Position                         Gymnast                      Vault 1  Vault 2  Total
D Score                          E Score                      Pen.     Score 1  D Score  E Score  Pen.   Score 2
[1st place, gold medalist(s)]    [Japan] Kenzō Shirai         5.600    9.600             15.200   5.200  9.400      14.600  14.900

[2nd place, silver medalist(s)]  [Ukraine] Igor Radivilov     5.600    9.433             15.033   5.600  9.166      14.766  14.899

[3rd place, bronze medalist(s)]  [South Korea] Kim Han-sol    5.600    9.366             14.966   5.200  9.366      14.566  14.766
4                                [Romania] Marian Drăgulescu  5.600    9.100             14.700   5.400  9.333      14.733  14.716
5                                [Guatemala] Jorge Vega       5.600    9.200    -0.100   14.700   5.200  9.508      14.708  14.704
6                                [Japan] Keisuke Asato        6.000    8.866    -0.100   14.766   5.600  8.333      13.933  14.349
7                                [France] Zachari Hrimeche    5.600    8.166    -0.200   13.566   5.600  9.000      14.600  14.083
8                                [Russia] Artur Dalaloyan     5.600    8.900    -0.300   14.200   5.600  8.133      13.733  13.966

Parallel bars

Oldest and youngest competitors

          Name           Country  Date of birth      Age
Youngest  Zou Jingyuan   China    January 3, 1998    19 years, 9 months and 5 days
Oldest    Marcel Nguyen  Germany  September 8, 1987  30 years and 1 month

Position                         Gymnast                      D Score  E Score  Penalty  Total

[1st place, gold medalist(s)]    [China] Zou Jingyuan         6.800    9.100             15.900

[2nd place, silver medalist(s)]  [Ukraine] Oleg Verniaiev     6.700    9.133             15.833


2017 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships

[3rd place, bronze medalist(s)]  [Russia] David Belyavskiy    6.400    8.866             15.266
4                                [Cuba] Manrique Larduet      6.400    8.766             15.166
5                                [China] Lin Chaopan          6.400    8.733             15.133
6                                [Switzerland] Pablo Brägger  6.400    8.333             14.733
7                                [Germany] Marcel Nguyen      6.200    8.500             14.700
8                                [Turkey] Ferhat Arıcan       6.300    7.800             14.100

Horizontal bar

With the successful completion of the double-twisting straight Kovac (aka double-twisting Cassina or Bretschneider straight) in competition by Hidetaka Miyachi of Japan (despite a fall on a different element in his routine) during the horizontal bar individual event final, the skill—now officially called the Miyachi on the horizontal bar—has been automatically named after him, the only element currently in men's artistic gymnastics to be assigned the new and highest difficulty score of I (0.9).

Oldest and youngest competitors

          Name             Country      Date of birth       Age
Youngest  Tin Srbić        Croatia      September 11, 1996  21 years and 27 days
Oldest    Epke Zonderland  Netherlands  April 16, 1986      31 years, 5 months and 22 days

Position                         Gymnast                        D Score  E Score  Penalty  Total

[1st place, gold medalist(s)]    [Croatia] Tin Srbić            6.400    8.033             14.433

[2nd place, silver medalist(s)]  [Netherlands] Epke Zonderland  6.500    7.733             14.233

[3rd place, bronze medalist(s)]  [Netherlands] Bart Deurloo     6.200    8.000             14.200
4                                [Switzerland] Pablo Brägger    6.500    7.233             13.733
5                                [Japan] Hidetaka Miyachi       6.700    7.033             13.733
6                                [Russia] David Belyavskiy      5.400    8.133             13.533
7                                [Cuba] Randy Lerú              6.000    7.100             13.100
8                                [Switzerland] Oliver Hegi      5.800    6.933             12.733

Women's results

Individual all-around


Women's results

Individual all-around

Great Britain's Alice Kinsella withdrew before the final due to an ankle injury sustained in qualifications and was replaced by first reserve Lee Eun-ju of South Korea. Second-place qualifier Ragan Smith of the United States injured her ankle during warm-ups moments before the first event and withdrew. Second reserve Ioana Crișan of Romania replaced Smith in the top group, as there was no time to re-seed due to Smith's late withdrawal.

Oldest and youngest competitors

          Name             Country  Date of birth     Age
Youngest  Ioana Crișan     Romania  October 15, 2001  15 years, 11 months and 21 days
Oldest    Elisabeth Seitz  Germany  November 4, 1993  23 years, 11 months and 2 days

Position                         Gymnast                                                               Total

[1st place, gold medalist(s)]    [United States] Morgan Hurd           14.533  14.300  12.666  13.733  55.232

[2nd place, silver medalist(s)]  [Canada] Ellie Black                  14.600  14.233  12.866  13.433  55.132


[3rd place, bronze medalist(s)]  [Russia] Elena Eremina                13.866  14.200  13.133  13.600  54.799
4                                [Japan] Mai Murakami                  14.666  13.800  12.000  14.233  54.699
5                                [France] Mélanie de Jesus dos Santos  14.466  14.000  12.433  13.233  54.132
6                                [Japan] Aiko Sugihara                 14.033  13.533  12.566  13.833  53.965
7                                [Switzerland] Giulia Steingruber      14.700  12.933  12.400  13.633  53.666
8                                [Belgium] Nina Derwael                13.533  14.966  11.633  13.366  53.498
9                                [Germany] Elisabeth Seitz             13.700  14.566  12.433  12.766  53.465
10                               [Germany] Tabea Alt                   13.866  13.600  13.300  12.633  53.399
11                               [Belgium] Rune Hermans                13.300  13.900  12.033  13.066  52.299
12                               [Italy] Lara Mori                     13.433  13.466  12.266  13.000  52.165
13                               [Australia] Georgia Godwin            13.266  13.500  12.366  12.900  52.032
14                               [Ukraine] Diana Varinska              13.433  14.500  11.366  12.700  51.999
15                               [Canada] Brooklyn Moors               12.966  13.200  12.266  13.533  51.965
16                               [Russia] Angelina Melnikova           13.733  13.775  12.433  11.400  51.341
17                               [United Kingdom] Amy Tinkler          14.400  11.000  12.166  13.333  50.899
18                               [Portugal] Ana Filipa Martins         13.166  13.533  12.233  11.933  50.865
19                               [China] Wang Yan                      14.233  13.366  10.200  12.633  50.432


20                               [Spain] Ana Pérez                     12.833  13.733  10.100  12.600  49.266
21                               [France] Marine Boyer                 13.766  12.066  10.566  12.833  49.231
22                               [South Korea] Lee Eun-ju              13.233  13.200  11.500  11.266  49.199
23                               [Romania] Ioana Crișan                13.566  10.766  11.600  13.033  48.965
24                               [Brazil] Thaís Fidélis                13.533  11.066  10.600  13.566  48.765


Vault

Oldest and youngest competitors

          Name                Country     Date of birth  Age
Youngest  Shallon Olsen       Canada      July 10, 2000  17 years, 2 months and 27 days
Oldest    Oksana Chusovitina  Uzbekistan  June 19, 1975  42 years, 3 months and 18 days

Position                         Gymnast                           Vault 1  Vault 2  Total
D Score                          E Score                           Pen.     Score 1  D Score  E Score  Pen.   Score 2
[1st place, gold medalist(s)]    [Russia] Maria Paseka             6.000    8.700             14.700   5.800  9.200            15.000  14.850

[2nd place, silver medalist(s)]  [United States] Jade Carey        5.800    9.000             14.800   5.600  9.133            14.733  14.766

[3rd place, bronze medalist(s)]  [Switzerland] Giulia Steingruber  5.800    8.933    -0.100   14.633   5.400  8.900            14.300  14.466
4                                [Canada] Ellie Black              5.400    9.166             14.566   5.200  9.066            14.266  14.416
5                                [Uzbekistan] Oksana Chusovitina   5.400    9.033             14.433   5.200  9.100            14.300  14.366
6                                [China] Wang Yan                  5.600    8.900             14.500   5.800  8.500    -0.100  14.200  14.350
7                                [Canada] Shallon Olsen            5.800    7.833    -0.100   13.533   6.000  8.933            14.933  14.233
8                                [Japan] Sae Miyakawa              5.800    8.700             14.500   5.400  7.700            13.100  13.800

Uneven bars

Nina Derwael of Belgium is the first gymnast from her country to make an event final and her bronze was the first-ever medal for Belgium.

Oldest and youngest competitors

          Name             Country  Date of birth     Age
Youngest  Elena Eremina    Russia   July 29, 2001     16 years, 2 months and 8 days
Oldest    Elisabeth Seitz  Germany  November 4, 1993  23 years, 11 months and 3 days

Position                         Gymnast                          D Score  E Score  Penalty  Total


Position                         Gymnast                          D Score  E Score  Penalty  Total

[1st place, gold medalist(s)]    [China] Fan Yilin                6.500    8.666             15.166

[2nd place, silver medalist(s)]  [Russia] Elena Eremina           6.300    8.800             15.100

[3rd place, bronze medalist(s)]  [Belgium] Nina Derwael           6.300    8.733             15.033
4                                [Russia] Anastasia Ilyankova     6.200    8.700             14.900
5                                [Germany] Elisabeth Seitz        6.100    8.666             14.766
6                                [Ukraine] Diana Varinska         6.000    8.583             14.583
7                                [China] Luo Huan                 6.200    8.366             14.566
8                                [United States] Ashton Locklear  5.400    7.366             12.766

Balance beam

Pauline Schäfer won the first-ever World Championships balance beam gold medal for Germany.

Oldest and youngest competitors

          Name           Country  Date of birth      Age
Youngest  Elena Eremina  Russia   July 29, 2001      16 years, 2 months and 9 days
Oldest    Ellie Black    Canada   September 8, 1995  22 years and 1 month

Position                         Gymnast                      D Score  E Score  Penalty  Total

[1st place, gold medalist(s)]    [Germany] Pauline Schäfer    5.500    8.033             13.533

[2nd place, silver medalist(s)]  [United States] Morgan Hurd  5.700    7.800    -0.100   13.400

[3rd place, bronze medalist(s)]  [Germany] Tabea Alt          5.700    7.600             13.300
4                                [Japan] Mai Murakami         5.400    7.666             13.066
5                                [Russia] Elena Eremina       5.400    7.566             12.966
6                                [Japan] Asuka Teramoto       5.600    7.366             12.966
7                                [China] Liu Tingting         5.500    7.366    -0.100   12.766
8                                [Canada] Ellie Black         5.700    6.700             12.400

Floor


Floor

Top qualifier Ragan Smith of the United States withdrew after sustaining an ankle injury in warm-ups for the all-around final earlier in the week; she was replaced by first reserve Ellie Black of Canada in the floor final. Mai Murakami won Japan's first-ever gold for women on the event.

Oldest and youngest competitors

          Name             Country  Date of birth      Age
Youngest  Thaís Fidélis    Brazil   July 23, 2001      16 years, 2 months and 15 days
Oldest    Vanessa Ferrari  Italy    November 10, 1990  26 years, 10 months and 28 days

Position                         Gymnast                             D Score  E Score  Penalty  Total

[1st place, gold medalist(s)]    [Japan] Mai Murakami                5.900    8.333             14.233

[2nd place, silver medalist(s)]  [United States] Jade Carey          5.700    8.500             14.200

[3rd place, bronze medalist(s)]  [United Kingdom] Claudia Fragapane  5.600    8.333             13.933
4                                [Brazil] Thaís Fidélis              5.500    8.166             13.666
5                                [Canada] Brooklyn Moors             5.200    8.450             13.650
6                                [Italy] Lara Mori                   5.400    7.866             13.266
7                                [Canada] Ellie Black                5.300    7.900    -0.300   12.900
8                                [Italy] Vanessa Ferrari             2.000    8.233    -6.300   3.933

Qualification

Men's results

Individual all-around


Rank  Name                                                                          Total   Qualification
1     [Cuba] Manrique Larduet       14.466  14.200  14.200  14.900  15.200  13.733  86.699  Q
2     [China] Xiao Ruoteng          14.166  14.866  13.933  14.766  14.800  13.766  86.297  Q
3     [Russia] David Belyavskiy     13.933  14.666  14.133  13.833  15.066  14.208  85.839  Q
4     [Japan] Kenzō Shirai          15.766  13.233  13.766  15.233  14.666  13.033  85.697  Q
5     [Ukraine] Oleg Verniaiev      13.233  14.733  13.800  14.833  15.466  13.366  85.431  Q
6     [China] Lin Chaopan           14.100  13.833  13.783  14.333  15.000  13.466  85.515  Q
7     [United States] Yul Moldauer  14.700  13.066  14.300  14.566  14.633  13.066  85.331  Q
8     [United Kingdom] Nile Wilson  14.133  12.900  14.200  14.466  14.200  13.933  83.832  Q
9     [Switzerland] Pablo Brägger   13.566  13.266  13.200  14.533  14.800  14.433  83.798  Q
10    [Turkey] Ahmet Önder          14.133  12.066  13.800  14.800  14.533  13.466  82.798  Q
11    [Russia] Nikita Nagornyy      13.666  13.800  14.566  12.766  13.900  13.900  82.598  Q
12    [Colombia] Jossimar Calvo     13.866  13.733  13.100  14.100  13.800  13.800  82.399  Q
13    [Turkey] Ferhat Arıcan        13.666  13.600  13.066  14.400  14.933  12.633  82.298  Q


14    [Brazil] Caio Souza           13.566  12.700  14.200  14.483  14.433  12.166  81.548  Q
15    [Armenia] Artur Davtyan       13.233  13.866  14.166  13.600  13.733  12.766  81.364  Q
16    [Cyprus] Marios Georgiou      12.733  14.333  12.966  14.000  14.100  13.100  81.232  Q
17    [Germany] Philipp Herder      13.766  13.033  13.200  14.100  13.866  11.866  79.831  Q
18    [Mexico] Kevin Cerda          14.000  12.633  12.900  13.900  12.366  13.433  79.232  Q
19    [Switzerland] Eddy Yusof      13.933  11.333  14.133  14.266  12.833  12.566  79.064  Q
20    [Lithuania] Tomas Kuzmickas   13.900  12.633  11.666  13.966  13.966  12.866  78.997  Q
21    [Lithuania] Robert Tvorogal   13.733  12.533  12.866  13.833  13.566  12.433  78.964  Q
22    [South Korea] Bae Ga-ram      13.400  12.200  13.166  14.300  12.000  13.633  78.699  Q
23    [Canada] Zachary Clay         12.500  13.066  13.700  13.300  13.200  12.866  78.632  Q
24    [Spain] Joel Plata Rodríguez  13.733  10.666  12.933  13.600  13.900  12.600  77.432  Q
25    [Norway] Pietro Giachino      13.200  13.666  12.100  12.900  12.300  13.133  77.299  R1
26    [Jamaica] Reiss Beckford      13.466  11.933  13.500  13.533  13.766  11.033  77.231  R2


27    [Belarus] Dzianis Sanuvonh    13.300  12.000  11.900  14.366  13.766  11.400  76.732  R3
28    [Italy] Lorenzo Galli         12.533  12.133  12.133  13.700  13.200  12.800  76.499  R4


Floor

Rank  Name                                 Difficulty  Execution  Penalty  Total   Qualification
1     [Japan] Kenzō Shirai                 7.200       8.566               15.766  Q
2     [United States] Donnell Whittenburg  6.400       8.633               15.033  Q
3     [United States] Yul Moldauer         5.800       8.900               14.700  Q
4     [Israel] Artem Dolgopyat             6.500       8.366      0.200    14.666  Q
5     [South Korea] Kim Han-sol            6.400       8.266               14.666  Q
6     [United States] Eddie Penev          6.200       8.433               14.633  -
7     [Cuba] Manrique Larduet              6.000       8.466               14.466  Q
8     [Netherlands] Bram Verhofstad        6.100       8.333               14.433  Q
9     [Kazakhstan] Milad Karimi            6.100       8.225               14.325  Q
10    [Chile] Tomás González               6.200       8.166      0.100    14.266  Q
11    [China] Xiao Ruoteng                 5.900       8.266               14.166  R2
12    [United Kingdom] Nile Wilson         5.500       8.633               14.133  R3

Pommel horse

Rank  Name                               Difficulty  Execution  Penalty  Total   Qualification
1     [United Kingdom] Max Whitlock      6.800       8.500               15.300  Q
2     [China] Weng Hao                   6.500       8.533               15.033  Q
3     [United States] Alexander Naddour  6.400       8.566               14.966  Q
4     [China] Xiao Ruoteng               6.100       8.766               14.866  Q
5     [Ukraine] Oleg Verniaiev           6.600       8.133               14.733  Q
6     [Russia] David Belyavskiy          6.400       8.266               14.666  Q
7     [Slovenia] Sašo Bertoncelj         6.100       8.425               14.525  Q
8     [Armenia] Harutyun Merdinyan       6.200       8.233               14.433  Q
9     [Croatia] Filip Ude                6.000       8.400               14.400  R1
10    [Belarus] Andrey Likhovitskiy      6.300       8.066               14.366  R2
11    [Chinese Taipei] Hsu Ping-chien    5.700       8.633               14.333  R3

Rings


Rings

Rank  Name                                 Difficulty  Execution  Penalty  Total   Qualification
1     [Greece] Eleftherios Petrounias      6.300       9.100               15.400  Q
2     [Russia] Denis Ablyazin              6.300       9.033               15.333  Q
3     [Turkey] İbrahim Çolak               6.200       8.833               15.033  Q
4     [France] Samir Aït Saïd              6.200       8.766               14.966  Q
5     [China] Liu Yang                     6.300       8.500               14.800  Q
6     [United Kingdom] Courtney Tulloch    6.400       8.366               14.766  Q
7     [Ukraine] Igor Radivilov             6.300       8.433               14.733  Q
8     [Brazil] Arthur Zanetti              6.200       8.500               14.700  Q
9     [United States] Alexander Naddour    6.000       8.633               14.633  R1
10    [United States] Donnell Whittenburg  6.100       8.533               14.633  R2
11    [Russia] Nikita Nagornyy             6.000       8.566               14.566  R3

Vault


Vault

Rank     Name                          D Score  E Score  Pen.   Score 1  D Score  E Score  Pen.   Score 2  Total   Qualification
Vault 1  Vault 2
1        [South Korea] Yang Hak-seon   6.000    9.600           15.600   5.600    9.366           14.966   15.283  Q
2        [Japan] Kenzō Shirai          5.600    9.633           15.233   5.200    9.466           14.666   14.949  Q
3        [Romania] Marian Drăgulescu   5.600    9.300           14.900   5.400    9.433           14.833   14.866  Q
4        [Japan] Keisuke Asato         6.000    8.633    0.100  14.533   5.600    9.300           14.900   14.716  Q
5        [France] Zachari Hrimeche     5.600    8.933           14.533   5.600    9.266           14.866   14.699  Q
6        [Ukraine] Igor Radivilov      5.600    9.100           14.700   5.600    9.141    0.100  14.641   14.670  Q
7        [South Korea] Kim Han-sol     5.600    9.266           14.866   5.200    9.233           14.433   14.649  Q
8        [Guatemala] Jorge Vega López  5.600    9.166           14.766   5.200    9.366    0.100  14.466   14.616  Q
9        [Russia] Artur Dalaloyan      5.600    9.183    0.100  14.683   5.600    9.033    0.100  14.533   14.608  R1
10       [United States] Eddie Penev   5.200    9.333           14.533   5.400    9.200           14.600   14.566  R2
11       [Ukraine] Oleg Verniaiev      5.600    9.233           14.833   5.600    8.500           14.100   14.466  R3

Parallel bars


Parallel bars

Rank  Name                                 Difficulty  Execution  Penalty  Total   Qualification
1     [Ukraine] Oleg Verniaiev             6.700       8.766               15.466  Q
2     [China] Zou Jingyuan                 6.600       8.633               15.233  Q
3     [Cuba] Manrique Larduet              6.400       8.800               15.200  Q
4     [Russia] David Belyavskiy            6.400       8.800               15.200  Q
5     [China] Lin Chaopan                  6.400       8.600               15.000  Q
6     [Turkey] Ferhat Arıcan               6.300       8.633               14.933  Q
7     [Germany] Marcel Nguyen              6.500       8.433               14.933  Q
8     [China] Xiao Ruoteng                 6.000       8.800               14.800  -
9     [Switzerland] Pablo Brägger          6.400       8.400               14.800  Q
10    [United States] Donnell Whittenburg  6.300       8.466               14.766  R1
11    [Japan] Wataru Tanigawa              6.000       8.733               14.733  R2
12    [Vietnam] Phạm Phước Hưng            6.300       8.400               14.700  R3

Horizontal bar

Rank  Name                           Difficulty  Execution  Penalty  Total   Qualification
1     [Netherlands] Epke Zonderland  6.500       7.933               14.433  Q
2     [Switzerland] Pablo Brägger    6.800       7.633               14.433  Q
3     [Croatia] Tin Srbić            6.400       7.966               14.366  Q
4     [Switzerland] Oliver Hegi      6.200       8.133               14.333  Q
5     [Russia] David Belyavskiy      5.800       8.408               14.208  Q
6     [Netherlands] Bart Deurloo     6.100       7.933               14.033  Q
7     [Cuba] Randy Lerú              6.200       7.800               14.000  Q
8     [Japan] Hidetaka Miyachi       6.200       7.766               13.966  Q
9     [United Kingdom] Nile Wilson   6.100       7.833               13.933  R1
10    [United States] Marvin Kimble  6.200       7.733               13.933  R2
11    [Russia] Nikita Nagornyy       5.600       8.300               13.900  R3

Women's results

See 2017 Artistic Gymnastics World Championships – Women's qualification


See 2017 Artistic Gymnastics World Championships – Women's qualification

Individual all-around


Rank  Gymnast                                                               Total   Qualification
1     [Japan] Mai Murakami                  14.633  13.900  13.200  14.200  55.933  Q
2     [United States] Ragan Smith           14.466  14.133  12.900  14.433  55.932  Q
3     [Canada] Ellie Black                  14.500  14.400  13.433  13.433  55.766  Q
4     [France] Mélanie de Jesus dos Santos  14.500  14.500  13.066  13.233  55.299  Q
5     [Russia] Elena Eremina                13.866  15.100  13.233  12.800  54.999  Q
6     [United States] Morgan Hurd           14.466  14.333  13.500  12.533  54.832  Q
7     [Ukraine] Diana Varinska              13.716  14.566  13.033  12.600  53.915  Q
8     [Belgium] Nina Derwael                13.566  14.966  12.333  12.733  53.598  Q
9     [Japan] Aiko Sugihara                 14.066  13.300  12.466  13.433  53.265  Q
10    [Russia] Angelina Melnikova           14.400  14.966  12.600  11.166  53.132  Q
11    [Switzerland] Giulia Steingruber      15.100  12.833  11.933  13.266  53.132  Q
12    [Germany] Tabea Alt                   14.200  12.366  13.533  12.933  53.032  Q
13    [United Kingdom] Amy Tinkler          14.366  13.066  12.066  13.333  52.831  Q
14    [Spain] Ana Pérez                     14.100  12.733  12.933  12.966  52.732  Q
15    [Canada] Brooklyn Moors               14.166  13.066  11.533  13.866  52.631  Q
16    [China] Wang Yan                      14.400  13.400  11.266  13.366  52.432  Q


17    [Brazil] Thaís Fidélis                13.633  13.200  11.766  13.733  52.332  Q
18    [Germany] Elisabeth Seitz             13.600  14.700  11.200  12.500  52.000  Q
19    [Italy] Lara Mori                     13.325  13.466  11.666  13.500  51.957  Q
20    [Australia] Georgia Godwin            13.475  13.000  12.666  12.733  51.874  Q
21    [Belgium] Rune Hermans                13.333  13.800  11.900  12.833  51.866  Q
22    [Portugal] Ana Filipa Martins         13.166  13.333  12.633  12.433  51.565  Q
23    [France] Marine Boyer                 13.633  13.200  12.466  12.100  51.399  Q
24    [United Kingdom] Alice Kinsella       13.666  13.533  11.200  12.966  51.365  Q
25    [Belgium] Maellyse Brassart           13.741  12.533  12.200  12.333  50.807  -
26    [South Korea] Lee Eun-ju              13.300  12.933  12.066  12.100  50.399  R1
27    [Romania] Ioana Crișan                13.600  12.600  11.233  12.800  50.233  R2
28    [Azerbaijan] Marina Nekrasova         14.108  11.933  11.766  12.166  49.973  R3
29    [Hungary] Zsófia Kovács               12.733  13.766  11.533  11.666  49.698  R4


Vault

Rank     Name                              D Score  E Score  Pen.  Score 1  D Score  E Score  Pen.   Score 2  Total   Qualification
Vault 1  Vault 2
1        [Russia] Maria Paseka             6.000    8.866          14.866   5.800    9.200           15.000   14.933  Q
2        [United States] Jade Carey        5.800    9.266          15.066   5.600    9.033           14.633   14.849  Q
3        [Switzerland] Giulia Steingruber  5.800    9.300          15.100   5.400    9.000           14.400   14.750  Q
4        [Canada] Shallon Olsen            5.400    8.966          14.366   6.000    8.933           14.933   14.649  Q
5        [China] Wang Yan                  5.600    8.800          14.400   5.800    8.900           14.700   14.550  Q
6        [Japan] Sae Miyakawa              5.800    9.100          14.900   5.400    8.833    0.100  14.133   14.516  Q
7        [Canada] Ellie Black              5.400    9.100          14.500   5.200    9.266           14.466   14.483  Q
8        [Uzbekistan] Oksana Chusovitina   5.400    8.966          14.366   5.200    9.133           14.333   14.349  Q
9        [Netherlands] Tisha Volleman      5.400    9.066          14.466   5.200    8.800    0.100  13.900   14.183  R1
10       [Russia] Angelina Melnikova       5.400    9.000          14.400   5.200    8.733    0.100  13.833   14.116  R2
11       [United Kingdom] Amy Tinkler      5.400    8.966          14.366   4.800    8.800           13.600   13.983  R3

Uneven bars


Uneven bars

Rank  Name                                  Difficulty  Execution  Penalty  Total   Qualification
1     [Russia] Elena Eremina                6.300       8.800               15.100  Q
2     [Russia] Anastasia Ilyankova          6.200       8.866               15.066  Q
3     [China] Fan Yilin                     6.300       8.700               15.000  Q
4     [Belgium] Nina Derwael                6.300       8.666               14.966  Q
4     [Russia] Angelina Melnikova           6.300       8.666               14.966  -
6     [Germany] Elisabeth Seitz             6.100       8.600               14.700  Q
7     [United States] Ashton Locklear       5.500       9.066               14.566  Q
8     [China] Luo Huan                      6.000       8.566               14.566  Q
8     [Ukraine] Diana Varinska              6.000       8.566               14.566  Q
10    [United Kingdom] Georgia-Mae Fenton   5.900       8.633               14.533  R1
11    [France] Mélanie de Jesus dos Santos  5.800       8.700               14.500  R2
12    [Canada] Ellie Black                  5.900       8.500               14.400  R3

Balance beam

Rank  Name                                  Difficulty  Execution  Penalty  Total   Qualification
1     [Germany] Tabea Alt                   5.900       7.633               13.533  Q
2     [United States] Morgan Hurd           5.600       7.900               13.500  Q
3     [Germany] Pauline Schäfer             5.300       8.133               13.433  Q
4     [Canada] Ellie Black                  5.800       7.633               13.433  Q
5     [Japan] Asuka Teramoto                5.700       7.633               13.333  Q
6     [Russia] Elena Eremina                5.400       7.833               13.233  Q
7     [China] Liu Tingting                  5.700       7.633      0.1      13.233  Q
8     [Japan] Mai Murakami                  5.600       7.600               13.200  Q
9     [France] Mélanie de Jesus dos Santos  5.700       7.366               13.066  R1
10    [Ukraine] Diana Varinska              5.100       7.933               13.033  R2
11    [Spain] Ana Pérez                     5.100       7.833               12.933  R3

Floor


Floor

Rank  Name                                Difficulty  Execution  Penalty  Total   Qualification
1     [United States] Ragan Smith         5.800       8.633               14.433  Q
2     [Japan] Mai Murakami                5.800       8.400               14.200  Q
3     [United States] Jade Carey          5.700       8.400               14.100  Q
4     [United Kingdom] Claudia Fragapane  5.700       8.233               13.933  Q
5     [Canada] Brooklyn Moors             5.400       8.466               13.866  Q
6     [Brazil] Thaís Fidélis              5.500       8.233               13.733  Q
7     [Italy] Vanessa Ferrari             5.700       7.900               13.600  Q
8     [Italy] Lara Mori                   5.600       7.900               13.500  Q
9     [Canada] Ellie Black                5.000       8.433               13.433  R1
10    [Japan] Aiko Sugihara               5.300       8.133               13.433  R2
11    [China] Wang Yan                    5.700       8.066      0.4      13.366  R3

Subdivisions


Men
Subdivision 1  [Chinese Taipei] TPE [Germany] GER [Bulgaria] BUL [Uzbekistan] UZB [Armenia] ARM [Greece] GRE [Sweden] SWE [Ecuador] ECU [Jamaica] JAM [Venezuela] VEN [Iceland] ISL [Ukraine] UKR [Algeria] ALG [Vietnam] VIE [Qatar] QAT [Cuba] CUB [Israel] ISR
Subdivision 2  [Belarus] BLR [Egypt] EGY [Cyprus] CYP [Norway] NOR [Hong Kong] HKG [Guatemala] GUA [Denmark] DEN [Mexico] MEX [Thailand] THA [United States] USA [Argentina] ARG [Belgium] BEL [Switzerland] SUI [United Kingdom] GBR [India] IND [Croatia] CRO [Trinidad and Tobago] TTO
Subdivision 3  [China] CHN [Canada] CAN [Mongolia] MGL [Russia] RUS [Hungary] HUN [Latvia] LAT [Australia] AUS [Japan] JPN [Kazakhstan] KAZ [Azerbaijan] AZE [Georgia (country)] GEO [Portugal] POR [France] FRA [Slovenia] SLO [Spain] ESP [Romania] ROU [Dominican Republic] DOM
Subdivision 4  [New Zealand] NZL [Brazil] BRA [Netherlands] NED [Sri Lanka] SRI [Republic of Ireland] IRL [Turkey] TUR [Italy] ITA [Chile] CHI [Austria] AUT [Colombia] COL [Slovakia] SVK [South Korea] KOR [Lithuania] LTU[Jordan] JOR [Finland] FIN [Peru] PER [Czech Republic] CZE
Women
Subdivision 1  [Spain] ESP [Venezuela] VEN [Iceland] ISL [Denmark] DEN [Jamaica] JAM [Croatia] CRO [Latvia] LAT [Argentina] ARG [United Kingdom]GBR [Australia] AUS
Subdivision 2  [South Africa] RSA [Vietnam] VIE [India] IND [Belgium] BEL [Canada] CAN [Hong Kong] HKG [Israel] ISR [Russia] RUS [Egypt] EGY [Portugal] POR


Subdivision 3  [Azerbaijan] AZE [Mexico] MEX [Czech Republic] CZE [Norway] NOR [Slovakia] SVK [Netherlands] NED [Puerto Rico] PUR [Austria] AUT [Romania] ROU [Switzerland] SUI [Lithuania] LTU
Subdivision 4  [New Zealand] NZL [Germany] GER [France] FRA [Bulgaria] BUL [Kazakhstan] KAZ [Hungary] HUN [Italy] ITA [Sweden] SWE [Chinese Taipei] TPE [Turkey] TUR [Greece] GRE
Subdivision 5  [Finland] FIN [United States] USA [Cuba] CUB [Ukraine] UKR [Brazil] BRA [Slovenia]SLO [Japan] JPN [South Korea] KOR [Uzbekistan] UZB [Colombia] COL [China] CHN [Panama] PAN


* Official website


Electoral results for the district of Sydney-Fitzroy

Sydney-Fitzroy, an electoral district of the Legislative Assembly in the Australian state of New South Wales, was created in 1894 and abolished in 1904.

Election  Member  Party
1894              Henry Chapman  Free Trade
1895              John McElhone  Ind. Free Trade
1898 by           John Norton    Protectionist
1898              Henry Chapman  Free Trade
1901              Daniel Levy    Liberal Reform

Election results

Elections in the 1900s

1901

This section is an excerpt from Results of the 1901 New South Wales state election § Sydney-Fitzroy.
1901 New South Wales state election: Sydney-Fitzroy
Party               Candidate                Votes             %     ±%
                    Liberal Reform           Daniel Levy       605   35.9
                    Independent Liberal      Arthur McElhone   381   22.6
                    Independent              Henry Chapman     379   22.5
                    Labor                    Donald McKinnon   121   7.2
                    Independent Progressive  Harry Foran       108   6.4
                    Independent              Denis O'Sullivan  71    4.2
                    Independent              Callaghan Garvan  20    1.2
Total formal votes  1,685                    99.1              +0.1
Informal votes      15                       0.9               -0.1
Turnout             1,700                    56.5              -2.7
                    Liberal Reform hold

At the 1898 election Henry Chapman was elected as a Liberal Reform representative, while Daniel Levy had stood as an independent.

Elections in the 1890s

1898

This section is an excerpt from Results of the 1898 New South Wales colonial election § Sydney-Fitzroy.
1898 New South Wales colonial election: Sydney-Fitzroy
Party               Candidate                             Votes           %    ±%
                    Free Trade                            Henry Chapman   815  51.2
                    National Federal                      John Norton     767  48.2
                    Independent Federalist                Percy Tighe     5    0.3
                    Ind. Free Trade                       Daniel Levy     3    0.2
                    Independent Federalist                Patrick Dorahy  1    0.1
Total formal votes  1,591                                 99.1
Informal votes      15                                    0.9
Turnout             1,606                                 59.2
                    Free Trade gain from Ind. Free Trade

John McElhone (Independent Free Trade) died in 1898 and John Norton (National Federal) had won the seat in a by-election.

1898 by-election


1898 by-election

This section is an excerpt from 1898 Sydney-Fitzroy colonial by-election § Result.
1898 Sydney-Fitzroy by-election Friday 3 June
Party               Candidate                                Votes                  %     ±%
                    Protectionist                            John Norton (elected)  617   43.2
                    Free Trade                               Henry Chapman          546   38.2  +2.2
                    Protectionist                            Patrick Dorahy         166   11.6
                    Protectionist                            William Martin         99    6.9
Total formal votes  1,428                                    99.3                   -
Informal votes      10                                       0.7                    -
Turnout             1,438                                    66.7                   +3.4
                    Protectionist gain from Ind. Free Trade

John McElhone (Ind. Free Trade) died.

1895

This section is an excerpt from Results of the 1895 New South Wales colonial election § Sydney-Fitzroy.
1895 New South Wales colonial election: Sydney-Fitzroy
Party               Candidate                             Votes          %    ±%
                    Ind. Free Trade                       John McElhone  624  46.0
                    Free Trade                            Henry Chapman  488  36.0
                    Independent                           Henry Harris   163  12.0
                    Labor                                 Henry Cato     82   6.0
Total formal votes  1,357                                 99.3
Informal votes      9                                     0.7
Turnout             1,366                                 63.3
                    Ind. Free Trade gain from Free Trade

1894

This section is an excerpt from Results of the 1894 New South Wales colonial election § Sydney-Fitzroy.
1894 New South Wales colonial election: Sydney-Fitzroy
Party               Candidate           Votes              %    ±%
                    Free Trade          Henry Chapman      666  39.5
                    Ind. Free Trade     John McElhone      422  25.0
                    Labor               Henry Cato         355  21.1
                    Ind. Free Trade     William Morrison   180  10.7
                    Ind. Protectionist  Henry Foran        32   1.9
                    Ind. Protectionist  Charles Forssberg  17   1.0
                    Ind. Protectionist  Robert Roberts     13   0.8
Total formal votes  1,685               98.7
Informal votes      23                  1.4
Turnout             1,708               77.2
                    Free Trade win      (new seat)


Yamaçköy, Güroymak

Yamaçköy is a village in the Güroymak District of Bitlis Province in Turkey.

History

The village was formerly known as Pav in 1556 and Pov in 1902, both of which are of Armenian origin.

Geography

The village is located at an altitude of 1,600 meters above sea level.Üzümveren, Yazıkonak, Kuştaşı, and Özkavak.


Goat Range Provincial Park

Goat Range Provincial Park is a provincial park in British Columbia, Canada.

The park was established to protect unique species such as the (protected) Gerrard Rainbow Trout (the largest in the world-up to 50 lb) and the distinct color group of "White Grizzly" for which some hoped the park would be named.2 in size, is located between Slocan Lake (S) and Trout Lake (N), bordering Kootenay Lake The regions surrounding the park are known for its mining ghost towns from the days of the "Silvery Slocan" silver and galena rush to its south and also in the Lardeau country around Trout Lake and the north end of the Arrow Lakes.

  * "Goat Range Park". BC Geographical Names.


Bad Vibes (Lloyd Cole album)

Bad Vibes is the third studio album by Lloyd Cole. It was released in October 1993 on Fontana Records and reached number 38 on the UK Albums Chart and number 8 on the Swedish chart.

Critical reception

Professional ratings
Review scores
Source         Rating
NME            5/10

Upon its release, Johnny Dee of NME gave a mixed review of Bad Vibes. He commented that, like Cole's previous two solo albums, there was "plenty to recommend" and praised the "majestic" "Morning Is Broken", the "lyrical wisecracks" of "So You'd Like to Save the World" and the "druggy Beatles drawl" of "Love You So What". He felt the album then "very quickly get[s] bogged down in arty sleaze", picking "Wild Mushrooms" as the "nadir" and adding that "there's more lyrical embarrassments" on "Can't Get Arrested". He concluded, "If only he'd stop trying to impress us. 'Identity Crisis – The Musical' would have been a better title."Sarra Manning of Melody Maker noted the album's "definite Sixties timbre, as in little acoustic refrains, gently thumping piano and windy chords like raindrops on windowpanes" and described Cole as "a slightly worn voice that breaks into throaty emphasis on a caustic word". She was critical of "Fall Together" and "Can't Get Arrested" for being "truly horrendous Beatles' pastiches", but concluded, "Forget all your ill-conceived notions of what's credible and what's not and make room for 11 songs that put some aesthetic equilibrium back in your life."

Track listing

 1. "Morning Is Broken" – 5:19
 2. "So You'd Like to Save the World" – 3:30
 3. "Holier Than Thou" – 3:53
 4. "Love You So What" – 3:26
 5. "Wild Mushrooms" – 2:09
 6. "My Way to You" – 4:18
 7. "Too Much of a Good Thing" – 5:04
 8. "Fall Together" – 4:50
 9. "Mister Wrong" – 3:24
10. "Seen the Future" – 3:21
11. "Can't Get Arrested" – 8:25


Bad Vibes (Lloyd Cole album)

1994 reissue bonus tracks

 1.
 2. "For the Pleasure of Your Company" – 3:42
 3. "4 M.B." – 4:46

Personnel

  * Lloyd Cole
  * Ann Charlotte Vensgaarde
  * Anton Fier
  * "Lightning" Bob Hoffnar
  * Curtis Watts
  * Dan McCarroll
  * Dana Vlcek
  * Fred Maher
  * John Valentine Carruthers
  * John Micco
  * Matthew Sweet
  * Neil Clark
  * Peter Mark

Technical

  * Dave O'Donnell, Fred Kevorkian, Jon Goldberger, Lloyd Puckitt, Michael White, Mike Krowiak – recording engineers
  * Bob Clearmountain – mixing
  * David Sims – photography

Charts

Chart performance for Bad Vibes
Chart (1993)                        Peak
                                    position
Swedish Albums (Sverigetopplistan)     8
UK Albums (OCC)                        38


Castle Saalhof

Castle Saalhof is one of the oldest castles in the Pinzgau region. It dates back to the 11th century, when it apparently was the home of the Counts of the region. During the renovation of the facade in 2010, the oldest parts of the castle on the north-east side were revealed. In 1600, Castle Saalhof was extended.

History

A marble relief from 1606 above the main entrance documents the rebuild.

  * In 1296, the castle is apparently owned by “Konrad, the devil”.
  * In 1423, the first verifiable owner of the archiepiscopal period is Oswald Eisenstang (= called Oswald the iron rod).
  * In 1584, ownership passes to the Amann family from Judendorf and Saal.
  * In 1600, Christoff Amann from Judendorf and Saal rebuild the castle in a style, typical for the region. The marble relief and emblem above the main entrance, laid in 1606, as well as a large part of the interior arrangement derive from this time.
  * In 1634, the castle comes to the Riedl family following the marriage of Amanns’ daughter Maria: An emblem on the first floor, laid in 1661, testifies to the marriage of Mathias Riedl from Saal and Maria Riedlin born Stöcklin from Judendorf.
  * In 1714, the castle is transferred to the Kobald family from Dambach and Moll. During this time, the castle has its own chapel inside.
  * In 1840, the castle comes into rural possession, it is bought by the landlord Josef Zehentner from the small village of Weißbach near Lofer. He is a direct ancestor of the Rieder family which owns the castle now.
  * In 1971, the two old stable blocks (with roof ridges from 1828 and 1586) were demolished and new ones constructed.
  * In 1975, the road to Maishofen which crossed the yard of Castle Saalhof in former times is moved to the new crossing.
  * Since 1992 the castle, the Meier‘s house and the Christian wayside shrine in the garden stand under federal conservation of monuments and historic buildings.
  * In 2004, Hermann and his wife Kathrin Rieder take over the property.

Current use

Castle Saalhof in summer


Castle Saalhof

Current use

Castle Saalhof in summer

Since 2006 newly renovated apartments within the castle are available. In 2010, the facade was renovated and the old colours from the 17th century have been restored. The Meier’s house on the eastern side was earlier the dwelling of the curator (Meier), farm labourers and servants. The date in the roof ridge - the year of construction - is 1686. In 1814 the Meier’s house was used as a school for Maishofen. The castle and Meier’s house are private buildings.

Gallery

  * [garden]
    garden
  * [herbgarden]
    herbgarden
  * [fountain]
    fountain
  * [barbeque hut]
    barbeque hut
  * [bioheat]
    bioheat
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Schloss Saalhof.
  * Official website


Birch Lake (Cass County, Minnesota)

Birch Lake is a lake in Cass County, Minnesota, in the United States.

Birch Lake is an English translation of the native Ojibwe-language name.

  * List of lakes in Minnesota


2017 Speedway World Cup Event 1

Event One of the 2017 Monster Energy FIM Speedway World Cup was the opening race of the 2017 edition of the Speedway World Cup. It was staged on July 1 at the Adrian Flux Arena in King's Lynn, Great Britain and was won by Great Britain from Australia, United States, and the Czech Republic. As a result, Great Britain progressed directly to the 2017 Speedway World Cup Final, while Australia and the United States progressed to the 2017 Speedway World Cup Race-off. The Czech Republic were eliminated.

Craig Cook led Great Britain to the final by scoring 14 points, while Steve Worrall, Chris Harris and Robert Lambert all scored 13 points each. Australia were hampered by the loss of Jason Doyle, who was injured and unable to compete, however Chris Holder was the star of the meeting scoring 19 points.

Results

Pos.    National team   Pts.
1       Great Britain   53
2       Australia       44
3       United States   15
4       Czech Republic  13

Scores

[United Kingdom]  GREAT BRITAIN   53
No                Rider Name      Pts.  Heats
1                 Steve Worrall   13    3,2,2,3,3
2                 Craig Cook      14    3,3,3,3,2
3                 Chris Harris    13    3,2,3,3,2
4                 Robert Lambert  13    3,3,2,3,2
5                 Adam Ellis      0

[Australia]  AUSTRALIA       44
No           Rider Name      Pts.  Heats
1            Max Fricke      8     2,1,2,1,2
2            Chris Holder    19    2,3,3,6,2,3
3            Nick Morris     5     0,2,2,1
4            Troy Batchelor  12    2,3,2,2,3

5                Jason Doyle    0
[United States]  UNITED STATES  15
No               Rider Name     Pts.  Heats
1                Ricky Wells    3     0,0,1,2,0
2                Gino Manzares  7     2,2,2,0,1
3                Luke Becker    2     1,0,1,0
4                Dillon Ruml    2     1,1,0,0
5                Broc Nicol     1     1,0


2017 Speedway World Cup Event 1

[Czech Republic]  CZECH REPUBLIC     13
No                Rider Name         Pts.  Heats
1                 Matěj Kůs          0     0,0,0,0
2                 Václav Milík, Jr.  6     0,1,0,2,3
3                 Josef Franc        4     1,1,0,1,1
4                 Hynek Štichauer    3     1,0,1,1
5                 Eduard Krčmář      0     0,0

  * 2017 Speedway Grand Prix


Erythropotamos

The Erythropotamos (Greek: Ερυθροπόταμος, meaning "red river") or Luda reka (Bulgarian: Луда река, meaning "mad river") is a river in southern Bulgaria (Haskovo Province) and northeastern Greece (Evros regional unit). Its Turkish name was Kızıldelisu. Its source is near Mega Dereio. It flows into the Maritsa (Evros) near Didymoteicho.

The source of the river is in the eastern Rhodope Mountains in the western Evros regional unit, Greece, near the village Mikro Dereio. It crosses the border with Bulgaria near Gorno Lukovo in the Ivaylovgrad municipality, and forms the Greek-Bulgarian border for several kilometers. It crosses back into Greece between the villages Siv Kladenets and Alepochori. It passes the villages Ladi, Mani and Koufovouno before flowing into the Evros just beyond Didymoteicho.

Its largest tributary is the Byala reka ("white river") in Bulgaria, which flows into the Luda reka near the village Odrintsi.


Estadio Centenario (Cuernavaca)

Not to be confused with Estadio Centenario.

The Estadio Centenario is a multi-purpose stadium in Cuernavaca, Mexico. Its primary current use is for football matches. The stadium has a capacity of 14,800 people and was opened in 1969 and renovated in 2009.

18°58′14″N 99°14′48″W / 18.97056°N 99.24667°W


Adejeania wygodzinskyi

Adejeania wygodzinskyi is a species of parasitic fly in the family Tachinidae. It is found in South America.

  * O'Hara, James E.; Stireman, John O. III. "Tachinidae Resources"
  * O'Hara, James E.; Wood, D. Monty (2004). Catalogue of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of America North of Mexico. Memoirs on Entomology, International. Vol. 18. International Associated Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56665-078-6. ISSN 1083-6284.


Electoral results for the district of Sunbury

This is a list of electoral results for the Electoral district of Sunbury in Victorian state elections.

Members for Sunbury

Member  Party      Term
        Josh Bull  Labor  2014–present

Election results

Elections in the 2020s

2022 Victorian state election: Sunbury
Party                       Candidate             Votes                   %       ±%
                            Labor                 Josh Bull               16,253  43.1  −15.5
                            Liberal               Simmone Cottom          11,895  31.6  −2.1
                            Greens                Richard Burke           2,459   6.5   −1.2
                            Animal Justice        Rohanna Mohr            1,537   4.1   +4.1
                            Family First          Charles Pace            1,445   3.8   +3.8
                            Independent           Laurence Pincini        1,432   3.8   +3.8
                            Democratic Labour     Peter Bayliss           1,317   3.5   +3.5
                            Victorian Socialists  James Gallagher         1,164   3.1   +3.1
                            New Democrats         Rushi Vijaykumar Patel  204     0.5   +0.5
Total formal votes          37,706                93.5                    –0.5

Informal votes              2,620                 6.5                     +0.5

Turnout                     40,326                88.5
Two-party-preferred result
                            Labor                 Josh Bull               21,271  56.4  −8.1
                            Liberal               Simmone Cottom          16,435  43.6  +8.1
                            Labor hold            Swing                   −8.1

Elections in the 2010s

2018 Victorian state election: Sunbury
Party                       Candidate   Votes           %       ±%
                            Labor       Josh Bull       22,749  58.40  +14.30
                            Liberal     Cassandra Marr  13,178  33.83  −2.26
                            Greens      Ryan Keable     3,028   7.77   −0.09
Total formal votes          38,955      94.02           −0.28

Informal votes              2,476       5.98            +0.28

Turnout                     41,431      90.88           −3.04
Two-party-preferred result
                            Labor       Josh Bull       25,011  64.33  +10.03
                            Liberal     Cassandra Marr  13,868  35.67  −10.03
                            Labor hold  Swing           +10.03


2014 Victorian state election: Sunbury
Party                       Candidate           Votes             %       ±%
                            Labor               Josh Bull         16,358  44.1  −1.8
                            Liberal             Jo Hagan          13,384  36.1  −1.6
                            Greens              Ella Webb         2,918   7.9   −0.4
                            Independent         Steve Medcraft    2,850   7.7   +7.7
                            Christians          Charles Williams  802     2.2   +2.2
                            Independent         Billy Lopez       395     1.1   +1.1
                            Voice for the West  Vern Hughes       384     1.0   +1.0
Total formal votes          37,091              94.3              +0.3

Informal votes              2,239               5.7               −0.3

Turnout                     39,330              93.9              −3.0
Two-party-preferred result
                            Labor               Josh Bull         20,139  54.3  −2.2
                            Liberal             Jo Hagan          16,952  45.7  +2.2
                            Labor hold          Swing             −2.2

  * "Sunbury District results". Victorian Electoral Commission. Archived from the original on 25 February 2015


Women's Nations Cup (rugby union)

The Women's Nations Cup was an international women's rugby union series organised jointly by the RFUW (England), USA Rugby and Rugby Canada. It was played from 2008 to 2013, during the summers, with rotating host locations. Guest teams from France, Wales and South Africa occasionally took part. There were separate tournaments for U20 and senior sides.

The first tournaments took place in July 2008, with the U20 competition at Appleby College, Oakville, Ontario, Canada, followed in August by the senior tournament at Esher, London, England.

It was succeeded in 2015 by the Super Series.

Winners

U20

  * 2008 - England (in Canada)
  * 2009 - England (in England)
  * 2011 - England (in USA)
  * 2013 - Canada (in England)

Senior

  * 2008 - England (in England)
  * 2009 - England (in Canada)
  * 2011 - England (in Canada)
  * 2013 - Canada (in USA)
  * Women's international rugby - includes all women's international match results
  * IRB Nations Cup


Goat gland

Goat gland transplantation was a quack surgical treatment promoted by John R. Brinkley in the 1920s.

Goat gland may also refer to:

  * Goat gland (filmmaking), a term applied c. 1927–1929, during the period of transition from silent to sound films and referred to an already completed silent film to which one or more talkie sequences were added; the name was derived by analogy to Brinkley's goat gland treatment


Blažo Pešikan

Blažo Pešikan (Cyrillic: Блажо Пешикан; born 15 February 1971) is a Montenegrin former footballer who played mostly as a midfielder.

Club career

Pešikan played with FK Sutjeska NikšićPartizan Belgrade squads of the early 1990s, most notably winning the double in 1993–94.Zoran Mirković was signed as a replacement. In total, he logged 47 appearances for Partizan, scoring two goals. One was a domestic league match while the rest a collection of friendlies.

Personal life

At the junior level, he was a national long jump champion in SR Montenegro. After his playing career, he emigrated to Toronto.

Honours

Partizan
  * First League of FR Yugoslavia: 1993–94
  * FR Yugoslavia Cup: 1993–94


Caviphantes

Caviphantes is a genus of dwarf spiders that was first described by R. Oi in 1960.

Species

As of May 2019 it contains five species:

  * Caviphantes dobrogicus (Dumitrescu & Miller, 1962) – Romania to Central Asia
  * Caviphantes flagellatus (Zhu & Zhou, 1992) – China
  * Caviphantes pseudosaxetorum Wunderlich, 1979 – Lebanon to India, Nepal, China, Russia (Kurile Is.), Japan
  * Caviphantes samensis Oi, 1960 (type) – China, Japan
  * Caviphantes saxetorum (Hull, 1916) – USA, Europe, Russia (Urals, South Siberia)
  * List of Linyphiidae species


Birch House (Falls Church, Virginia)

Birch House is a historic home located at Falls Church, Virginia. It was built in the 1840s, as a 1+1⁄2-story, Greek Revival frame I-house dwelling. It was enlarged to two stories in the 1850s. It was again enlarged in 1873, by an extension across the rear of the original dwelling. A porch across the front was added much later. It was the home of Joseph Edward Birch and his descendants. The house is now owned by former City of Falls Church Vice Mayor and Mrs. Samuel A. Mabry. The Mabrys purchased the house in 1984. The garden has been featured in the Virginia State Garden show twice.

It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Birch House.


2017 Speedway Grand Prix of Great Britain

The 2017 Adrian Flux British FIM Speedway Grand Prix was the sixth race of the 2017 Speedway Grand Prix season. It took place on 22 July at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff, Wales.

Riders

First reserve Peter Kildemand replaced Nicki Pedersen, who was injured and not fit to race. The Speedway Grand Prix Commission also nominated Craig Cook as the wild card, and Adam Ellis and Josh Bates both as Track Reserves.

Results

The Grand Prix was won by Poland's Maciej Janowski, who beat Jason Doyle and Matej Žagar in the final.Patryk Dudek - three points behind Doyle. Bartosz Zmarzlik had initially top scored in the heats with 13 points, but he was excluded in the final.

Heat details


Heat details

Placing   Draw  Rider                                  Total  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Pts  Pos  21  22  23
[Gold]    11    [Poland] (71) Maciej Janowski          17           3           3     1                  3                       1   11   3        3   3
[Silver]  15    [Australia] (69) Jason Doyle           13              1        0        2                       3   3               9    6    2       2
[Bronze]  13    [Slovenia] (55) Matej Žagar            12              3  3                      2       0                   1       9    5        2   1
4         7     [Poland] (95) Bartosz Zmarzlik         16        3              2                3   3                   2           13   1    3       0
5         16    [Russia] (89) Emil Sayfutdinov         11              0           2  3                      3           3           11   2        0
6         3     [Denmark] (25) Peter Kildemand         10     1                 1            3               2               3       10   4    0
7         8     [Poland] (692) Patryk Dudek            10        1                 3         2           1           2               9    7    1
8         12    [Australia] (23) Chris Holder          10           1              1     3           2                       2       9    8        1
9         1     [United Kingdom] (108) Tai Woffinden   9      3           2           2              1               1               9    9
10        2     [Sweden] (66) Fredrik Lindgren         7      2              3           0               2               0           7    10
11        14    [Denmark] (88) Niels Kristian Iversen  7               2     2               0       0                           3   7    11
12        5     [Sweden] (85) Antonio Lindbäck         7         2        1              1                   1                   2   7    12
13        9     [Slovakia] (54) Martin Vaculík         4            0     0                  1                   2       1           4    13
14        10    [United Kingdom] (16) Craig Cook       2            0        1                   1           0       0               2    14
15        6     [Poland] (777) Piotr Pawlicki Jr.      1         0           0        0                          1           0       1    15
16        4     [United States] (45) Greg Hancock      0      0                                                                      0    16
17        18    [United Kingdom] (18) Josh Bates       2                                                                             2    17
18        17    [United Kingdom] (17) Adam Ellis       0                                                                             0    18
Placing   Draw  Rider                                  Total  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Pts  Pos  21  22  23


e: retired or mechanical failure • m: exclusion for exceeding two minute time allowance • t: exclusion for touching the tapes • x: other exclusion • f: fell
ns: non-starter • nc: non-classify
Semi-finals: Heat 21: Riders placed 1st, 4th, 6th & 7th in the intermediate classification (after 20 heats)
Heat 22: Riders placed 2nd, 3rd, 5th & 8th in the intermediate classification (after 20 heats)
Big Final (heat 23): The first and second placed riders in each of the Semi-Finals

gate A – inside  gate B  gate C  gate D – outside

Intermediate classification

Qualifies for next season's Grand Prix series
Full-time Grand Prix rider
Wild card, track reserve or qualified reserve


Pos.      Rider                                   Points  SVN         POL       LAT       CZE               DEN        GBR               SWE       PL2       GER        SCA       PL3       AUS
                                                          [Slovenia]  [Poland]  [Latvia]  [Czech Republic]  [Denmark]  [United Kingdom]  [Sweden]  [Poland]  [Germany]  [Sweden]  [Poland]  [Australia]
[Gold]    [Australia] (69) Jason Doyle            78      12          15        10        13                15         13                –         –         –          –         –         –
[Silver]  [Poland] (71) Maciej Janowski           75      6           16        13        6                 17         17                –         –         –          –         –         –
[Bronze]  [Poland] (692) Patryk Dudek             75      13          9         16        13                14         10                –         –         –          –         –         –
4         [Sweden] (66) Fredrik Lindgren          58      16          16        5         6                 8          7                 –         –         –          –         –         –
5         [Russia] (89) Emil Sayfutdinov          58      12          6         13        2                 14         11                –         –         –          –         –         –
6         [United Kingdom] (108) Tai Woffinden    57      8           13        9         7                 11         9                 –         –         –          –         –         –
7         [Poland] (95) Bartosz Zmarzlik          55      6           12        6         8                 7          16                –         –         –          –         –         –
8         [Slovakia] (54) Martin Vaculík          49      16          10        8         10                1          4                 –         –         –          –         –         –
9         [Slovenia] (55) Matej Žagar             48      10          1         10        4                 11         12                –         –         –          –         –         –
10        [United States] (45) Greg Hancock       45      11          4         5         18                7          0                 –         –         –          –         –         –
11        [Poland] (777) Piotr Pawlicki Jr.       44      7           7         18        7                 4          1                 –         –         –          –         –         –
12        [Australia] (23) Chris Holder           44      6           6         4         11                7          10                –         –         –          –         –         –
13        [Denmark] (88) Niels Kristian Iversen   38      9           9         7         3                 3          7                 –         –         –          –         –         –
14        [Sweden] (85) Antonio Lindbäck          36      2           6         4         9                 8          7                 –         –         –          –         –         –


15        [Denmark] (25) Peter Kildemand          22      –           –         1         8                 3          10                –         –         –          –         –         –
16        [Czech Republic] (16) Václav Milík Jr.  13      –           –         –         13                –          –                 –         –         –          –         –         –
17        [Latvia] (16) Maksims Bogdanovs         8       –           –         8         –                 –          –                 –         –         –          –         –         –
18        [Denmark] (12) Nicki Pedersen           8       3           5         –         –                 –          –                 –         –         –          –         –         –
19        [Denmark] (16) Kenneth Bjerre           7       –           –         –         –                 7          –                 –         –         –          –         –         –
20        [Poland] (16) Przemysław Pawlicki       3       –           3         –         –                 –          –                 –         –         –          –         –         –
21        [United Kingdom] (16) Craig Cook        2       –           –         –         –                 –          2                 –         –         –          –         –         –
22        [United Kingdom] (18) Josh Bates        2       –           –         –         –                 –          2                 –         –         –          –         –         –
23        [Slovenia] (16) Nick Škorja             1       1           –         –         –                 –          –                 –         –         –          –         –         –
24        [Czech Republic] (17) Josef Franc       0       –           –         –         0                 –          –                 –         –         –          –         –         –
25        [Czech Republic] (18) Matěj Kůs         0       –           –         –         0                 –          –                 –         –         –          –         –         –
26        [United Kingdom] (17) Adam Ellis        0       –           –         –         –                 –          0                 –         –         –          –         –         –
Pos.      Rider                                   Points  SVN         POL       LAT       CZE               DEN        GBR               SWE       PL2       GER        SCA       PL3       AUS
                                                          [Slovenia]  [Poland]  [Latvia]  [Czech Republic]  [Denmark]  [United Kingdom]  [Sweden]  [Poland]  [Germany]  [Sweden]  [Poland]  [Australia]


* Motorcycle speedway


Erythropterus amabilis

Erythropterus amabilis is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae. It was described by Melzer in 1934.


Estadio Cacique Diriangén

Estadio Cacique Diriangén is a multi-purpose stadium in Diriamba, Nicaragua.

It is currently used mostly for football matches and is the home stadium to Diriangén FC. The stadium holds 7,500 people.

In April 2012, it was announced the stadium was to be renovated.

11°51′40″N 86°14′37″W / 11.86111°N 86.24361°W


Adejeania saetigera

Adejeania saetigera is a species of parasitic fly in the family Tachinidae. It is found in South America.

  * O'Hara, James E.; Stireman, John O. III. "Tachinidae Resources"
  * O'Hara, James E.; Wood, D. Monty (2004). Catalogue of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of America North of Mexico. Memoirs on Entomology, International. Vol. 18. International Associated Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56665-078-6. ISSN 1083-6284.


Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions

In the field of real estate appraisal, extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions are two closely related types of assumptions that are made as predicating conditions of an appraisal problem. Under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), they are two of the assignment conditions on which an appraisal assignment is predicated, the others being general assumptions, laws & regulations, supplemental standards, jurisdictional exceptions, and other conditions affecting scope of work.

An assumption is a statement or condition that is presumed or assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn.

The distinction between the two lies in the potential veracity of the assumption. A hypothetical condition assumes a condition which is known to be contrary to fact whereas an extraordinary assumption assumes a condition or a fact which is merely unknown or uncertain. The results of an analysis involving any hypothetical conditions are known to not be reflective of what exists because the assumptions on which they are predicated are contrary to fact. The results of an analysis involving extraordinary assumptions are only potentially not reflective of what exists to the extent of the uncertainty underlying the assumptions on which the analysis or opinions are predicated.

Distinction with general assumptions and limiting conditions

The concept of assumptions is closely related to the concept of scope of work in the identification of the appraisal problem in the appraisal process. The determination of the scope of work appropriate to the needs of the client, the use of the appraisal results, and the expectations of the appraiser's peers frame the extent of the general assumptions and limiting conditions of the appraisal assignment.

An appraisal can involve the assumption or determination of a wide range of facts or conditions. The determination of the veracity of all of the various facts and conditions on which an appraisal may be predicated is typically beyond the scope of investigation conducted by an appraiser and may exceed the appraisers expertise or competence. A distinction is made between extraordinary assumptions and general assumptions which allows an appraiser to make certain assumptions without having to personally investigate and confirm all relevant facts.

A general assumption is a typical assumption of an appraisal.


A general assumption is a typical assumption of an appraisal.

For example, an appraiser inspecting a house may not be qualified to detect a termite infestation without an extensive expert investigation. Depending on the scope of work expected by the users of the appraisal and the appraisal's limiting conditions, if the appraiser has not observed any indications of an infestation in his normal investigation, the appraiser may omit such an investigation and make a general assumption that the property is not infested with termites and not have to meet the analysis and reporting requirements of an extraordinary assumption. However, the limiting conditions and description of the scope of work would need to make it clear to the users of the report the extent of the appraiser's investigation of the subject property and that the focus of the appraiser's investigation was determination of characteristics relevant to valuation and not the explicit detection of termites which would be the purview of a termite or structural home inspector and probably beyond the expertise of the appraiser.

The determination of the scope of work appropriate to the needs and expectations of the users of the appraisal results and the intended use of the appraisal drive the determination of the scope of work and scope of investigation appropriate to the appraisal problem and frame the extent to which the appraiser investigates the subject of the appraisal and the market. If in the course of investigation, inspection, or research the appraiser discovers evidence which might call particular assumptions into question, he may still have a further decision to make regarding the scope of work. Depending on the needs or expectations of the client, the appraiser may choose to continue to investigate the condition to determine its veracity or he may choose to continue to assume the veracity of the assumption despite indications to the contrary, in which case the assumption would be an extraordinary assumption and have to be reported as such.

Limiting conditions may frame the appraisal problem in such a way that facts or conditions which are even known to be false do not have to be treated as hypothetical conditions.


For example, title to a property may be owned subject to a minor mechanics lien, but the appraiser may define the appraisal problem as involving the unencumbered fee simple interest and conduct the appraisal assignment under the limiting condition that the appraiser is not responsible for or qualified to investigate the details of title and not have to treat the supposition of the absence of the mechanics lien as a hypothetical condition.

A statement of general assumptions and limiting conditions is often included in the discussion of the premises of the appraisal in an appraisal report for the appraiser's protection as well as for the information and protection of the client and third party users of the appraisal results.

General assumptions and limiting conditions are sometimes thought of as 'legalese' and 'boilerplate' for appraisal reports, but each assumption or condition must be reasonable and supportable in the context of the appraisal and must not conflict with the appraiser's other responsibilities such as the identification of extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions.

Examples

Extreme examples

Although these concepts are of particular importance in the field of appraisal conducted under USPAP where they can carry legal consequences for an appraiser, they are generally applicable to any analytical field where calculations or representations of professional opinions based on such assumptions are communicated by a professional to a client or end user, such as through an attest function.

Appraisers often use extreme examples to demonstrate fuzzy concepts. There are several philosophical examples lying outside the field of appraisal that are often used to illustrate the differences between extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions, and general assumptions or limiting conditions.


* In a discussion or analysis of historical events one may assume the hypothetical condition that Bobby Kennedy was not assassinated in 1968 and went on to become President of the United States (known to be contrary to fact). The discussion could then attempt to extrapolate the resulting course of history, but the results, though possibly interesting or even useful, would obviously be not true because the analysis that produced them was based on a fact known to be false.
  * In a discussion of many subjects involving phenomenology, such as the debate between creationism and evolution, one must ultimately make a determination that God either does or does not exist. The belief in the existence of a god is generally regarded as an element of faith. The assumption that God does not exist is justified as an assumption of science under lex parsimoniae or Occam's Razor. The actual existence or non-existence of God is generally recognized as not being directly observable and not susceptible to logical proof. If the determination of the existence of God is important to the subject matter being discussed, then such a discussion or analysis would be based on an extraordinary assumption and not a hypothetical condition. Then if the assumption is important to the results of the analysis, the results would be only as reliable as the certainty of the assumption.
  * Carrying that example a step further, if one were to research the genetics of a transgenic potato, one might make the general assumption that God does not exist, or at least make the general assumption that He has no interest in affecting one's plant research. Even if you are religious and have faith in God, you can make a general assumption regarding His effect on your research. The limiting conditions of one's investigation may recognize that you might not be qualified to determine the existence of god, and the determination of the existence of God is beyond the scope of research.

The observation of signs of environmental conditions may require the use of an extraordinary assumption that the property is not contaminated if the nature and extent of contamination are unknown or can't be determined by the appraiser, depending on the scope of the appraisal and the needs of the client.

Examples of hypothetical conditions

Classic examples of hypothetical conditions include


Examples of hypothetical conditions

Classic examples of hypothetical conditions include

  * In the appraisal of property, assuming that a property is zoned commercially or can be rezoned for commercial uses when it is in fact zoned residentially and there is no reasonable expectation that it could be rezoned commercially. Such a hypothetical condition would have to be assumed in order to estimate the impact on value of a past downzoning.

Examples of extraordinary assumptions

Examples of extraordinary assumptions used in the course of analysis might include

  * In the appraisal of real estate, when an appraiser observes items which might potentially indicate the presence of environmentally hazardous material, but he has no direct knowledge of any environmental contamination and is not qualified to detect such conditions, he may continue to formulate an opinion of value under an extraordinary assumption that the property is not chemically contaminated, though as a practical matter, he would need to communicate the extraordinary assumption made along with the value conclusion so that the users of the report can make their own determination of the reliability of the results given the observed conditions.
  * Analyzing data and reaching a conclusion when the source of the data, its accuracy, or its veracity may be suspect, but is not known to be completely false. The conclusions would be based on the extraordinary assumption that the data is accurate and reliable.

The valuation of a property with proposed improvements or partially completed improvements as if completed will require the use of an extraordinary assumption or a hypothetical condition depending on whether the date of valuation is prospective or contemporary

An appraisal of a property with proposed multi-tenant improvements may involve the estimation of a value as of a prospective date assuming both the completion of improvements and the leasing of the property to a stabilized occupancy.

Proposed construction example

One of the more troublesome examples of the distinction between extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions regards the valuation of property with proposed improvements or proposed alterations. Such examples require the understanding of and inter-relation with prospective values, retrospective values, and contemporary values.


A lender may be considering making a loan to finance the construction of a house and may need to know the value of the collateral that will result. The subject property is a vacant lot, but the client needs to know what the value of the lot is or would be or will be with a house (of certain described physical characteristics) constructed on it. For purposes of discussion, we will assume that everybody expects the construction of the house to take about six months.

There are a couple of choices of how to proceed.

  * If the contemporary value of the property is estimated as of the current date, the value of the vacant lot could be estimated without any particular assumptions. But if the property were to be valued as of the current date assuming the completion of the proposed house, the appraisal of the proposed property would be subject to a hypothetical condition because the assumption that the house is completed as of the current date is an assumption which is known to be contrary to the known fact that the lot is vacant. USPAP and appraisal ethics would require that the appraisal be reported in a manner which would not mislead reasonably anticipated users of the report into believing that the lot is actually currently improved with a house or mislead users into believing the value reported applies to the existing property on the current date.
  * If the value of the property is estimated as of the future date six months away when the property is expected to be improved with a new house, the prospective value of the vacant lot could be estimated, but would have to be reported under the extraordinary assumption that the house is not constructed. Also, the prospective value of the property assuming the completion of the house would also have to be reported as being subject to an extraordinary assumption that the house is completed.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989,


Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989,

  * 'as-is' condition (usually considered as of the contemporary date as a vacant lot, but if construction has commenced, the appraiser must make a hypothetical condition that the lot is still vacant)
  * 'as-proposed' condition under the extraordinary assumption that the improvements are completed as of a prospective date of valuation corresponding to the projected date of completion, and
  * 'as-stabilized' condition under the extraordinary assumptions that the improvements are completed as of the projected date of completion and are leased to a stabilized occupancy at projected rents at a prospective date of valuation corresponding to the end of a projected absorption period after the projected date of completion.

Diminution in value examples

Often the purpose of a particular appraisal may be not the determination of the value of a property, but rather the determination of the contributory value of a particular component or portion of the property or the effect on value of a particular condition affecting the property or proposed to be imposed on the property.

Examples of these situations are usually found in the field of forensic appraisal where a legal determination is sought regarding the diminution in value resulting from the removal of a portion or component of a property or for the adverse imposing of a condition on the property. The estimation of the diminution in value is usually defined as the difference between the value of the entire property before the taking or without the condition and the value of the property or any remainder after the taking or with the condition.

The valuation of property for estimating just compensation due for a partial taking of property for purposes of constructing a public improvement may involve the use of several extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions in both the before and after condition in order to formulate estimates of overall just compensation due or damages from non-compensable items, including quantifying project influence, damages from diversion of traffic, condemnor's blight, temporary construction easements, general benefits, special benefits, and other factors, sometimes all in the same appraisal, or sometimes repeatedly for every property affected by a larger project involving acquiring right of way from several different property owners.

Examples include


* Estimating the just compensation due for a partial taking of a property by a public entity under powers of eminent domain or by the courts for other purposes often involves estimating the diminution in value for the partial taking.
      + In the appraisal of property, assuming for purposes of estimating just compensation for the taking of property for a public use by a governmental entity that the proposed public improvement will not be constructed in an effort to isolate any impact on market values of project influence.
      + the value of any property remainder in the after condition would be predicated on the extraordinary assumption that the proposed public improvement is to be constructed expeditiously subsequent to the date of taking.
  * Estimating the impact on value of physical or economic damage to a property from casualty or from actions of others, such as
      + estimating damage to a property from a casualty is usually estimated as a before/after calculation where the property is valued as of immediately before and immediately after the casualty. Usually the impact on value is measured as the cost to repair if the repair is economically feasible, that is if the potential loss in value or utility exceeds the cost to cure the deficiency, with the value after equal to the value before less the cost to repair. The value in the before condition would assume that the casualty was not about to happen. In many cases involving estimating damage for purposes of insurance, there may be requirements to assume several items, whether uncertain or entirely hypothetical, such as assuming a stable market for repair services after the casualty or involving various insurance exclusions.
      + estimating damage for an economic loss from events outside the property often involves assumptions in the before and after condition. For example, in a case where a noxious chemical plant is to be constructed adjacent to a substantial residence, the impact on the value of the residence of the presence of the rendering plant is estimated by first estimating the value under the extraordinary assumption that the plant is not to be constructed and subtracting the estimate of value under the hypothetical condition that it is already constructed and operating.


+ The calculations may sometimes have to be abstracted between various elements of damage. For example, assume that an aircraft is damaged in an accident, such as a gear-up accident. The value in the before condition assumes that the aircraft is not about to be damaged. Normally, the impact on value of the damage is measured as the cost to repair, but after a repair the result is an aircraft with a substantial damage history. Sometimes it is contended that there is a diminution in value in the after condition beyond the cost to repair because of the resulting damage history. The estimation of diminution in value from a damage history, one must value the property assuming a credible repair and compare that with an estimate of value of the property in the same condition as after the repair, but under the hypothetical condition that it not have any damage history. Such estimates are considered very difficult to prove and are often controversial.
      + When estimating compensation for a title claim, the before condition is usually predicated on the hypothetical condition that the title condition did not exist in the before condition. There may be other assumptions made regarding the existence of subsequently constructed improvements and other conditions.


USPAP analysis and reporting requirements

USPAP definitions

These two related terms are defined in the text of USPAP, and most appraisal literature and coursework have since been built around these definitions.

The two definitions are nearly identical except for the distinction:

  * Extraordinary assumptions are defined as assumptions, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser's opinions or conclusions. A comment to the definition explain that extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information
      + about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the property,
      + or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends,
      + or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.
  * Hypothetical conditions are defined as that which is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. The comment to the definition explain that hypothetical conditions assume conditions contrary to known facts
      + about physical, legal, or economic conditions,
      + or about conditions or facts lying outside the observable scope of discussion or analysis but potentially affecting the scope or results of analysis or direction of discussion (such as market conditions or trends known to be contrary to known conditions),
      + or about the accuracy, reliability, or integrity of data on which an analysis may be based.

Hypothetical conditions are assumptions made for the purpose of discussion or analysis which are known to be contrary to known facts and are distinguished from extraordinary assumptions which are assumptions made also for the purpose of discussion or analysis, but regarding facts or conditions which are merely uncertain or undetermined.

The distinction between hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions can carry a legal consequence and are most important in analytical fields where calculations or representations of professional opinions based on such assumptions are communicated by a professional to a client or end user, such as through an attest function.

USPAP development and reporting requirements

The USPAP Scope of Work Rule requires that an appraiser identify specific assignment elements in the planning of an appraisal assignment and gather and analyze information about those elements, including assignment conditions, which include assumptions, extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions, and hypothetical conditions.


Additionally, all USPAP standards dealing with the development of appraisals, consulting, or mass appraisal specifically require that any extraordinary assumptions and any hypothetical conditions necessary in the assignment be identified in the course of formulating the appraisal problem and planning the scope of work.

Under USPAP, an appraisal may be predicated on extraordinary assumptions only under certain conditions, specifically

  * the use of the extraordinary assumption is required to properly develop credible opinions and conclusions
  * the appraiser has a reasonable basis for the extraordinary assumption
  * use of the extraordinary assumption results in a credible analysis
  * and the appraiser complies with the appropriate disclosure requirements (as proscribed elsewhere in USPAP).

Similarly, an appraisal may also be predicated on a hypothetical condition only under certain additional more restrictive conditions, specifically

  * use of the hypothetical condition is clearly required for legal purposes, for purposes of reasonable analysis, or for purposes of comparison
  * use of the hypothetical condition results in a credible analysis
  * the appraiser complies with the disclosure requirements set forth in USPAP for hypothetical conditions

These requirements are specified in

  * Standard 1: Real Property Appraisal, Development
  * Standard 4: Real Property Consulting, Development
  * Standard 6, Mass Appraisal, Development and Reporting
  * Standard 7, Personal Property Appraisal, Development
  * Standard 9, Business Appraisal, Development

All USPAP standards dealing with appraisal reporting require that any written and oral appraisal report clearly and accurately disclose all assumptions, extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions, and limiting conditions used in the assignment.

Appraisal reports written where USPAP compliance is a requirement or assignment condition will usually be written with a separate section, or sometimes two distinct separate sections, enumerating and explaining the rationale for and effects on value or utility of all extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions.

Enforcement of USPAP development and reporting requirements


Enforcement of USPAP development and reporting requirements

The distinction between extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions can be a matter of law or professional standards in the field of real estate appraisal in the United States where the distinction is not only codified in USPAP, but enforced by various state real estate appraiser commissions or professional boards. However, the concepts are clearly applicable to appraisal ethics and professional conduct for all forms of valuation, including mass appraisal, personal property appraisal, and business valuation, as promoted by most appraisal professional organizations and associations.

All of the reporting standards state that an appraisal must be communicated in a manner that is not misleading.

Distinction between appraisal assumptions and legal presumptions

Though the concepts are related, there is an important distinction between what appraisers call assumptions and what the legal profession and the courts call a presumption.

In a colloquial sense the two terms are considered synonymous. Many dictionaries define one term with the other .

For example, most state laws are written with a "legal limit" for blood-alcohol content, often 0.08%. It is not a crime to have a certain blood alcohol content; the crime is operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. If a driver's blood alcohol content is measured above the legal limit, the law makes a presumption that he is intoxicated, even though a particular person's physiologically might be almost unaffected and his driving abilities might not be impaired.

However, the actual legal effect of a legal presumption is not the legal determination of a fact. Most presumptions are rebuttable. What a legal presumption does is relieve one party of having to prove a particular fact once a precedent fact is proven, but most presumptions are rebuttable. The presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party to the other.


Legal presumptions affecting appraisal conditions are rare, but the appraiser may encounter legal presumptions in the course of an appraisal practice. For example, in some jurisdictions a public entity has standing to commence an action to condemn private property only if it is able to demonstrate that it could not reach a resolution with the property owner. Often, the courts make a legal presumption that a resolution cannot be reached if the public entity make an offer in good faith and have that offer rejected. In this context, the public entity is usually able to demonstrate that it was bargaining in good faith if the offer made was based on an independent appraisal. This legal presumption is often the basis of why right of way acquisition procedures are set up the way they are. So an appraiser's entire practice may be the result of a legal presumption.

A legal presumption which may be regarded as an assignment condition might include the legal presumption that in the after condition of a partial taking of real estate, the proposed public improvement is to be constructed expeditiously immediately after the date of taking and not delayed for years or decades as is often the ultimate practical reality.

An appraiser performing and communicating an appraisal under USPAP may estimate value assuming facts and conditions proscribed by a legal presumption, but a determination would have to be made whether the assumption is an extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition and communicated appropriately as required under USPAP. However, should the legal context require the communication of results in a manner contrary to USPAP, or if the law requires the valuation of a property under a hypothetical condition in a manner not apparently allowed by USPAP, the appraisal could be provided with the assignment conditions determined by a jurisdictional exception and still be compliant with USPAP.


Yoshio Yatsu

Yoshio Yatsu (谷津 義男, Yatsu Yoshio, July 23, 1934 – June 3, 2021) was a Japanese politician of the Liberal Democratic Party, a member of the House of Representatives in the Diet (national legislature). A native of Tatebayashi, Gunma and graduate of Hosei University, he was elected to the first of his three terms in the assembly of Gunma Prefecture in 1975 and to the House of Representatives for the first time in 1986. After losing his seat in 1990, he was re-elected in the same year. From 2000 to 2001 he served as the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

  * 政治家情報 〜谷津 義男〜 (in Japanese). JANJAN. Archived from the original on 3 December 2007
  * Official website in Japanese.


Ada Parellada i Garrell

Ada Parellada i Garrell (born 26 February 1967) is a Spanish cook who inspired the "Semproniana" restaurant in Barcelona. She owns three restaurants, publishes books and she has been given the Creu de Sant Jordi for her restoration work.

List

Parellada was born in Granollers in 1967. Her whole family were interested in food from the restaurant founded by her ancestors in 1714.

She stood as a political candidate in September 2015 as part of the "Together for Yes" campaign.

In 2016 she had three restaurants in Barcelona.Creu de Sant JordiPla dels Àngels and Petra.


Blaževica

Blaževica (pronounced [ˈblaːʒɛʋitsa]; also BlaževičSpodnja Blaževica,German: UnterblaschowitzMunicipality of Dolenjske Toplice in southern Slovenia. The area is part of the traditional region of Lower Carniola and is now included in the Southeast Slovenia Statistical Region.Verdun pri Uršnih Selih.

History

Blaževica was a Gottschee German village. In 1931 it had six houses and 25 residents. The original inhabitants were expelled in the fall of 1941. The village was burned by Italian troops in the summer of 1942 during the Rog Offensive and was never rebuilt.

  * Blaževica on Geopedia
  * Pre–World War II list of oeconyms and family names in Blaževica


Cavill Avenue

Pedestrian mall in 2017

Cavill Avenue is a street and a pedestrian mall in Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. It is in the heart of the Surfers Paradise shopping and entertainment district. It was named in honour of the man credited as the founder of Surfers Paradise, James Cavill, known as Jim Cavill.

History

In 1887, German immigrant Johann Meyer operated a ferry across the Nerang River. From Southport, travellers would follow the Meyer's Ferry Road (now Ferry Road) to a spit of land that created a narrow point in the river ( 28°00′04″S 153°25′29″E / 28.0011°S 153.4247°E) (the narrow spit is no longer in existence due to changes in the river and the creation of Chevron Island but is in the vicinity of the Gold Coast Arts Centre). From that point, Meyer's ferry would take the travellers across the river to Meyer's Ferry Road at Elston (as Surfers Paradise was then known) along which the travellers would walk to the surf beach. Businesses established along Meyer's Ferry Road at Elston which created the main street of Surfers Paradise now known as Cavill Avenue. Although the surf beaches of Elston were a popular destination, the lack of road access limited the extent of residential and commercial development.

It was not until 1925, when the Jubilee Bridge was built across the Nerang River between Southport and Main Beach, that Surfers Paradise was opened up for tourism and associated development.

In 1945, in response to a letter from Mr. E Shersby to name streets after local pioneers, the Southport Town Council decided to rename the section of Ferry Road east of the Nerang River, and in front of the Surfers Paradise Hotel, in honour of Jim Cavill.

Geography

Between the Surfers Paradise Beach and Orchid Avenue, Cavill Avenue is a pedestrian mall. The Centro Surfers Paradise is a major shopping centre on pedestrian section of Cavill Avenue. The Circle on Cavill is the second shopping center on the street, located at the western end of the road, near the Gold Coast Highway.


Cavill Avenue

Located near the intersection of Surfers Paradise Boulevard and Cavill Avenue is the G:link Cavill Avenue Station. The G:link is the Gold Coast's new light rail system connecting Broadbeach with Helensvale via Surfers Paradise, Main Beach, Southport, Gold Coast University Hospital and Parkwood

The Soul is a 243 m tall skyscraper and the second tallest skyscraper on the Gold Coast behind Q1. The building is situated on the Esplanade just to the north of Cavill Avenue. At the river end of the street are the two towers of Circle on Cavill.

Events

The mall is the centre of the annual Schoolies celebrations. According to crime statistics the mall is an alcohol fueled violence hotspot.

  * List of red-light districts

28°00′07″S 153°25′47″E / 28.00199°S 153.42976°E