text:
Talk:England (disambiguation)

UK position
I'd updated two lines to read:

England may be:

 * England, a nation in Europe, and the largest and most populous part of the United Kingdom.
 * The inaccurate use of the national name above to refer to the entire United Kingdom.

This was reverted to the current state of

''England may be:

 * England, a nation in Europe.''

I changed it because I thought the England line was slightly misleading in that it implied that England was simply a nation in Europe, without reference to its context in the UK (through which it currently derives its political power).

The second line was there because it's a disambiguation page and, like it or not, there is a tendency for people to think of England when they are really discussing the United Kingdom; hence they may actually be looking for the United Kingdom.

Before I put these back in their current, or modified forms, I'd like to get some feedback on what you think.

Fourohfour 11:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Having that stuff there is silly. Nobody gets to this page except from clicking the link at the top of England.  But that article already includes the misuse etc.  This page is only for people who wanted to know about other uses of the term.

 * If this was a case where the disambiguation page was at England, then yes, your version would be preferred. Morwen - Talk 11:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You have a point, although I still feel the first entry would be better phrased as "part of the United Kingdom". Is England even technically a 'nation' (as opposed to country)?
 * Fourohfour 11:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no technical definition of "nation" or "country" (unless you can point me at one), therefore I would contend that nothing is technically a nation or a country. The choice is linguistic and political.  Morwen - Talk 11:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Although I strongly agree with you there, I don't see any reason not to use the longer version. ("A country in Europe, the largest and most populous part of the United Kingdom") Might as well be clear. Doops | talk 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Be clear, yes, but be clear about disambiguating it from the other possible entries. If somebody was looking for Lynndie England or England, Arkansas, and the England (the country) link didn't include the extra text about relative size and population, would there be any chance of confusion?  That, I think, is key to deciding what should be on a dab page.  Not, "Is this extra information interesting", but "does this extra information help the user select which entry they were looking for"?  --RoySmith 02:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, Morwen's right of course; pretty much the only way anybody will be reaching this page is via England. So arguably we don't need a link back there at all! :) But of course we do, if merely as a matter of principle. At any rate, whatever wording is adopted, I think there should be a mention of "UK" in it. A Massachusetts disambiguation page wouldn't say "a subnational entity in North America"; it would mention the US. So how about "a country in Europe, part of the UK" ?Doops | talk 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I have revised it to read
 * England, the largest constituent nation within the United Kingdom.
 * which I hope satisfies everyone. Perhaps the phrasing (as opposed to the factual content) could do with some tweaking; decide for yourselves.

 * BTW, perhaps 'Kingdom of England' (not my entry) should be in a sublist indicating that it refers (basically) to the same 'England' as the main one?
 * Fourohfour 17:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If there were more entries on this dab page, then I'd say it would be worth splitting into multiple sub-lists. But with only 4 total, it's probably not necessary.  I did, however, get rid of the extraneous links, in accordance with the convention that there is only one link per entry on a dab page.
 * I thought that was a general recommendation with exceptions if they proved genuinely useful, not a hard and fast rule. But... it's not that big a deal to me personally. Fourohfour 17:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is indeed only a recommendation. In fact, the Manual of Style even says that you can break the rules.  But, what makes those extra links so special that they justify breaking the rules in this case?  It is very tempting to try and cram all sorts of interesting information into a dab page, but the end result is usually a mess of links which just confuses the reader.  Give them just enough information to figure out which link they wanted, and you've done the job.  All that extra information belongs in the article itself.  If you want to explore when it's appropriate to break the rules, I invite you to come join WikiProject Disambiguation; I would certainly welcome your input to the discussions there.  --RoySmith 18:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken.... I've just come across one user who seems hell-bent on contributing countless stupid acronyms to disambig pages, so I'm not too tolerant of excessive bloat myself now anyway (^_^) Fourohfour 23:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern vs. Historical
What bothers me about the first two entries is that the discriptions don't really emphasize the most significant difference the two -- that of time. Geographically, they refer to the same thing (I'm assuming their borders were roughly the same). What would people think about:

 * England, part of the current-day United Kingdom.
 * Kingdom of England, the historical state that existed from the 8th century until 1707.

--RoySmith 23:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems fine to me
 * Fourohfour 23:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

When I added Kingdom of England I was deliberately vague about when the nation was founded since there is no single agreed date. So I think my statement "founded during the 8th and 9th centuries" should remain.

Does the football team belong here?
I don't think it makes much sense to have the football team entry. Would anybody looking for an article about England's national football team type "England" into a search box? I don't think so. Doesn't the name "England" apply equally to any national sports team? Wouldn't you describe a cricket match as "England vs. South Africa", for example? --RoySmith 02:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to assume that someone will see that use of 'England' and type it in here. My rule of thumb is whether (in the vast majority of cases), this meaning will be seen in a context that makes it clear what is being referred to (which counts *against* inclusion in a disambig page). In addition, your argument about other sports is spot on.

 * OTOH, I don't think there's an "obvious" search title for (e.g.) the England football team, so the inclusion of teams may be warranted here; but perhaps that should be a list on another page, else this disambig page will get filled up with countless entries such as "The England Kabaddi team". Fourohfour 12:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

England and United Kingdom
Shouldn't mention be made of the fact that England is for many people around the world a synonym for the state known officially as the United Kingdom? It may be technically incorrect but it is widely used in many many languages and is also very commonly used in spoken English in the Republic of Ireland and the United States to name just two English-speaking states. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the page to reflect the fact that referring to the UK as England is factually incorrect. This was brought to my attention recently when someone actually cited this page in a debate to prove that they were correct in doing so, therefore it is relevant to include it here as well as within the main article on England and the UK. Triune (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 * It is incorrect to say it is factually inaccurate that England is a "general phrase for the United Kingdom". It is a fact that people do indeed use the term in that manner. Some may deem such usage inappropriate or mistaken, but you cannot say it is factually inaccurate that the term is used in that manner. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Readded to state "though this is incorrect usage as England is a constituent part of the United Kingdom". Triune (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 * It is a figure of speech that is widely used. As a figure of speech, it is not a technically precise term and characterizing it as incorrect usage is prescriptivist pedantry. older ≠ wiser 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I disagree with calling this a figure of speech in the same way as I would if someone called Africa a country. People may say it, but it is still demonstrably wrong as used by the inhabitants of the countries in question.  You've now reverted my suggested edits on many occasions because of your personal preference.  Please stop unless you can actually demonstrate a reason why this usage is not in fact erroneous, as your actions at the moment appear to be an attempt to legitimise incorrect use of a word, which is not the task of wikipedia. Triune (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * And you reverted me several times now based on your personal preference. This is nothing more than a disambiguation page, it is not the place to correct perceptions of incorrect usage. older ≠ wiser 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * The difference is that mine was the updated version of the article, and wikipedia guidelines state that the update should take priority over the status quo in such discussions. As such, if you and I can't agree, the update should take priority until consensus on your proposed changes can be reached.  Again, please do not revert my changes any further without obtaining external views. Triune (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, no. There is no policy that allows an editor to hijack a page to insert personal preferences. the status quo should stand unless you can demonstrate a consensus for the change. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling Policy is not "status quo stands" any more. I haven't hijacked this for personal preferences, I have added a word which shows that a certain usage is incorrect, which it demonstrably is. You have not put forward any defence other than "people use it" which is true but entirely irrelevant to the discussion as to whether the usage is erroneous. The fact is that the usage is incorrect (as the word "England" refers to a country bordered by Scotland and Wales, while "United Kingdom" includes all three of those countries plus Northern Ireland and various UK Overseas Territories), therefore undoing a change highlighting that it is incorrect is just stonewalling for your own personal preference. If you disagree further, please put this page up for comment rather than just continuing to revert edits because you don't like them. Triune (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Status quo stonewalling is an essay, not policy or even a guideline. By your reasoning, every instance of metonomy is incorrect in that a part is used to represent a larger entity. It is pointless to flag every such usage. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to the topic they are looking for, not to didactically tell them their usage is regarded as incorrect by some. So far you have presented nothing more than your personal preference in this regard with no other support. Please gain consensus for this change before reverting again. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Triune, there is no policy that allows you to add or change material without consensus. The long-standing version is "A general phrase for the United Kingdom as a whole" (since July). I think "A metonym for the United Kingdom as a whole" is an improvement. If you don't think this is an improvement on the previous wording, you can revert it and argue why the previous wording is better, but you can't change it to how you want it without consensus. There is long-standing consensus for "A general phrase for the United Kingdom as a whole", and a reasonable argument and support for "A metonym for the United Kingdom as a whole". There is no support, aside from yourself, for your proposed wording. Rob984 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Rob, the purpose of wikipedia is to present facts. The argument here is that the fact that this is incorrect is somehow not relevant to the definition.  If you look back at the history of the article, the long-standing consensus is actually for this definition not to be included, as it was removed in 2005 and left alone until 2016, where it was added in July and then removed for the first time less than 2 months later.  Numerous people throughout the history of this article have stated a preference for either not including an incorrect definition or stating that the definition is incorrect, and the reversions recently have flown in the face of that long-standing consensus.

Either consensus is important, in which case the longer-standing consensus is not to include the incorrect definition at all, or correctness is important in which case reverting the page from showing more correct information to less correct information is the wrong action. Either way, adding the word "erroneous" adds correct information that is otherwise lacking, therefore it shouldn't just be reverted back without good justification, which is still lacking. Triune (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should England be referred to as an erroneous metonym for the United Kingdom?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should England be referred to as an erroneous metonym for the United Kingdom? (bolded word is the proposal)

We have been unable to reach a consensus on this issue. I have attempted to add information to the effect that using the word "England" to refer to "the United Kingdom" is incorrect, hence the use of the word erroneous. This is based on the definition of England as a country which borders Scotland and Wales and which is a constituent, along with those two countries, Northern Ireland and numerous overseas territories, of the United Kingdom. Referring to a part of a country as the whole is incorrect, much like referring to New York and the whole of the USA. This may be a colloquialism used in some parts of the world, but minor usage does not imply correctness.

I believe that either this definition should be removed completely, or it should be highlighted here that the usage is incorrect, as including it here seems to be attempted approval of the misuse, which I understand is against the purpose of this website.Triune (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support Factual accuracy is important to state even in disambiguation pages. Triune (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose By Triune's reasoning all metonyms are erroneous (at least to the extent they are inaccurate by using a part to represent something larger) That is the nature of figurative language. There is little point in marking such common figures of speech as erroneous on a disambiguation page. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers find the topic they were looking for. That some readers will think of "England" when they mean the UK is inevitable. Informing them that some persons find the usage objectionable does not help such a reader. It might be possible to come up with some more neutral phrasing, but not at the risk of making the entry longer than needed for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the use of "erroneous" in any descriptor here (unless it accurately summarizes the subject of an article). Dab pages are not articles, and nuances of meaning should be discussed in the linked article, not here. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose . England is sometimes used to refer to the UK or the island of Great Britain. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help a reader determine a specific subject, or inform them a term has multiple meanings.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if it's actually used as a figure of speech/synonym/metonyum/synecdoche, then that shouldn't be called "erroneous". And I would suggest using an exxplanation without the technical word because the word is not commonly understood.  Folks easily understand that "England won the world cup" is short for "The English team won", or that England/Britain/UK are used synonymously ... Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It sounds very pedantic and so does "metonym." Do most people know what it means?  I prefer the approach with Russia (disambiguation):  "Soviet Union (USSR), the socialist state that existed from 1922 to 1991, of which RSFSR is a part."  Holland (disambiguation) says, "Informally (was previously formal in sports events), Holland may also be used to represent the whole country of The Netherlands."  Also note Great Britain (disambiguation) ("United Kingdom, a sovereign state") and Britain ("Britain may refer to: United Kingdom, a sovereign state.")   The UK of course includes both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet Great Britain and Britain are much more widely accepted as terms to refer to the sovereign state.  In all cases, it is older names continuing to be used.  TFD (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a disambiguation page. There should be no information added. Disambiguation pages are not a place for explanation or information, just for pointing, but I do have a suggestion (see below).--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apart from the 'this is a dab' arguments, with which I agree, this wording is uninformative. Outside the UK, confusion about the distinction/s between Britain, GB, UK, UK+NI and the constituent countries is common, it's annoying to some in the UK, but we also do it to Holland and Russia. The proper place for correcting that is within articles. (side note, can a metonym be erroneous? Isn't a metonym by definition a metaphorical usage? Does the proposer mean 'sometimes used outside the UK to refer to the whole UK?'). Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our role is to describe significant usages, not prescribe which are 'correct' or 'incorrect'. Joe Roe (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a dab page. Widefox ; talk 15:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - my preference is the current revision of the page (without any reference to the whole United Kingdom other than in the See Also section). I don't see any need to explain an incorrect usage of 'England' on a disambiguation page. If someone is confused they can follow the link below - surely that's what the See Also section is for? It's not a particularly long page that's hard to navigate. However, I'm not opposed to Iloilo Wanderer's suggestion if that is a workable compromise. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose going in depth on the correctness of the term, but support a more prominent placing than the See Also section, given how much this metonym is used. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what's being asked here. The current disamb page states "England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" - what is the problem with this phrase? FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  12:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I don't think it's fair to claim that it's worth rejecting because it's longer than necessary when I'm now proposing adding a single word to the description, or alternatively to removing the definition altogether, replacing it with a link in the "See Also" section. In any case, a factual description would be better than a shorter but less accurate one.

Bkonrad has also opposed this on the grounds that "some persons find the usage objectionable", which is not a fair statement of my position. It isn't that the usage is objectionable, it is that it is incorrect, pure and simple. As I have stated on a number of occasions (and have not been contradicted on, I might add) England is a country bordered by Scotland and Wales, whilst the UK includes all three of those separate countries and some additional territories. As such, someone can be in Scotland, in the UK but NOT in England. The use of England to mean the UK can only be erroneous as it leaves no word which can be used to uniquely describe the land area of Great Britain excluding Scotland and Wales.Triune (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Must add here that I believe the status quo for this article is very clearly that England is not referred to as an alternative way of stating the United Kingdom at all, therefore the status quo is hard to determine (this statement was only added in July this year and has been the subject of controversy since early September). My view is that as the status quo is either no statement that England is a word for the UK as a whole or that it is incorrect, the current version (i.e. stating "erroneous") is more reflective of the long term status quo, therefore this should be the version left up for disucssion until further notice.Triune (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I've no problem with placing an undescribed link to the UK in the see also section as it was before July. older ≠ wiser 22:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * That to me is absolutely fine. Thank you for coming up with an alternative to the argument! Triune (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * No objection from myself either.
 * However, what you are claiming regarding the "status quo" is bollocks. Policy doesn't refer to the status quo. When an editor refers to a revision as being the status quo, they are referring to it having consensus. Consensus can result simply from no object being made for a prolonged period, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. See WP:Silence and consensus for explanation. The addition was added in July, and remained uncontested for two months. So that has consensus and as such is the status quo. You could possibly have reverted the change that occurred in July (as you have now done), but adding your own material is certain not the "status quo". You can ignore what I am telling you if you like, but I assure you, you were a second away from being listed at WP:AN/3 and temporarily blocked from editing. You are fortunate you were arguing with someone who has a greater tolerance of edit warring than myself.
 * Regards.
 * Rob984 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I have no opinion on the edit war here, but I have a suggestion of my own below. think the current version of the dab page is completely acceptable. — Gorthian (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What's your objection to the current version? (I personally prefer it.) Would you support Iloilo Wanderer's suggestion? Cheers, Jr8825  •  Talk  18:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Iloilo Wanderer's suggestion is spot-on, reasoning and all. I have another suggestion myself, below.— Gorthian (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 * See my vote above. I think an improvement on the current page would be to add links to both "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" after the sentence fragment "England may also refer to:" either right after the reference to the sports teams or after the "Places" subheading.  Why? Because "England may refer to" either as well as to England proper.  No further information or explanation should be given on a disambiguation page.  If people do not understand the difference, they can click through to the article. Disamb pages are not for information or discussion.  No adjectives or adverbs unless entirely unavoidable.  It is for pointing to any and all articles that people might be looking for when they search for the term, in this case "England".  Since by "England" the ignorant (say a 8 year old Filipino learning English in school) may mean the UK or GB, they should be listed above the "See also" section. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already opined on the RFC; the current version of the page PLUS Iloilo Wanderer's modification is excellent. One change I would make to the page is to put the entry for National sports teams of England under one of the sections (Culture or Other); the only entry that should be outside a section is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (But I just realized that this is somewhat off-topic.) — Gorthian (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Primary meanings (other than the primary topic) can be listed at the top per MOS:DABORDER: "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below"."England" is very often used to refer to the football or cricket team without qualification. This is probably the most common usage of the term in general conversation, since the country has become gradually more abstract. Rob984 (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also you would have to put it in its own section or at the bottom in "Other uses" (I don't think sports really falls under "Culture"), neither of which seem preferential. Rob984 (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rob984, I'm American and non-sport-oriented; it didn't occur to me that that was a main topic. I'm striking my suggestion. — Gorthian (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:England (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Martyndannatt

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Nat Krause 11:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

P.S. - Did you know that you can use spaces and capital letters in your username? If you want, you can start a new account as "Martyn Dannatt", which might be more pleasing to the eye.

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

title: User talk:Martyndannatt


text:
Stanmore railway station, Sydney

Stanmore railway station is a heritage-listed railway station located on the Main Suburban line, serving the Sydney suburb of Stanmore in New South Wales, Australia. It is served by Sydney Trains T2 Inner West & Leppington line services. It was added to the New South Wales State Heritage Register on 2 April 1999.

History
Stanmore Station was opened in 1878 with a signal box erected in 1881. The present station buildings were built in 1885, and the station reopened on 17 January 1886. The existing island platform building originally fronted Douglas Street on the north side and was built to a similar design to the disused station building at Petersham. In 1885 the original pedestrian subway was built, and a new signal box (relocated from Petersham) replaced the existing signal box.

The Main Suburban line through Stanmore was quadruplicated in 1891, at which time its platform became an island platform and an awning was added to the original street facade. The platforms were also extended to 156 m and an additional platform built on the northern side of the new Up Suburban track. The station reflects the changes that came with track amplification, its original northern street frontage converted skilfully to an island by Cowdery, its relocated and extended subway and its parcels office on the new north frontage.

Further changes to the station included new barriers and a booking office in 1897; a ladies toilet on the Down Local platform in 1900; the island platforms extended in 1905; the signal box closed and Down platform extended in 1913; and stairways covered in 1923.

The main line was sextuplicated in 1927 in association with electrification works; with these changes, a new pedestrian subway was built in 1926 and the Up Suburban platform demolished.

In 1960 the Up booking office was relocated to Platforms 1 and 2 and the parcels office located in the former booking office.

Up until the 1980s, a few morning peak services from the North Shore line called at platform 1 for the benefit of Newington College students.

The station was upgraded with lifts connecting to the underpass in October 2023.

Transport links
Transit Systems operates one bus route via Stanmore station, under contract to Transport for NSW:
 * 412: Martin Place to Campsie station

Stanmore station is served by one NightRide route:
 * N50: Liverpool station to Town Hall station

Description
Stanmore Railway Station is entered from Trafalgar Street to the south and Douglas Street to the north via the pedestrian subway. The buildings are located at an important road intersection, with shopping precincts to both the north and south. The station group comprises a wayside platform with building, island platform with building, pedestrian subway, and parcel's office to the north. The current Inner West line uses the two southernmost tracks of the six tracks passing through the station.

The station complex include the Platform 1/2 and Platform 3 station buildings (both 1886), the former parcels and booking office (1913) and the pedestrian subway (1926). Platform 1/2 dates from c. 1880s, extended in 1891, while Platform 3 dates from c.  1880s.

The integrity of Stanmore Railway Station as a whole is considered to be high based on the fact that the platform buildings, the subway, and the parcels office are rarely seen so intact on the one site.

 * Platform building – Platform 1/2

The "second class station" building is flanked by attached wing structures with a combination of hipped and gable roof forms. The awnings are integrated with the hipped roof to the east and west wings, and extend from below the line of the eaves to the central section of the roof. The roofing material for both the awning and the roof is corrugated steel which has replaced the original corrugated galvanised iron roofing. There are transverse gables, which face north and south, and feature decorative barge boards, finials and ridges. The hipped roofs to east and west have original chimneys and ventilated lanterns. The brickwork is painted and features a decorative dentilled course to the eastern and western ends. There are brick pilasters, with moulded rendered capitals, to the central section on the south side and in one instance the capital has been modified to accommodate a down pipe. The window openings to the western end of the building have been amended to suit the toilet facilities this section of the building now accommodates. Where this section of the building joins the waiting room there is cracking at the junction of the brickwork externally.

Air-conditioning units and modern services and conduits have been fixed to the brickwork and in front of windows on the northern elevation of this building. The awning structure consists of timber beams with stop chamfers, and purlins with beaded edge detail, supported by original cast iron columns (which have NSWGR insignia) with new corrugated metal roof sheeting.

The Station Manager's office and the booking office (at the eastern end of the building) have some original extant fabric, including pressed metal ceilings and cornices, ceiling rose, original windows and architraves (with modern security grilles). New partition walls have been constructed to create a toilet and CCTV equipment room. The store room adjacent to the Station Manager's office has (possibly original) floorboards and timber ceiling lining. The main waiting room has timber lining boards to the ceiling with a beaded profile and original mouldings. The timber floors and fixed bench seating remain and are in good condition. There is a pair of double leaf panelled doors and original windows, with timber architrave and sill boards, all in sound condition. The timber floors and fixed bench seating are also in good condition. There is a chimney breast and hearth to the western end of the room, with the opening bricked up. The waiting room, adjacent to the ladies toilet, has an original ceiling rose, door, windows and architraves and has a dado rail and skirting which is in keeping with the age of the building. There is a chimney breast and hearth to the eastern end of the room, with the opening bricked up.

The building was reported to be in good condition at the time of heritage listing, although a few surface cracks had developed in the brickwork. The building is largely intact externally although its interiors have been modified to meet ever-changing operational requirements. It retains a number of original external features namely the chimneys, ventilated lanterns, and decorative dentilled course to the brickwork and original cast iron columns with NSWGR insignia. Some of the original elements retained to the interior include pressed metal ceilings, cornices, ceiling rose, original windows, architraves, floorboards, timber ceiling lining, fixed bench seating, a pair of double leaf panelled doors and original but bricked up chimney breasts. Modern services such as air-conditioning, lighting and CCTV have been installed yet they do not detract from the integrity of the buildings overall.

 * Platform Building – Platform 3

The "second class station" is a brick building with a central open waiting room and enclosed rooms to either end (painted to all but Trafalgar Rd elevation). The building has a hipped roof form with original chimneys to either end. The awning extends from below the line of the eaves and the roofing material for both the awning and the roof is corrugated steel, which has replaced the original corrugated galvanised iron roofing. The awning is to the same detail as the one on Platform 1–2, supported by original cast iron columns, new corrugated metal roof sheeting, modern services and conduits are fixed to original elements. The brick wall to Trafalgar Road has been extended to both the east, to full height adjacent to the former ticket window, and to the west to provide toilet facilities. The toilet addition (c.1900) to the far west of the building is accessed through an opening in an original external wall.

The former booking office (now storage) to the eastern end of the building has some original features including ceiling rose, original windows and architraves (the ticket window has been painted out to inside). There is a chimney breast but no fireplace opening. The waiting area to the central section has timber lining boards to the ceiling, with a beaded profile and a scotia moulding. The original timber floors and fixed bench seating are in good condition. The storage to the western end has some original features including ceiling rose, original windows and mouldings including dado rail, skirtings, architraves and sill boards and chimney breast but no fireplace opening.

The building was reported to be in moderate condition at the time of heritage listing. The building is largely intact externally although its interiors have been modified to meet ever-changing operational requirements. It retains a number of original external features namely the chimneys and original cast iron columns with NSWGR insignia. Some of the original elements retained to the interior include a ceiling rose, original windows, architraves, floorboards, timber ceiling lining, fixed bench seating and an original but bricked up chimney breast. Modern services such as air-conditioning, lighting and CCTV have been installed yet they do not detract from the integrity of the buildings overall.

 * Former parcels and booking office

The Federation period brick building consists of two rooms which are currently used as storage. The external brickwork is in good condition, with new vents installed at low level. The original windows remain with the original coloured glazing (obscured to the exterior by security grilles). There is some damage to gutter fascia to the north-west corner. Externally, modern services and conduits have been fixed to the original fabric. There is a fibre cement slate half-gabled roof in a diamond pattern to north, east and west roof face with dormer details, with corrugated metal roofing to the south. The rainwater fixtures have been replaced.

The original door, windows and architraves remain with dado rail, skirting and wall vents which are in keeping with the age of the building. There is mini-corrugated metal sheeting to ceiling. Modern lighting, services and conduits have been face fixed to walls and ceilings. The timber glazed partition seems to be a later addition.

Generally the building is in good condition with original fabric both internally and externally. Unsympathetic repairs, to the roof in particular, graffiti and adhesive marks on the brickwork do somewhat reduce the integrity of this buildingbut can be remedied.

Platform 1 and Platform 2 (Up) form an island platform. Platform 1 is not currently in use except by trains during track work or in emergencies. Platform 3 (Down) is a wayside platform. All the platforms have asphalt surfaces and original brick faces.
 * Platforms

The subway is face brick, with recessed detail to stairs, and a painted render finish to subway. There are areas of replacement brickwork and repairs to pointing are visible. The covered stair to Platform 1-2 is a painted timber-framed structure with lining boards over rafters, which is in good condition. There are security grilles covering the openings to the outside. The timber elements are all fairly plain except at the entrance to the platform where there are stop chamfered posts and mouldings to rafters. There is modern lighting and service conduits and pipes face fixed to the walls. The concrete stairs are relatively new.
 * Pedestrian Subway

The subway has been changed but it also retains original fabric namely the brick walls, the steel girder and concrete ceiling.

 * Historically significant moveable items
 * Safe in Station Manager's Office
 * Desk/Shelving Unit in Station Manager's Office
 * Bench seating to waiting Rooms

Modifications and dates

 * 1881: Block signal box erected.
 * 1885: New signal box from Petersham re-erected; original pedestrian subway built.
 * 1891: Platforms extended to 156 m and an additional platform built on the northern side of the new Up Suburban track.
 * 1897: Barriers and booking office provided.
 * 1900: Ladies toilet on Down Local platform.
 * 1905: Island platforms extended.
 * 1913: Signal box closed; Down platform extended.
 * 1923: Stairways covered.
 * 1926: New pedestrian subway built in association with widening to six tracks; Up Suburban platform demolished due to track amplification.
 * 1928: Local and Suburban lines electrified to Homebush.
 * c. 1944-46 Modifications to former booking/parcel office (subject to confirmation)
 * 1955: Main lines electrified to Homebush.
 * 1960: Up booking office relocated to Platforms 1 and 2; parcels office located in former booking office.

Heritage listing
Stanmore Railway Station has State significance for its group of largely intact, original structures dating from the 1880s establishment of the station through to the 1891 quadruplication and the 1927 sextuplication of the line, which are able to demonstrate the growth and expansion of the railways in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is significant for its collection of railway structures namely the 1880s platform buildings, the 1910s former parcels and booking office and the 1920s subway which have remained largely intact and form a cohesive group which is able to effectively represent suburban railway stations of the late 19th century. The extant 1880s platform buildings are excellent examples of "second class station" buildings which have a high level of integrity. The group remains relatively intact and is a significant landmark in the local area.

Stanmore railway station was listed on the New South Wales State Heritage Register on 2 April 1999 having satisfied the following criteria.

The place is important in demonstrating the course, or pattern, of cultural or natural history in New South Wales.

Stanmore Railway Station has State significance as the station with its group of largely intact, original structures dating from the 1880s establishment of the station through to the 1891 quadruplication and the 1927 sextuplication of the line, is able to demonstrate the growth and expansion of the railways in the late 19th and early 20th century. The 1880s platform buildings, the 1910s former parcels and booking office and the 1920s subway collectively represent key historic phases of suburban railway development.

The place has a strong or special association with a person, or group of persons, of importance of cultural or natural history of New South Wales's history.

Stanmore Railway Station is significant for its association with Engineer-in-Chief George Cowdery who was influential in guiding the changes made to the station as part of the 1891 quadruplication of the line namely the conversion of the existing island Platform 1-2 and the construction of the former parcels and booking office along Douglas Street.

The place is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in New South Wales.

Collectively the complex of station structures at Stanmore Railway Station have local aesthetic significance. The 1880s "second class station buildings" displays large central brick buildings flanked by attached wing structures, hipped roofs with a transverse gable and awnings supported by original cast iron columns with decorative brackets. The former parcels and booking office is an example of the Federation style architecture prevalent in late 19th and early 20th century suburban railway stations. Together the platform buildings along Trafalgar Street and the subway and former parcels and booking office along Douglas Street form significant landmarks in the local area.

The place has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in New South Wales for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

The place has the potential to contribute to the local community's sense of place and can provide a connection to the local community's history.

The place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places/environments in New South Wales.

The platform buildings at Stanmore Railway Station are largely intact externally and retain a large amount of original fabric externally and internally and are therefore amongst the best examples of this type of platform building. The subway has been changed but it retains characteristic features of a subway namely connecting the street to the platforms and has some original fabric and is therefore a good representation.

title: Stanmore railway station, Sydney


text:
Treaty of Bucharest (1916)

The Treaty of Bucharest of 1916 was signed between Romania and the Entente Powers on 4 (Old Style)/17 (New Style) August 1916 in Bucharest. The treaty stipulated the conditions under which Romania agreed to join the war on the side of the Entente, particularly territorial promises in Austria-Hungary. The signatories bound themselves to keep secret the contents of the treaty until a general peace was concluded.

Negotiations
In 1915 Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Thomson, a fluent French speaker, was sent to Bucharest as British military attaché on Kitchener's initiative to bring Romania into the war. But when there he quickly formed the view that an unprepared and ill-armed Romania facing a war on three fronts against Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria would be a liability not an asset to the allies. This view was brushed aside by Whitehall and he signed a Military Convention with Romania on 13 August 1916. Thompson became head of the British Military Mission.

Terms
The treaty had two parts: a political treaty (seven articles) and a military convention (seventeen articles). The Romanian government was to declare war on Austria-Hungary, in accordance with the stipulations in the military convention, on August 28 (new style) the latest, according to the political treaty. In exchange, it was to receive the following territories:

 * Transylvania, Crișana and Maramureș, territories ruled by Hungary, but with an ethnic Romanian majority and Hungarian and German minorities, with its western border reaching the Tisza river.
 * The whole Banat territory ruled by Hungary, with a mixed Romanian (37.42 %), German (24.50 %), Serbian (17.97 %) and Hungarian (15.31 %) population.
 * Most of Bukovina (the whole region except the part at the left bank of the Prut river), the territory ruled by Austria, with a Romanian majority population.

The exact borders stipulated by the treaty were those of prewar Romania (Article I) and those it was allowed to annex from Austria-Hungary, up to a line of demarcation described in Article IV:

"The line of delimitation will start on the Pruth at a point of the present frontier between Roumania and Russia near Novoselitza and will ascend this river as far as the frontier of Galicia at the confluence of the Pruth and the Ceremos. From there, it will follow the frontier of Galicia and Bucovina, and that of Galicia and Hungary, up the point Stog (hill 1655). From that point it will follow the line of separation of the Theiss and the Viso until it reaches the Theiss at the village of Trebusa up-stream from the spot where it unites with the Viso. Starting from that point it will go down along the thalweg of the Theiss to a distance of 4 km downstream from its confluence with the Szamos, leaving the village of Vásárosnamény to Roumania. It will then continue in an SSW direction to a point 6 km east of the town of Debrecen. From that point, it will reach the Crish (Körös) 3 km downstream from the union of its two affluents (the White Crish and the Swift Crish). It will then join the Theiss on a line with the village of Algyő, north of Szeged, passing to the west of the villages of Orosháza and Békéssámson; 3 km from the latter it will make a slight curve. From Algyő the line will descend the thalweg of the Theiss down to its confluence with the Danube, and will finally follow the thalweg of the Danube down to the present frontier of Roumania."

In Article IV Romania also bound itself not to construct fortifications opposite Belgrade and to indemnify Serbs from Banat for their properties if they emigrated from Romania in the two years following the conclusion of peace.

In Article V of the political convention, the signatories promised not to make separate peace and also bound Great Britain, France, Italy and Russia to let Romania annex the territories from Article IV at an eventual Peace Treaty. The Entente also guaranteed Romania equal rights with its allies at the Peace Conference in Article VI of the political treaty. Article VII bound the signatories to maintaining secrecy of the convention until a general peace was signed.

The military convention stated that Romania was to attack Austria-Hungary from the south while Russia committed itself to start an offensive on the Austrian front to support the Romanian advance into Transylvania. Also, the Russian High Command promised to send two infantry divisions and one cavalry division into Dobruja to protect the rear of the front from a Bulgarian attack. The French and the British pledged to start an offensive on the Thessaloniki front in order to force Bulgaria out of the war.

Romania in the war
In the morning of 27 August 1916 (14 August O.S.), a Crown Council was held at the Cotroceni Palace, convened by King Ferdinand, which decided to honor the treaty with the Entente Powers. On that day, Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary, and launched three armies of 440,000 men the same night across the passes of the Southern and Eastern Carpathians.

The advance of the Romanian Army was initially unopposed, as Austria-Hungary had not stationed considerable forces along the Romanian border. By mid-September, however, the attack was halted, with German, Bulgarian and Turkish troops advancing into Dobruja and threatening to outflank the Romanian Army from the south-east.

By October, the Romanian Army was pushed out of Transylvania with the help of German reinforcements, and by the end of 1916 the capital Bucharest had fallen, along with Wallachia and Dobruja, under the control of the Central Powers, while the Romanian government retreated to Iași. Thompson, now head of the British Military Mission, had to alleviate the consequences of Romania's capitulation, and he personally supervised the destruction of the Romanian oil wells to deny them to Germany.

In 1917, the Romanian Army recovered and succeeded in stopping German attempts to break the front, in spite of the disintegration of the Russian Army after the February Revolution. The exit of Russia from the war in March 1918 with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk left Romania alone in Eastern Europe, and a peace treaty between Romania and the Central Powers (Treaty of Bucharest (1918)) was negotiated in May 1918, but was not ratified by Romania, allowing them to re-declare war on the Central Powers on November 10, 1918, and thus participate as a victorious power in subsequent peace negotiations. The toll of the campaign was approximately 220,000 dead for Romania, but in the end it gained Transylvania, two-thirds of the Banat, Bukovina, and Bessarabia in the Treaty of Trianon.

title: Treaty of Bucharest (1916)


text:
User:PussyKat

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

You might also want to consider changing your username before you get too invested in your current one. Although you are allowed to use just about any name, many Wikipedians encourage others to use real names. I would suggest that you do this. I can certainly understand that you might be uncomfortable using your real name online, but, in this case, I recommend that you choose an alias that resembles a real name. For instance, my name is, but I could just as well have a username such as "Eli Miller" or "Abe Sokolov".

If you are choosing a pseudonym, please do not use the names of famous people or fictional characters. An obscure literary reference is probably all right. As always, please avoid anything that could be considered offensive or inappropriate.

Note that, on Wikipedia, you can use spaces and capital letters; for instance, "T. K. Truong" is possible, rather than simply "tktruong".

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Nat Krause 11:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC), (Talk!)

title: User:PussyKat


text:
File talk:ArauzFlowers2.jpg

No fair use justififcation. Excessive number of images used. Justinc 11:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

title: File talk:ArauzFlowers2.jpg


text: Talk:Observatory Road

title: Talk:Observatory Road


text:
Talk:Angels & Airwaves

et ducit mundum per luce
I just corrected the statement in the regular article that says the logo on the new album Love contains the Latin words "et ducit mundum per luce". When i googled the album image what I actually found is that it says "et plumbum mundus per lumen". Plumbum is the metal lead (rhymes with said), not the verb to lead. It looks like the artist for the album has gotten pretty confused and probably typed these words into an online translating machine, hence the nonsense of the logo (which can't be translated but would mean something like "and lead world through light". What the band wants to say is "et ducit mundum per lumen" or "per lucem", which means "And he leads the world by light".

I hope I don't get yelled at for conducting 'original research,' but this isn't really research. It's correcting a mistake, as anyone who has studied a little Latin can confirm. I've taken Latin for like 9 years so I know what I'm talking about. Strewberries (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Strewberries

Actually. I'm guessing the band is reading Wikipedia, or their emails, or something else, because I am seeing Lucem now on their "official releases".

Band Picture
I believe that the main picture in the article should be reverted to what it was before (the screen shot of a live show). Ryan Sinn is no longer in the band, so why have a picture of the band with him in it? Fantasy Dragon (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get your source???
The current picture on this wiki has been incirculation for over a year so how can it have been taken during a 2008 photoshoot? Jimbosupernova ( talk) 09:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about a different picture. But what I said above still relates to the picture that is on the article now. Why use an old picture of the band that has a former member in it? That's like putting up a picture of Scott Raynor with blink-182... Fantasy Dragon (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

References to
An AVA poster appears in this week's episode of Greek. --Jackdavinci (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What I removed
"April 24, 2008 at 9:00pm Tom Delonge was on "Modcam" it was slow because 760 people were on modcam and this is how it was the whole time is said "Loading Messages.." so things were bad.But Tom was on and he talked about various things about modlife.

The AvA Documentary was confirmed by Tom that it will be in stores in 60 days. At Warped Tour they're going to have a modlife tent it will have what bands are going to be on modlife, and also the ava documentary will be on sale. AvA flags must be made from members at warped.

They are in the works of making a punk/rock album "just for fun" Front man Tom Delonge says. To make modlife expand they will move to a bigger server to make everyone on modcam a more delightful experince.

"It's been real and fun" 9:39pm pt."

I believe that this is a large amount of details to be added without any citation, so I removed it, though it might be true. I later saw this posted on PunkDisasters, which is usually a reliable site, though anyone can submit news on it, but I think it's pretty trustworthy. So unless there is no other citation for it, should this information be put back up and linked to PunkDisasters for citation? Also, if it is put back up, it needs to be rewritten. The problem is when they release news through ModLife...you can't use the site for citation. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Feature Film
Is this a movie? or a dvd? Shake 3000 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Start the Machine? Or I-Empire? I don't know which one you're talking about. Start the Machine is a documentary and was released on DVD. It wasn't shown in theaters, except for a one-night premiere thing, and I-Empire so supposed to be a full-length sci-fi movie that I believe is going to be released in theaters, but I'm unsure on that. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Biggest Fan
Uh ... what ? I doubt this should be here. Free feel to revert if you think otherwise. If this is a valid section, create a new entry for it - it isn't important enough to warrant being the first section on the page either. Philpill (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Space rock
I think Space rock should be added to the genre of the band. It has been said by the press many times so many website do cite the band as a space rock band as well. Plus, the band's sound is very similar to some 80s and 90s space rock bands, and there are even some similarities to Pink Floyd who are pretty much the fathers of space rock. SlayerXT (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just sounds like Pop Rock to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.108.23 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ffs... can someone put picture of them! i tried few times but unsuccessfully plz put someone image, they deserve it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deoo (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i think that u should let space rock as a genre too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deoo (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be a slap in the face to space rock to put this band into the genre. Do not do it.

I don't even like the alternative rock label, pop rock seems much more fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.108.23 (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

All three of the albums are listed as "alternative rock" and "space rock" on Wikipedia. So that should be the genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What's with all these fancy genres? "Art rock", "neo-progressive rock"? Seriously?! They're space pop punk at best. 78.2.0.96 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed Angels and airwaves active date from present to 2009
due to the reformation of blink 182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.69.17 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No! That's wrong, AVA is still in the works even though blink is back. Whereas Tom is on tour David atom and matt are still working on the album. 10:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.223.46 (talk)

Love
I created the album page and edited the main page. Anyone want to help out? In perticular the album cover which is in the video? Tyb222 (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

> just got released (and it's a day early!) possible update to the LOVE section? And any idea if this is a technical glitch or whether they wanted to release it on Australian time or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.195.84 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the word "unremarkable" when the article talks about Mark's remix. It didn't seem very neutral. Feel free to put it back, if you wish 173.210.174.130 (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Aaron

Usage of AVA in place of band name
I had run across the acronym "AVA" on Facebook and was curious as to its meaning. A quick google search, accompanied by a couple of other keywords managed to redirect me to the Angels and Airwaves wikipedia page. Using Ctrl-F, I did manage to find the abbreviation AVA once in the page, used in a location that it appears to be interchangeable with the name of the band. I'm only assuming that it is representative of the group from the way it was used. I am unfamiliar with the group and do not know for certain. Also, nowhere on the page does it specify.

Suggestion for improvement: Clarify this. Prior to using AVA, it should be defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.243.64.40 (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Love: Part Two Pages Created and Corrected
Created album page for Love: Part Two. Figured with the album getting very close to release, with a single being dropped already, it is time. DCJodon (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial corrections. DCJodon (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Errors on guitars
Ok, lets get this straight. Who is lead guitarist for the band, and who is rhythm? On some pages (on Wikipedia) it says Tom is rhythm, and David is lead. While is other pages (such as I-Empire it suggests that Tom is lead, and Davis is rhythm. Although, in some cases Tom can be seen playing lead, such as here. Please someone fix this. --58.167.60.230 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither one of them is exclusively rhythm or lead. Delonge plays the majority of the lead riffs on WDNTW, however from I-Empire onward Delonge has been known to let Kennedy handle all guitar duties on a majority of songs during live performances while Delonge focuses on singing. This is due to a larger inclusion of sequenced backing tracks and on-stage synthesizer duties being handled by Wachter. However, it is still unclear who plays which parts on more recent albums such as Love parts 1 & 2. If a designation is absolutely necessary then I would say Kennedy is the "lead" guitarist simply because he is always playing guitar, whereas Delonge often chooses to only sing. However, in reality their dynamic is more like that of The Strokes or Fall Out Boy, with two guitarists trading off between rhythm and lead depending on the song. 173.174.107.162 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Genres
There are some genres in the infobox that IMO aren't proper of the band. May you find some sources? Otherwise, I'm going to remove them --Horcrux92 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Supergroup a peacock term?
"Supergroup" isn't a peacock term. It just means the members are already famous for work with other groups. Doesn't mean that the group is super. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.144.50 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

2014 current members
It's been confirmed that DeLonge and Rubin are the only two members of the band of present, yet I'm seeing changes to my edits saying that it's somehow a "rumour"? I don't know what more I need to do in order to confirm this. Any assistance would be appreciated. David James Young || davidjamesyoungwrites@gmail.com (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Eddie Breckenridge
Although it does appear that he is not an official member of the band, it is possible that he never actually was. He came into AVA too late to have recorded anything for Dream Walker, so at best he would've been a touring member or official member yet to appear on an album until the NEXT album cycle. Seeing as he never performed a show with the band prior to the realization in the press that the only members remaining were Delonge and Rubin, it does not makes sense to classify Breckenridge as a "former member", for he may actually still be playing with the band, just not appearing in press photos or band bios on social media. Until his status is made clear, he ought not to be listed in official members sections (I know it seemed like he was a few months ago, but the situation has changed). For the diehard fans who want to catalogue every detail of the band, I merely ask you be patient until we know whether he is a touring member still or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.24.81 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite
I think we need to re-write the entire member section and other parts of this article to reflect what tis group really is. The group is a multi-media super group that covers other mediums besides music. I think we can possibly create a page just for members that goes into their exact roles for the band. For example DeLonges roles as a member could be classified as a vocalist, guitarist, synth player, producer, actor and manager. Or rubin could be called a drummer, producer, bassist. So I think a major re-write of this article would be extremely beneficial. I.Wont.Give.In (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm interested. I'd be quite happy to look at some bits and pieces of the article, and we can discuss here as I go.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  22:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 * If you're not going to cooperate properly, then I won't continue to help you. I've tried to reason with you, but if you're not willing to discuss properly or to compromise, then find someone else who will be willing to help you.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  04:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The introduction
The first paragraph does a terrible job at mentioning the current and former band members. It's too confusing, long and list-like. It's also ungrammatical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

David Kennedy and Eddie Breckenridge
Despite Eddie haven't recorded for The Dream Walker he has continued performing with the band and Tom Delonge and the band's Facebook page seem to list Kennedy and Eddie as members of the band and the project, although Tom and Ilan did guitar and bass by themselves. The have since appeared on the ...Of Nightmares and perform on videos and have been performing with the band, so I think they should be listed as still active members. Delonge has confirmed they are still with the band and just did the guitar on the The Dream Walker album by themselves. They are still involved with the band and hasn't been reported any departure.
 * Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Angels & Airwaves. 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/20080809180557/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/rockdaily/index.php/2008/08/05/weezer-announce-tour-with-angels-and-airwaves-tokyo-police-club/ to http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/08/05/weezer-announce-tour-with-angels-and-airwaves-tokyo-police-club/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100215122917/http://modlife.com:80/angelsandairwaves/lovealbumfueltv to http://modlife.com/angelsandairwaves/lovealbumfueltv

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 03:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested merge of Box Car Racer
A merge has been suggested by a user. These articles should NOT be merged together, as they are distinct. Box Car Racer did not change its name to Angels & Airwaves, the project simply was spun off into a new, distinct project. This page (Angels & Airwaves) does not even mention Box Car Racer as the genesis (or at all actually), so basing a merge on one sentence in an article (Box Car Racer) does not suffice, especially when this sentence has no citation. This is a firm NO from me. Garchy (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few sources that list AVA as a continuation of BCR. We also have proof in the Sequel of the songs Letters To God which appears on the Album Box Car Racer, with Part Two being on Love. AVA also preformed multiple BCR songs while the band still actively toured. Also the fact that AVA has two members who played on the BCR album shows that it's the same band, just a new lineup and new name. Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs)  16:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I will now merge the pages as I was able to find proof, with no contradicting evidence.  Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs)  23:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would wait for a greater discussion/consensus - I would not say this page move is non-controversial, so it may be good to wait for others to chime in - as of now the discussion is one for (you) and one against (me). Thanks, Garchy (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted the page move until we can have a greater discussion - I already noticed a user who removed Box Car Racer content from this page due to the confusion it has caused - the references you provided are mostly blogs (not news sources), so I don't think it is generally accepted that Box Car Racer BECAME Angels & Airwaves, as you assert - rather, and also because Box Car Racer is a complete page (it is not a stub, rather it has substantial quality to it and can stand as its own page) there is no reason to merge the pages, especially since there are plenty of tags/links within both pages to tie in the fact that they are related (but not the same). Garchy (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Think its best left as 2 articles for the reason that a merged article would be very bulky which would make it difficult to load for mobiles without v.good broadband Atlantic306 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not valid criteria. If there are a sufficient number of reliable sources that support the notability of Box Car Racer, then it should have its own article. If all of those sources have been written as a discussion of this band, it should probably be here. If someone with a mobile wants to access the article, there are plenty of apps that load the articles progressively based on sections so it's not a technical limitation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Litteral proof of Tom DeLonge saying That Box Car Racer IS Angels & Airwaves. right there at 3:25. At that point, his exact words. They are the same band, just a new name/lineup.  Walter Görlitz (talk Garchy (talk)   Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs)  22:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I feel that the two articles should be kept separate. In a recent interview with Travis Barker, Box Car Racer is mentioned and he talks about possible future plans for the group. Many sources have referred to it as a possible reunion, such as this, while others mention that the group has been inactive, such as this, meaning that Box Car Racer did not become Angels & Airwaves. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Ilan Rubin a current member or not?
Over the past week I have seen him removed and added back a half dozen times. No one is offering a single source and this is a problem. His status needs to be sourced per WP:V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Angels & Airwaves. 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/20110907041552/http://www.musicomh.com:80/music/features/angels-and-airwaves_0606.htm to http://www.musicomh.com/music/features/angels-and-airwaves_0606.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131118172726/http://www.hevypetal.com/news/337/first-reading--leeds-announcements-made to http://www.hevypetal.com/news/337/first-reading--leeds-announcements-made
 * Added tag to https://soundcloud.com/jeff-misener/angels-airwaves-the-wolfpack/?=modal=true
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129124418/http://www.avashop.com:80/index/page/product/product_id/25319/category_id/1595/product_name/Angels+and+Airwaves+LOVE+Deluxe+Gold+Bundle to http://www.avashop.com/index/page/product/product_id/25319/category_id/1595/product_name/Angels+and+Airwaves+LOVE+Deluxe+Gold+Bundle

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) 01:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Associated Acts: Thirty Seconds to Mars & Nine Inch Nails
Recently, it's become a subject of whether Nine Inch Nails and Thirty Seconds to Mars should be listed as associated acts to Angels and Airwaves. While not all of the qualifications listed on the musical artist template (Template:Infobox musical artist) apply to these bands, the same goes for most of the bands that are currently listed in associated acts, such as The Offspring, The Distillers, Hazen Street, and The New Regime. If all of these associated acts were to be deleted, that would only leave Blink-182 and Box Car Racer, and that seems ridiculous. In the article, Angels & Airwaves is called a supergroup, which is defined by Wikipedia as "a music group whose members are already successful as solo artists or as part of other groups or well known in other musical professions" (Supergroup (music)). Therefore, it seems necessary to list all of the associated acts that each musician comes from and gained success from. Punkid122 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If only one member is in common, then we do not usually list the other band as an associated act. It is not necessary to list all of the bands the members are associated with. That's what the member articles are for. We should remove any and all "associated acts" that do not meet the requirement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally understand that. What I was also trying to say is that if the bands I mentioned aren't listed for this rule, then many of the other listed bands might want to be removed, because they have the same issue. The only concern might be that the associated acts section might seem a bit empty afterwards because Angels and Airwaves is considered a supergroup, and is why I haven't removed those bands myself. Punkid122 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline looks terrible now
The lines themselves are too narrow to make any clear distinction between roles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Angels & Airwaves


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black bat

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Black bat
Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 11:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ad, nn, contextless ...  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  12:25, 6 October 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Evangelisch-Lutherse Kerk in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden) was a denomination in the Netherlands which under that name existed from 1818 to 2004. In 2004, the denomination became a part of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, which is the continuation of the Dutch Reformed Church, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The first Lutheran congregations in the Netherlands were founded in the 16th century, but an organized 'Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands' did not come into being until 1818. The city of Amsterdam was, and still is, the centre of Dutch Lutheranism. Most Lutherans in the Netherlands are descendants of German or Scandinavian merchants, and the Lutheran church has always been quite small.

Because of the urban and internationally oriented membership of the Lutheran Church, liberal influences have always been relatively strong. The church was always counted among the most liberal denominations in the Netherlands. They were among the first churches to ordain women.

On 1 May 2004, the Lutheran Church's membership was down to a mere 14,000 (in 1970 still 48,195 ) when it merged with the Dutch Reformed Church and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands to form the Protestant Church in the Netherlands.


text:
Category talk:Christian theology

Category: Christian mythology
I am all for a "Christian mythology" category, but theology is not mythology. Technically speaking, theology is what Christians have developed based on the Biblical narrative (which does contain some "myth", from a technical standpoint) regarding belief. Theology is related in some ways to mythology, but the two are not the same. Please discuss here before making these kinds of changes. Thanks...KHM03 11:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned articles
I'm cleaning up Orphaned articles. I'm not sure where to add the follow:

 * Adoption (theology)

Any help appreciated. meatclerk 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Christian theology


text:
User talk:Eulerequation

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Blank Verse  ∅  11:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Eulerequation


text:
Talk:Non-Trinitarian churches

I see there is also a "Nontrinitarianism" page, but I would like to keep the ancient and the modern non-Trinitarians apart. --MacRusgail 11:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest a move to Modern non-trinitarianism or Post-reformation non-trinitarianism. Jacob Haller 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The "common characteristics" aren't common with the ancient non-trinitarian churches, and may not be common among all the modern ones. Jacob Haller 17:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with "Nontrinitarianism"
This page should be merged with nontrinitarianism for the following reasons:

 * Overlap - There is a lot of information listed here that is already covered by the nontrinitarianism article, such as lists of organizations and history of nontrinitarianism; or that should be covered in the nontrinitarianism article, such as etymology of the term "nontrinitarian".
 * Text - This article is a stub and, while numerous edits have taken place, the article has existed since 2005 and still has not reached the point where it is without factual inaccuracies or had a single fact cited. In order to facilitate a more complete discussion of the contents of this article, combining it with the information contained in the nontrinitarianism article would be beneficial to improving the topic.
 * Context - Without an understanding of what "nontrinitarianism" means, then a discussion of "nontrinitarian churches" would be meaningless. Furthermore, trying to include a description of nontrinitarianism in the present article would be rehashing information already contained in the article with which I am proposing a merger.

All of these are founded on the information contained in the Wikipedia guide to Merging and Moving Pages. Discuss. Lioux (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: At least to begin with, it would be best to merge it with the Groups section of the nontrinitarianism page. Lioux (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Added to Proposed mergers. Lioux (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Non-Trinitarian churches


text:
Weiyang District, Yangzhou

Weiyang District was a district of the city of Yangzhou, Jiangsu province, People's Republic of China. In November 2011, it was merged into Hanjiang District.

The district included the northern part of Yangzhou's main urban area, and adjacent suburbs.

title: Weiyang District, Yangzhou


text:
Rollcage (video game)

Rollcage is a racing video game developed by Attention to Detail and published by Psygnosis for Microsoft Windows and PlayStation. A sequel, Rollcage Stage II, was released in 2000 for PlayStation and Windows.

Development
Rollcage was developed by Attention to Detail, and published by Psygnosis. The game's selling point was its unique physics engine, in which cars could drive on walls or ceilings due to the airflow passing over them at extreme speeds. The game featured an original soundtrack by various artists, including the Fatboy Slim song "Love Island" from the album You've Come A Long Way, Baby.

In 2014 one of the former developers, Robert Baker released an unofficial update to address remaining bugs and support newer hardware under the name "Rollcage Redux".

Baker and former tradesman, Chris Mallinson, later in 2018, under the company name Caged Element, along with the publisher Wired Productions, released Rollcage's spiritual successor: Grip: Combat Racing.

Reception
The PlayStation version of Rollcage received "favorable" reviews, while the PC version received "average" reviews, according to the review aggregation website GameRankings. Next Generation said of the former console version, "Anyone with a hankering for fast cars and pretty explosions should be sure to give Rollcage a chance."

Joshua Romero of AllGame gave the PC version four-and-a-half stars out of five, saying, "If you have a 3D accelerator and have any taking to a great game, you shouldn't pass up Rollcage. True, PC players don't have the convenience that console players have and can rent the game, but Rollcage is worth the cash, no matter what system." He also gave the PlayStation version four stars, saying, "If you're into futuristic auto-combat/racing games and looking for something aside from Wipeout, give Rollcage a try. I'm guessing you won't be disappointed."

title: Rollcage (video game)


text:
User talk:Andycarlson

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!- Nat Krause 11:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC), (Talk!)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

P.S. - Did you know you can use spaces and capital letters in your username? You could start over as "Andy Carlson" if you want. - Nat Krause 11:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Toll tin

The article Toll tin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any sources to demonstrate otherwise."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andycarlson


text:
Category:United States senators from Indiana

Members, past and present, who represented the state of Indiana in the United States Senate.


text:
Knightriders

Knightriders is a 1981 American action drama film written and directed by George A. Romero and starring Ed Harris, Gary Lahti, Tom Savini, Amy Ingersoll, Patricia Tallman, and Christine Forrest. It was filmed entirely on location in the Pittsburgh metro area, including Fawn Township and Natrona during the summer of 1980.

The film represents a change of pace for Romero, known primarily for his horror films; it is a personal drama about a traveling renaissance fair troupe.

Plot
Billy leads a traveling troupe that jousts on motorcycles. "King William", as he styles himself, tries to lead the troupe according to his Arthurian ideals, but the pressure of balancing those ideals against modern day realities and financial burden of running the organization are beginning to strain the group. Billy is also plagued by a recurring dream of a black bird. Tensions are exacerbated by Billy constantly pushing himself despite being injured and the arrival of a promoter named Bontempi, who wants to represent the troupe.

After Billy spends a night in jail watching a member of his troupe beaten because Billy has refused a payoff to a corrupt local cop, Billy returns to the fairground where the troupe is next to perform. He is shocked that some members want to join with the promoter. His sense of betrayal is heightened when his queen, Linet, admits that her feelings for him may not be the reason she remains with the troupe.

Things come to a head after Morgan, leader of the dissident faction who believes he should be king, wins the day's tournament and a fight breaks out between the troupe and rowdy members of the crowd. Billy faces an Indian rider with a black eagle crest on his breast plate, the black bird of his dreams. Billy defeats the Indian but aggravates his injury; later he commissions the Indian as a knight in his troupe. Morgan and several other riders leave the troupe to follow Bontempi. Billy's loyal supporter Alan also departs with his new girlfriend Julie and friend Bors to try to sort out his emotions. Billy and the remainder of the troupe settle at the fairground to await the dissidents' return.

Troupe member Pippin comes to terms with his homosexuality and finds love with Punch. Alan's girlfriend, Julie, has run away from home to escape her alcoholic and abusive father and her weak-willed mother. While Alan is soul searching, he realizes Julie is using him as an escape and that he really desires Billy's Queen Linet. Alan takes a confused and hurt Julie home to her parents.

Meanwhile, Morgan's riders succumb to infighting. Alan finds Morgan and helps him realize that there can only be one king and he sees about signing with Bontempi. However, after seeing rowdy drunken behavior in his friends, Morgan and his riders return to Billy's fair to challenge for the crown. Billy announces his retirement and sets forth the rules: all knights compete, and any man knocked off his motorcycle is out. Morgan is victorious, and is crowned king by Billy. Angie, the troupe's mechanic, is then crowned queen by Morgan, after he realizes she is the woman he loves. Linet finds love with Alan.

Billy leaves the troupe, accompanied by the silent eagle-crested knight, and returns to thrash the crooked cop. While riding again, Billy, weak and hallucinatory from loss of blood from his injury, has a vision of riding an actual horse. Immediately afterwards he is struck by an oncoming truck. The entire troupe gathers at Billy's funeral to say farewell to its fallen king.

Cast

 * Ed Harris as King Billy
 * John Amplas as Whiteface
 * Gary Lahti as Sir Alan
 * Tom Savini as Sir Morgan, The Black Knight
 * Amy Ingersoll as Queen Linet
 * Patricia Tallman as Julie Dean
 * Brother Blue as Merlin, The Wizard
 * Ken Foree as Little John
 * John Hostetter as Friar Tuck
 * Scott Reiniger as Sir Marhalt
 * Martin Ferrero as Bontempi
 * Warner Shook as Pippin
 * Randy Kovitz as Punch
 * Michael P. Moran as Deputy Cook
 * Harold Wayne Jones as Sir Bors
 * Albert Amerson as The Indian
 * Christine Forrest as Angie, Morgan's Girlfriend
 * Donald Rubinstein as The Lead Minstrel
 * Stephen King as "Hoagie Man"
 * Bingo O'Malley as Sheriff Rilly
 * Greg Besnak as Rhino, Bald Mustachioed Head Biker
 * Gary Davis as Biker (Rhino's Sidekick)

Production
A labor of love, the film was initially conceived as a proper period piece which would portray the Middle Ages in a more realistic fashion. It was rethought after Romero's experience working on racing documentaries.

Romero has claimed the medieval hobbyist organization, the Society for Creative Anachronism, to be one inspiration for the film. It was the first of three films financed and released through United Film Distribution.

A shorter cut of the film (running 102 minutes) was released in Europe. In the movie's credits, the writer Stephen King is referred to as "Hoagie man," as he makes a few sarcastic comments during the troupe's first performance while munching on a large sandwich.

Critical reception
Christopher John reviewed Knightriders in Ares Magazine #9 and commented that "[with] the exceptional soundtrack, excellent photography, sharp writing, directing and editing, let alone the performances of a well trained cast, it is worth the time and effort to see Knightriders. It is the best movie of 1981 so far." Tony Williams, in his book The Cinema of George A. Romero, said "Knightriders is a highly personal and sincere film revealing Romero's Utopian ideals in a cinematically allegorical manner. Although flawed by its long running time and some over-emphatic dialogue scenes, it is nonetheless one of the directors's major achievements which deserves better recognition. On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, Knightriders holds an approval rating of 77%, based on 13 reviews, and an average rating of 6.16/10.

Soundtrack
The film score by Donald Rubinstein was released on Perseverance Records in 2008.

title: Knightriders


text:
Rumāl

A rumāl (Punjabi: ਰੁਮਾਲ) is a piece of clothing similar to a handkerchief or bandana. It is worn by men who cut their hair and other guests when they are in a Gurdwara. Covering the head is respectful in Sikhism and if a man is not wearing a turban, then a rumāl must be worn before entering the Gurdwara. Rumāls are also worn by Sikh children on their topknot, and by Sikh males while engaging in athletic activities.

In most Gurdwaras, there is often a basket of rumāls outside for welcoming in more guests. If there are no rumāls supplied by the Gurdwara then a clean and plain handkerchief is the most suitable cloth to use.

Outside the context of Sikhism, a rumāl is simply the Urdu, Hindi, Nepali and Bengali word for handkerchief, and will be understood as such. Its association with Sikhism is not implied.

The rumāl was used by the Thugees in India as a method of strangulation. A coin was knotted in one end of the scarf, and would be swung around the neck of the victim, who would then be strangled.

title: Rumāl


text:
Panchagangavalli River

Panchagangavalli River is a river flowing through Kundapur and Gangolli in western India. The five rivers namely Souparnika River, Varahi River, Kedaka River, Chakra River and Kubja River join and merge into Arabian Sea.

title: Panchagangavalli River