\mathrm{a} * \left(Q^{-1}\right)_\mathrm{a}\right]\!(t).$$
 * Okay for your second remark, I will remove the unnecessary links for the units.
 * — Maggyero (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

 * Impedance is not a signal. That's a very odd way of looking at it.  We just wouldn't define it that way in electrical engineering, please provide a source.  $$p(\mathbf r,\, t)$$ and $$U(\mathbf r,\, t)$$ are time varying instantaneous values, right?  So if they are not in phase (and there is no distinction to impedance if they are) then $$R(\mathbf r,\, t)$$ is also a time varying quantity.  Furthermore, R is dependent on the applied sound which is a nonsense.  R should be a constant dependent only on material and geometry, not on time.  Even if we take p and U as being RMS values, their ratio is the magnitude of Z, not the real part of Z. SpinningSpark 12:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Maggyero is arguing that impedance is a signal. He is just saying that acoustic impedance is usually defined as the ratio of two complex quantities, both of which are independent of time, and equal to the Fourier transforms of the respective time domain waveforms. He is correct. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that impedance is the ratio of two complex quantities that are independent of time, but that is not what Maggyero has written, either here or in the article. Writing x(t) means that x is a function of t.  Z=p(t)/U(t) is wrong, we don't want p(t), we want p(s) or p(iω).  Further, Z=R+iX we all agree.  To then say that Z is the complex representation of R is completely wrong.  R is a component of Z, not another representation of it. SpinningSpark 17:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, now I understand the source of the confusion. Is it perhaps the case that, while p'(t) and u'(t) are both functions of time, their ratio is not? I am using the prime here to denote the analytic function f'(t) = f(t) + i*H[f(t)]. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Maggyero has written R=p/u, not R=p'/u' or R'=p'/u', but that wasn't my central point. My point is that saying the complex representation of acoustic resistance is Z is just plain confusing.  Calling that quantity R is just playing with semantics, it gives the two quantities the same letter but that still doesn't mean that one is a representation of the other.  Z contains an element that is just not present in R in any representation.  I return to my request to provide a source that presents the information in this way.  There are numerous books on acoustics and it can easily be seen that this is not a normal presentation of the material.  Wikipedia is meant for a general readership, not the small minority who understand how to use hamiltonians. SpinningSpark 10:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Spinningspark, in fact we are both right. Impedance can be defined in 3 different ways: as the Laplace transform or the Fourier transform or the analytic representation of the time domain resistance. In the time domain we have:
 * $$R(t) = \left[p * Q^{-1}\right]\!(t),$$
 * where
 * $$*$$ is the convolution operator;
 * Q−1 is the convolution inverse of Q.
 * So the impedance is given by:
 * $$Z(s) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{{}={}} \mathcal{L}[R](s) = \frac{\mathcal{L}[p](s)}{\mathcal{L}[Q](s)} = \frac{\hat{p}(s)}{\hat{Q}(s)} = R(s) + iX(s),$$
 * $$Z(\omega) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{{}={}} \mathcal{F}[R](\omega) = \frac{\mathcal{F}[p](\omega)}{\mathcal{F}[Q](\omega)} = \frac{\hat{p}(\omega)}{\hat{Q}(\omega)} = R(\omega) + iX(\omega),$$
 * $$Z(t) \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{{}={}} R_\mathrm{a}(t) = \frac{1}{2}\!\left[p_\mathrm{a} * \left(Q^{-1}\right)_\mathrm{a}\right]\!(t) = R(t) + iX(t),$$
 * where
 * $$\mathcal L$$ is the Laplace transform operator;
 * $$\mathcal F$$ is the Fourier transform operator;
 * subscript "a" is the analytic representation operator;
 * in Z(s), R(s) is not the Laplace transform of the time domain acoustic resistance R(t), Z(s) is;
 * in Z(ω), R(ω) is not the Fourier transform of the time domain acoustic resistance R(t), Z(ω) is;
 * in Z(t), R(t) is the time domain acoustic resistance and X(t) is the Hilbert transform of the time domain acoustic resistance R(t), according to the definition of the analytic representation.
 * I have just finished improving the article to make all that clearer, you can have a look.
 * — Maggyero (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC).

rayl or Rayl?
Is the unit name (or symbol) spelt "rayl" or "Rayl"? See discussion on this talk page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Unit confusion
There is confusion over the units in the opening paragraph. It says the units of acoustic impedance are N·s/m3 or rayl/m2 which means 1 rayl = 1 N.s/m. It then says that the units of specific acoustic impedance are Pa·s/m or rayl. Now Pa.s/m is exactly equivalent to N·s/m3 (1 Pa = 1 N/m2) so they can't both be simultaneously equal to 1 rayl/m2 and 1 rayl. The Wikipedia page for the rayl says it's equal to 1 Pa.s/m so something is inconsistent. What are the correct units? 130.246.58.72 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As someone noted above, the terms acoustic impedance and specific acoustic impedance are often used inconsistently, so we shouldn't be surprised if the units also are. Gah4 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone noted above, the terms acoustic impedance and specific acoustic impedance are often used inconsistently, so we shouldn't be surprised if the units also are. Gah4 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Mechanical impedance
I just notice this after recently finding Mechanical impedance. First, it would seem that a See also might be nice. But also that Mechanical impedance is closely related to acoustic impedance, especially in solid objects. Gah4 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I have added a See also entry. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Acoustic impedance


text:
Talk:Battle of Bautzen (1813)

Copyrighted Text
It seems that the basis of this article was lifted from a copyrighted article at. Go back to April 2005 and you will find an edit that adds a barely-modified version of the copyrighted text. There are some errors in the Wikipedia edits of April 2005 that make the Wikipedia article look like the copy of the other web site text rather than the other way around. In the course of time, the Wikipedia article text has been edited so that it is less obviously the same text, but were I the owner, I might still be steamed that my work had been lifted, whether with attribution or not.

I enclose a copy of the current article text with the text lifted from the copyrighted source in bold:

The Battle of Bautzen was fought on 21 May 1813, and resulted in a victory for French forces under Napoléon Bonaparte over the Kingdom of Prussia under Count Gebhard von Blücher and Imperial Russia under Prince Peter Wittgenstein.

The Prusso-Russian army was in a full retreat following their defeat at the Battle of Lützen. Finally, generals Wittgenstein and Blücher were ordered to stop at Bautzen by Tsar Alexander I and König Frederick William III.

The Prusso-Russian army was nearly 100,000 men strong, but Napoleon had 115,000 troops. Additionally, Marshal Ney had 85,000 more men within easy marching distance.

Wittgenstein formed two defensive lines, with the first holding strongpoints in villages and along ridges and the second holding the bridges behind a river bend.

Napoleon had planned to pin down his enemies to their lines and then trap them with Ney's troops. However, due to faulty reconnaissance, he became concerned that the Prusso-Russians had more soldiers and held stronger positions than they actually did. So Napoleon then decided he would not set up his trap until they had been softened up.

After an intense bombardment by the grande batterie of Napoleon's artillery and hours of heated fighting, the French overpowered the first defensive lines and seized the town of Bautzen. The Prusso-Russians appeared to be buckling.

By nightfall, the French were ready to cut the allies off from their line of retreat. But Marshal Ney became confused and his faulty positioning left the door open for the Allies to escape.

Fighting on the following day, the 21st, was again hard and after several hours of setbacks, renewed French attacks began to gain momentum. But these assaults were only intended to fix the allies in place so they could be cut off and enveloped. Once again, Marshal Ney became distracted and decided to seize the village of Preititz, and thus lost sight of the strategic importance of cutting off the allies.

The Prusso-Russians were being pushed back across the river and, at 4 PM, when the Imperial Guard was sent in, began an all-out retreat. Without Ney's forces to seal them in, however, they again escaped the total slaughter Napoleon had planned. Losses on both sides totaled around 20,000 (information based mostly on French statements and found its way also in English history books[citation needed]). But some other sources (mostly German sources - for example: Schlacht bei Bautzen, Lusatia Verlag, Dr. Stubner &Co.KG, 1993) also say, that the losses on French side were significantly higher because of their aggressive attack tactics which failed to cut off the allies from their lines and the allies only lost 11,000 - 14,000. The French victory at Bautzen is therefore (at least in Germany) often called a Pyrrhic victory.

Although a success for the French, Bautzen was not the decisive, strategic result Napoleon was looking for. Ney's failure to cut the line of retreat robbed the French of complete victory. Once more Napoleon had to settle for a narrow, tactical victory. To make matters worse, during the battle, Napoleon's close friend and Aide-de-camp, General Geraud Duroc, was killed in the fighting. Following Bautzen, Napoleon agreed to a seven week truce with the Coalition. During this time he hoped to gather more troops, especially cavalry, and better train his new army. The allies, however, would not be idle, they too would mobilize and better prepare. It is reported that Napoleon later (on Saint Helena) quoted, that his agreement to this truce was a bad mistake, because the break was of much more use to the allies than to him. The campaign would resume in August.

Agree with my assessment that this needs to be reworked? Disagree? Mmccalpin 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We should probibly also mention that Barclay de Tolly commanded the forces on the right wing that were facing Marshal Ney. Wittgenstien was in overall command overall comannd of Blucher and Barclay.

Flags
Isn't it a bit odd to use a modern Russian flag rather than what would have been used at the time, presumably the Imperial Standard (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_flags)? I mean no disrespect whatsoever to anyone, it just strikes me as unhistorical. (And I'm sure the same is true of any pre-modern battle entry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbgold (talk • contribs) 13:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Bautzen (1813)


text:
Talk:Bellyshirt

I think this article could be mingled with the article crop top. Summer Song 18:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems logical to me. -Phoenixrod 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bellyshirt


text:
Agnolo Firenzuola

Agnolo Firenzuola (28 September 1493 – 27 June 1543) was an Italian writer and poet, of mainly secular works, despite having been a Vallombrosan monk.

Biography
Agnolo Firenzuola was born in Florence. The family name was taken from the town of Firenzuola, situated at the foot of the Apennines, its original home. Agnolo's grandfather had obtained the citizenship of Florence and transmitted it to his family. Agnolo initially studied law at Siena, graduating in 1516, and afterwards at Perugia. There he became the associate of the notorious Pietro Aretino. They met again at Rome, where Agnolo attempted to practice law, but was not successful and often afflicted with likely malaria. Firenzuola left Rome after the death of Pope Clement VII, and after spending some time at Florence, settled at Prato as abbot of Badia San Salvatore in Vaiano.

It is asserted by all his biographers that while still a young man he assumed the monastic dress at Vallombrosa, and that he afterwards held successively two abbacies. Girolamo Tiraboschi ventures to doubt this account.

His writings, of which a collected edition was published posthumously in 1548, are partly in prose and partly in verse. Among the prose works are Discorsi degli animali, derived from the animal fables of Aesop and the Panchatantra; Dialogo delle bellezze delle donne (Dialogue of the beauty of women), also translated into French; Ragionamenti amorosi, a series of short tales in the manner of Boccaccio, rivalling him in elegance and in licentiousness; Discacciamento delle nuove lettere, a controversial piece against Giangiorgio Trissino's proposal to introduce new letters into the Italian alphabet; a free version or adaptation of The Golden Ass of Apuleius, which became a favorite book and passed through many editions; and two comedies, I Lucidi, an imitation of the Menaechmi of Plautus, and La Trinuzia, which in some points resembles the Calandria of Cardinal Bibbiena.

His poems are chiefly satirical and burlesque. All his works are esteemed as models of literary excellence, and are cited as authorities in the vocabulary of the Accademia della Crusca. The date of Firenzuola's death is only approximately ascertained. He had been dead several years when the first edition of his writings appeared (1548).

title: Agnolo Firenzuola


text:
Talk:Generative art

March 2012 Improvements
Hi all. Tonight I reorganized this article in a way that is much more extensible. Now it is very clear where to add examples, where to add methods, and where to add art theory discussion. I only deleted two things. (1) Conway's game of life because it isn't art let alone generative art...however there is cellular automata based art out there...I mention it as a technique...others may want to add specific examples. (2) Anne Wilson does not, so far as I can tell, create generative art at all. The only reference I could find was a single use of the use of the word "generative" in a different context. However, please feel free to make a footnoted entry for her if you can find info otherwise.

Other than this I also improved the initial definition, alphabetized the references, added a few more citations, reworded and rewrote some text that meant well but had to be said better, and added a significant section on generative art theory. I know I cite my own work there, but it really is the most widely cited theory work, and I did try to also reference Boden's paper which takes a different but very useful approach. Any additional theory references would obviously be welcome, but they should cite published work not just speculation shot from the hip.

At this point I'm committed to making incremental improvements on a regular basis. I sure hope others will as well. More citations for unsupported text and more examples of art and artists would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Galanter (talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Philip Galanter (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

August 2012 Discussion
I note that after mentioning the March 2012 improvements on the generative art discussion list a few possibly contentious edits have been made. A few notes in that regard. Of course by design there is no single authority (short of Wikipedia staff) when it comes to wiki entries, but I think the following suggestions are consistent with current practice:

 * If you are removing content please comment in the "Edit summary" why that is appropriate.

 * If you are adding content that makes an assertion please substantiate it with an academic-like citation in what is now labeled as the "Footnotes" section.

 * When adding citations be sure to understand and use the automated function for doing so. See other parts of the wiki article for examples as to how to do this.

 * I see a couple references to Celestino Soddu's writing as well as one for the Matt Pearson book were deleted. I'm tempted to simply add them in again but please comment here as to why that wouldn't be appropriate if you feel strongly about it.

 * I've now looked at a number of other articles with regard to the ordering of sections (is history at the beginning or the end?) and citations (are they notes? Footnotes? Additional reading? etc.) I've found significant variation among articles.

 * Given that, I'd like to reorganize this article to put all such entries into 3 sections: "Footnotes" for parenthetical remarks not wanted in the main text "References" for citations of sources supporting statements in the main text and "Additional Reading" for other related media not tied to any particular statement in the text but very relevant to generative art.

Again, any other ideas or strong disagreements with this?

I'm posting this both here and on the generative art mailing list with the hope that we can anticipate consensus edits rather than sequential edits that battle back and forth.

thanks, Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Galanter (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk archive
I've taken the liberty of rearranging the talk so most recent discussions are at the bottom, as I believe is customary. I've also archived older discussion, although was unsure how much to archive.. There is still some relevant stuff in there, no objections if anyone moves some of it back. Yaxu (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The current sense of the term "generative art"
Back to this wikipedia article - I've tried to come up with wording that Celestino and his wife might let pass:

"A particular sense of the term "Generative Art" was established in an academic context by Celestino Soddu and Enrica Colabella, in the proceedings of the First International Generative Art conference in 1998, at Politecnico di Milano University, Italy. The proceedings were published in 1999 under the title "Generative Art" by Dedalo in Rome 1999."

But he insists on this version, which claims that they have defined the term, despite all that came before, including that already documented in the article:

"The current sense of the term "Generative Art" was established the first time by Celestino Soddu and Enrica Colabella, in the proceedings of the First International Generative Art conference in 1998, at Politecnico di Milano University, Italy. The proceedings were published in 1999 under the title "Generative Art" by Dedalo in Rome 1999."

To me, this strange assertion renders the section nonsensical. However rather than enter a pointless edit war with the subject, I give up on this paragraph for now -- contributions from a neutral point of view would be much appreciated.

Yaxu (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Live coding and autonomy
I've added a reference to my own (albeit peer reviewed) work under live coding. I thought it important to clarify a point, which affirms generative art's focus on autonomy and differentiates it from live coding in this respect. Happy for others to find a more appropriate reference for this.. Or to just remove the section on live coding if justified here.

Yaxu (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tags removed
There is room for improvement, but this article has much improved lately in my opinion, so I have moved the original research one to the one section which I think it still applies to (which Philip Galanter is collecting references for), and removed the other one completely. If anyone puts the tags back, please be specific about the sections that are in particularly need of attention.

Yaxu (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Celestino Soddu impugned by Alex McLean
In my opinion these edits are in violation of WP:COI (see WP:PSCOI).

As you have said, if there are multiple views established in the literature, we should try to represent them all, not try to arrive at a single point of view. We document and differentiate them all.

However you have just made this edit:

In the current sense, the term "Generative Art" was established the first time by Celestino Soddu and Enrica Colabella, in the proceedings of the First International Generative Art conference in 1998, at Politecnico di Milano University, Italy.

This statement asserts that there is a single current sense, while you have just clearly said that there is not.

I will edit the article accordingly.

Furthermore you say in the edit comment "And it's not true that all people converge in the definition that you have written. Put your definition and other people will write his own definition. GA is open"

This is not my definition, but that of Boden and Edmonds, both highly respected scholars, who I believe have written the only in-depth history of generative art. I do not necessarily agree with the statement, I am just trying to help write an article that reflects the position in the literature.

By the way you have not said in the article what your definition of the term is. I think it would be helpful if you did so.

Yaxu (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
I have restored the conflict of interest tag to the content contributed by Celestino Soddu. His only contribution to the article is to make baseless claims about himself and his wife, which do not sit with well referenced content in the rest of the section.

This is the only potential conflict of interest violation in my opinion. An anonymous editor with an IP which geocodes near Milan, applied it to the theory section, but I see no problem there, for example Philip has been very open to discussion.

Problems I see are:

 * Celestino keeps removing arguments from Boden and Edmonds, who are well established experts in this field.
 * He persists in claiming to have established the current sense of the term "generative art" without justification
 * He does not actually say what this sense is

I'm finding it extremely difficult to find common ground. He even deletes the word "arguably" from his claims after Philip Galanter introduced it.

Yaxu (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Alex McLean
First of all, you refer to my wife and not to Enrica Colabella, wellknown researcher in Generative Art. This says to everybody about how works your "critical" position and your person.

I tried to improve the Generative Art page but everything I wrote you always delete it.

This is your integralist, not cultural position. And surely not generative!.

Celestino Soddu

Apologies for getting that fact wrong. Please do continue to improve the page with well reference content, but acknowledge any conflict of interest, and step back where necessary to allow a neutral point of view to be established.

Yaxu (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The article now states that your conference was the first venue for cross-disciplinary research into generative art. You should certainly be proud of this, I don't think anyone would disagree, and I don't think much more needs to be said.

I do not think you claim about establishing the "current sense" of the term is supportable by any reference. You might reasonably argue that Philip's "What is generative art?" paper at your conference established the predominant sense (in 2003 - not 1998), but as it says in the introduction to the paper, this sense was established through community engagement in at least one other venue.

Yaxu (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also regarding integralism - once more, the quote in the article about converging on a shared meaning of the term is not mine. It is the position of Boden and Edmonds, I do not necessarily agree, I am just trying to help write a useful, neutral wikipedia article that reflects the literature on the topic.

Yaxu (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But, Alex-Yaxu, do you have nothing better to do that going ahead with this boring discussion, useless claims and demonstrations of envy? I am in Sardinia (and not in Milan as you suppose, sorry) and I prefer stay on the beach! Celestino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestinosoddu (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about you being in Milan, but otherwise a fair point. I won't waste my time trying to engage with you any more. Yaxu (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional reading
The article is getting fairly long now, with a good number of references. From a quick look, the entries on the "additional reading" list are on the whole already in the main references list, or are not directly relevant. Should we just delete the additional reading list? Is it worth saving any by referencing them in the text first?

Yaxu (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think an additional reading section is worth having even if some of it duplicates references. Citations will be used by some to provide additional reading, but their primarily function is to lend authority to a statement in the article. The additional reading list should include items that expand on the topic in a way typical readers of the article are likely to find useful.

I'd say that if something in the additional reading list is also a reference, but it isn't either a "classic" article in the field, an introductory or overview book or article, or an introductory book or overview article on a significant subtopic (e.g. the Algorithmic Beauty of Plants regarding L-systems), then it should probably just be shown as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.10.94 (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Righto, I did remove quite a few references that I felt too general/irrelevant.

Yaxu (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Another apparent CoI edit
I thought we'd finally got to a wording that Celestino and I could agree on, until this edit this afternoon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generative_art&diff=509800020&oldid=509573761

This edit goes as far as modifying a direct quote from Margaret Boden and Ernest Edmonds so that it agrees with Celestino's point of view. According to the IP address, the edit was done by someone near Milan, if anyone knows who it was, I hope that they will educate them on academic malpractice.

Yaxu (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Celestino's message to me on the page, and to his talk page:

I am editing many areas of the page including your edits. This is what happens when you contribute to wikipedia, others try to improve it, in a collaborative spirit. Calling fellow editors arrogant or boring does not help towards this spirit.

As I understood from your recent edits, Philip thinks of generative art in terms of creative processes, and you think of it in terms of creative people authoring processes. It is indeed important to represent this difference of opinion in the introduction, but hundreds of people have considered this point of authorship over decades, so I don't think editing yourself in at this point is reasonable.

You may think of yourself as the founder of the current meaning of generative art, but many others do not, including those writing in peer-reviewed literature. Please do not assert this as unqualified fact in the article.

Happy to engage with you on this again, on the basis of common courtesy.

Best wishes,

Yaxu (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems / questions
I've largely replaced the 'problems of generative art' with the central questions proposed by McCormack et al. I hope this major edit doesn't cause offence - if so we can revert and try a different tack.

There is considerable overlap with what was there already, but I thought it helpful to replace what looks like original research with a peer reviewed journal article. There may be some points from the original that are missing, and Philip may still be collecting references for them, so I've pasted in them below for easy reference. It could be an idea to gradually add other references for the questions, and more questions to the list, to give a broader view. That said, the Leonardo article has quite a few respected authors so the view is already fairly broad.

 * The problem of authorship - With generative art how do traditional views of the artist shift regarding credit, expression, provenance, and so on?
 * The problem of uniqueness - Traditional art artifacts are treasured as unique objects, but when such objects can be produced in quantity does that diminish the value of the art?
 * The problem of autonomy - Since the artist creates the system, and to date all such systems are presumed to be unconscious, can the system be thought of as being autonomous in the same way a human artist is?
 * The problem of authenticity - Given it is in part created by an unemotional and unthinking system, is generative art really art at all?
 * The problem of dynamics - Some have opined that generative art must exhibit to the audience change over time, and that static artifacts made using generative systems outside the view of the audience are something less.
 * The problem of postmodernism - Are generative art systems the ultimate expression of the postmodern condition, or as Galanter suggests do they point to a new synthesis based on a complexity-inspired world-view?
 * The problem of creativity - Can generative art systems be considered creative when they are merely unpredictable and typically lack any self-critical capacity?

Yaxu (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Georg Nees Generative Computergraphik
Hello

''The first such exhibition showed the work of Nees in February 1965, which some claim was titled "Generative Computergrafik". While Nees does not himself remember, this was the title of his doctoral thesis published a few years later.''

The first exhibition was titled - computer-grafik -. - --Maxim Pouska (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC) typos --Maxim Pouska (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

October 2016
Generative art is alive and well but you wouldn't know it to read this article. I keep trying to put in a link to the #1 generative art forum and archive on the planet (reddit.com/r/generative) and the local watchdogs remove it within minutes. The WP:EL #1 & #10 was cited but the WP:EL also offers an exception for "official pages", and that's as official and relevant as it gets.

So wtf people? Surely some references to modern works are in order here. reddit.com/r/generative is relevant and modern to the hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John alexander greene (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A Reddit forum is not an official forum for generative art. You need to get consensus prior to inserting it again. -- GB fan 00:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can also ask for another opinion at External links/Noticeboard. -- GB fan 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so how do I put it up for vote or whatever?

Also, why is this an issue. You'd think that you guys would leap at the opportunity to include a reference that is so relevant and modern. If it became an issue later then yes, by all means, remove it. But until then why not just leave it?

I swear, you people seem to be more interested in quibbling over technicalities than creating useful and relevant articles. Is this some kind of territorial thing? Do I need to bribe somebody?

John alexander greene (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You have made the first step and that is to discuss the edit. Now if you can do that without talking about editors that would help a lot.  So far your reasoning hasn't been very convincing.  While the reddit forum might be a good resource for people who are doing generative art is it a good reference or external for an encyclopedia?   I don't see how it is.  It is not peer reviewed, it is the personal opinions thoughts of individual who people who may or may not be experts in generative art.  There are several avenues you can use to get other opinions about the link.  Like I said above you can ask at External links/Noticeboard.  You can also ask at Wikiproject talk pages that have taken an interest in this article.  The two listed at the top of this page are: WikiProject Robotics and WikiProject Visual arts.  There have been posts to both of these in the last month or so, someone there might give you another opinion.  If none of these pan out you can also ask for a third opinion or try using any of the other dispute resolution processes.  The thing you don't want to do is edit war, that is a quick route to being blocked from editing.  I know a bribe won't convince me to change my mind, only a good argument as to why this forum should be linked.  -- GB fan 11:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 * WP:EL is pretty straighforward, particularly WP:LINKSTOAVOID, item number 10, social media/chat or discussion forums/Usenet. A reddit forum is exactly that, an unsourced and unverified chat room. Under what authority is a reddit forum "official"? Anyone can start a forum. I can start one today on generative art. Does that make it "official"? There's a reason reddit etc. are not acceptable as sources and as external links. They have no real value for an encyclopedia, no different than a facebook page or some random guy's blog. Guidelines are pretty clear and although they are not mandatory per ce the way Wikipedia policies are, changing guidelines do require consensus. That starts here with this discussion and until consensus is reached in favour of adding the reddit link, it should remain outside the article. A word of advice to the original editor: attacking other editors, being belligerent and accusatory, is not the way to gain consensus. We're all volunteers here and have no interest in engaging in a discussion where we are attacked  freshacconci  talk to me  14:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Sorry, reddit is just a forum for to sell anything and to talk - like some art guppe at facebook - not relevant.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Reddit, like other forums and social media that anyone can edit, is not suitable as a source for Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia isn't either, for the same reason. This isn't a "technicality", it's a matter of reliable evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Uncited material - could be useful so here it is
The following material has remained uncited, and although I've worked on the article I can't see how to cite it (maybe you can do better, in which case feel free to do so, and to add [the usable parts of] it back to the article). It might just be somebody's unciteable opinion, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 * "Generative art systems can be categorized as being ordered, disordered, or complex. Here complex systems are those that have a mixture of both order and disorder and typically exhibit emergence. Ordered generative art systems can include serial art, data mapping, the use of symmetry and tiling, number sequences and series, proportions such as the golden ratio, and combinatorics. Disordered generative art systems typically exploit some form of randomization, stochastics, or aspects of chaos theory.

 * While ordered generative art systems are as old as art itself, and disordered generative art systems came to prominence in the 20th century, contemporary generative art practice tends to lean in the direction of complex generative systems. Evolutionary computing approaches have been especially productive as a way to harness and steer complex expressions of aesthetic form and sound at a high level either by interactively choosing and breeding individual results leading to improved hybrids, or by applying automatic selection rules, or both.

 * Other computational generative systems that move towards complexity include diffusion-limited aggregation, L-systems, neural networks, cellular automata, reaction-diffusion systems, artificial life, and other biologically inspired methods such as swarm behaviour.

 * While some generative art exists as static artifacts produced by previous unseen processes, it can also be viewed developing in real-time. Typically such works are never displayed the same way twice. For example, graphical programming environments (e.g. Max/Msp, Pure Data or vvvv) as well as classic yet user-friendly programming environments such as Processing or openFrameworks are used to create real-time generative audiovisual artistic expressions in the Demoscene and in VJ-culture."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Generative art. 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/20120727083144/http://generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene to http://generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325054818/http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue16/colourchart3.htm to http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue16/colourchart3.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121129225520/http://diotima.infotech.monash.edu.au/~jonmc/sa/news/ten-questions-concerning-generative-computer-art/ to http://diotima.infotech.monash.edu.au/~jonmc/sa/news/ten-questions-concerning-generative-computer-art/

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) 17:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Album de 10 sérigraphies sur 10 ans 09.jpg

Dubious claim about Bach's fugues being generative
The claim that:

"The fugues of J.S. Bach could be considered generative, in that there is a strict underlying process that is followed by the composer."

is, in my view, highly dubious. While process is a major pillar of Bach's work, in particular the fugues, canons, and such, his process is by no means equivalent to the "setting up of system and allowing them to play out" characteristic of the work of, say, later John Cage. Creative decisions are made at every point throughout Bach's compositions. The only case where I can see an argument for generative processes is the working out of sequence passages, but even still these tend to last at most 4 iterations, where the first and last involve creative decisions in entry and exit methods. Indeed, a reading of the cited source provides no real argument for this work being generative in the sense that this article uses the word.

--Andrewjyoon (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.

Yaxu (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

History
The paragraph that begins "The first such exhibition..." seems unclear to me. I believe it would make more sense to lead with the actual name of the exhibit and after that - if it's a widespread misconception or otherwise noteworthy - mention that it has sometimes been mislabeled. Also... I don't understand the point of mentioning that Nees doesn't remember the name of his thesis.PurpleChez (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"a hallmark of generative design."
Hello this statement in the sentence is pure advertising. I doubt it and I would delete the whole paragraph. What is the opinion on this? the statement: a hallmark of generative design. ??? --Maxim Pouska (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —I've made this edit. Tell me if it addresses your concerns. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - maybe - can stay that way, but what about the other hallmark developments in this field? Isn't that a statement without references? It's like praise in advertising - my opinion. I do not discuss it further.- --Maxim Pouska (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 * PS the problem is the reference - Michael Hansmeyer AIArtists: "Generative Art & Design Guide" - this is only from the book by Michael Hansmeyers, his owe book - I I think it is  against the rules by Wikipedia. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Tate defines "generative art" as "art made using a predetermined system that often includes an element of chance – is usually applied to computer based art". Our article says in the "Architecture" section "The process could be run again and again with different parameters to create endless permutations. Endless permutations could be considered a hallmark of generative design." Even without the Michael Hansmeyer source (the link seems to be broken) I think this assertion would not be an unsupported assertion. According to Merriam-Webster "hallmark" merely means "a distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature". You are referring to "other hallmark developments in this field" but the article is not at all referring to hallmark developments in the field. The article is referring to the hallmark features of "generative art". Those features would be, as Merriam-Webster says, distinguishing characteristics, traits, or features. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"You can see several modern examples of generative art here."
This is a link to an external page and not a part of the definition, per se. It should either be in the references section, probably anchored by the word "modern generative visual art" or so, or some of the pictures should be added as examples directly in the page, provided that it doesn't break any copyright laws. As it stands, this sentence is not compatible with the Wikipedia standards, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneib (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ingrid Hornef translatet and added PS - undo
Hello I have translate it - :-) Sie ist einer/ eine der tausenden Artist*innen, die erst nach 1980 damit arbeitete, - also nicht besonderes - meine meinung - da der ersten in diesem Bereich bereits vor 1970. schaffte.) She is one of the thousands of artists who worked with it only after 1980, - so not special - my opinion - as the first in this field already created before 1970.

PS She started only in 2002 with the project and that under the concept Constructive Art - also an ancient concept 2002. Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Generative art


text:
Loughmacrory

Loughmacrory (AKA the lough) is a village and townland (of 1651 acres) in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. The village is situated 8 miles (13 km) east of Omagh in the historic barony of Omagh East and the civil parish of Termonmaguirk. it had a population of 237 in the 2001 Census. Loughmacrory has houses, shops, a church and a primary school. There is also an old mill and ancient cairns nearby.

Loughmacrory is part of the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area.

Sport

 * Loughmacrory St. Teresa's is the local Gaelic Athletic Association club.

title: Loughmacrory


text:
Mazzocchi

Mazzocchi may refer to:

 * Domenico Mazzocchi (1592–1665), Italian composer, brother of Virgilio
 * Virgilio Mazzocchi (1597–1646), Italian composer, brother of Domenico
 * Mazzocchi brothers, rival mafiosi of Ruggerio "Richie the Boot" Boiardo's
 * A plant of the genus Corchorus
 * Part of a chaperon (hood or headgear)

title: Mazzocchi


text:
Wormwood Street

Wormwood Street is a short street in the City of London which runs between London Wall at its western end and a junction with Bishopsgate and Camomile Street in the east. It is a dual carriageway which forms part of the A1211 route between Barbican and Whitechapel.

The nearest London Underground stations to Wormwood Street are Liverpool Street and Moorgate. It is within the London congestion charge zone. The postcode for the street is EC2.

Etymology
The name of the street refers to a plant called wormwood which used to grow on the London Wall and in other areas of wasteland in the City. Wormwood Street's course follows the line of a sector of the original city wall, the wall forming the rear of the buildings on the north side of the street.

History
It escaped destruction in the Great Fire of 1666 but had to be extensively redeveloped after suffering severe damage in the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing. The bomb exploded on Bishopsgate near its junction with Wormwood Street.

Archaeological investigations by the Museum of London Archaeology Service undertaken during the reconstruction after the bombing discovered a coin in the remains of London Wall that led to the date of construction to be reappraised to preceding the year 180.

title: Wormwood Street


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blizzard Link Theory

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Blizzard Link Theory
nn personal essay Dlyons493 18:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV essay, game speculation. ManoaChild 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV essay came to mind first. feydey 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV essay. *drew 01:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Template:Latest preview software release/Firefox

➔ Back to article "Firefox"


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Magic: The Gathering

Discussion below was cut and pasted from Requests for mediation. Uncle Ed 18:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic has continually reverted to his last edit, despite efforts on the talk page and his user page to explain why others think edits are necessary. Several areas in need of work, and noted as such throughout the talk page, are effectively being blocked. --Khaim 22:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Not going to mediate with someone who chooses to mis-characterize my actions.  This newbie is assuming an aggressive editing stance on this article, and many related.  While obviously knowledgable, he forgets that these articles have histories to them and were quite stable before his arrival.  He's nit-picking over trivial wording difference on a non-controversial article. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That is entirely beside the point. May I point you to this? I'm entitled to, and even encouraged, to edit as I see fit. I disagree that the page(s) in question are "stable". They need work. In addition, the very lengthy talk page addresses a number of issues that have not been resolved. I am attempting to do that.
 * You, on the other hand, are arrogant, possessive, and underhanded. Three times you have reverted to "your" last edit, and not once have you acknowledged that the edit was in fact a revert. You have ignored both my and other user's dialogue concerning possible changes. You have suggested that you are somehow more "worthy" than I to work on the page in question. Case in point: in the immediately preceding paragraph you refer to me as a newbie. Assuming that was true, it's also irrelevant. --Khaim 17:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Did you read anything on Be bold in updating pages besides the title? Under the "...but don't be reckless!" section, it reads in part - "New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Wikipedia and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories".  That is the situation you are in, making dozens of edits to that article in the span of one day.  Go back and read Be bold for some other suggestions, but take a break on that MTG article for the time being. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * My main concern was the Gameplay section (before the subsections). You reverted my edit, and I haven't redone it, despite this and this both indicating that work is needed. If you would care to point out exactly what edits I've made since that have been disruptive, I'll be happy to reconsider. However, just because an article is old does not mean it should not be edited. In particular, the grammar and style is at times quite bad. For example, in this edit I added a link to the rules page, expanded by half a sentence the reasons for 20-24 lands in 60 cards, and attempted to rewrite the second paragraph so that it was both readable and adequately explained the topic being addressed. --Khaim 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)