Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 5

Wrists

Closed Discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently returned from a trip to the LBJ National Grasslands. I woke in the middle of the night to extreme pain in my wrists. I took some advil and the pain has subsided. I just want to know what causes this (n.b. this means this question is not seeking medical advice). Is this what it means to be 'chilled to the bone?' Thanks Wikipedians. schyler (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Are you telling us it was cold? How cold? HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC) This question appears to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. Schyler, from the information you provide this could be a lot of things. You need to consult a doctor about this question. WikiDao ☯ 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Responses containing prescriptive information or medical advice should be removed and an explanatory note posted on the discussion page. If you feel a response has been removed in error, please discuss it before restoring it. To answer the other part of your question, "Chilled to the bone" is usually just understood to mean "be very cold".[1] I've never heard or read it used to refer to a pain or to a particular set of medical symptoms except, perhaps, mild hypothermia. APL (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, if you were actually chiled to your actual bones, you would be suffering from severe frostbite as well as severe hypothermia. If you are so cold that your core body temperature drops significantly, you are in deep shit. The phrase is meant to be understood idiomatically, much as one who was very hungry would say "I am starving to death". --Jayron32 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I was asking if cold can cause pain in the wrists, NOT what I should do about it. This was not a request for medical advice according to Kainaw's Criterion. schyler (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, the personal experience you described means that your question is likely to fall foul of the "everything is a request for medical advice" crew. If you had phrased the question as "is it physically possible for exposure to cold to cause pain in the wrists?" and left it at that, you might have got away with it. But not now. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) While it may not be your intention, what you're asking for is a list of possible diagnoses based on a symptom you've described. If we say "Yes, cold can cause extreme pain the wrists", then you'll call it a day, and chalk your discomfort up to that. You might even be tempted to ignore the symptom in the future. If we say "No, cold shouldn't cause that symptom", then you'll be more inclined to seek proper medical advice. Whether you explicitly phrased your question as a 'what should I do?', the effect is the same. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Depending on the situation, pain could be caused in the wrists due to cold, but, if you woke up and felt like that, you probibly slept on your hands or arms wrong, though i'm not sure exactly what happened. You'll have to ask a doctor, but if you felt like that when you woke up, you probibly hurt your wrists when you were turning over in your sleep. that's the best i can do. and by the way people, the questioner clearly states that they are not seaking metical advice. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Without offering medical advice (other than, if you want medical advice, please see a doctor), I would say that it is possible you experienced symptoms of arthritis. But it is conceivably something more serious, and of course only a doctor who examines you could offer a diagnosis. Marco polo (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I'm closing this down. It is clearly a request for medical advice. Explanations of the causes of pain should be explored by doctors, not random people on the Internet. --17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Silver Award

My son received the "Presidential Silver Award", during his 5th grade graduation ceremony. Please explain in detail what this award is and the critereia for which one is awarded on.98.249.226.125 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's probably an award given by the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation. This describes it in more detail. For the silver level for 5-14 year olds, it says 75-99 hours of volunteer work is necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT understanding

I have a general question about the acronym LGBT.

As I understand this, it's meaning is; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgenders. As I read the acronym though, I feel that it should read; lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgenders. The term "gay" is not gender specific term and in our dictionaries. The word means nothing more than homosexual. In fact, if I'm not wrong, there is no term associated specifically for gay male in our dictionaries, which one assumes "gay" in the acronym refers to.

I find the English language confusing enough and this type of assumption doesn't help. We should not be using the term "gay" as male gender specific. That is not the true meaning. It's just an assumption.

I'm just being picky, but feel that I have a point to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Bryant 1965 (talk • [[SpInsert non-formatted text hereecial:Contributions/Gary Bryant 1965|contribs]]) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

True, we do talk about "gay men and lesbians", while "gay people" encompasses both sexes. But equally, "homosexual" applies to both sexes. If there was any change to be made, it would be to drop the "lesbian" and just have "gay, bisexual and transgender", or "homosexual, bisexual and transgender". But individuals like you and me don't get to dictate that widely-used abbreviations like LGBT should be changed to what we think they should be. Language doesn't work that way. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And "man" means "human being". Oh no it doesn't, it means "human male". Oh no it doesn't ...

People who choose to be picky often seem to lose sight of the fact that words can have more than one meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All that really matters in communication is whether we understand one another. Is there anybody who thinks the "gay" in LGBT means "happy"? --Mr.98 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a word for a male homosexual, but that word ("faggot") is considered offensive. It does seem odd that the word for a male homosexual is offensive when the word for a female homosexual is not. (Then again, "sissy" or "mama's boy" are offensive while "tomboy" or "daddy's girl" are not, so I detect a pattern.) StuRat (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous offensive terms for both male and female homosexuals, and the implication that the one you've used is somehow a standard is even more offensive. --LarryMac | Talk 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In StuRat's defence, he didn't say it was standard. And he stated outright that it was offensive. His point was simply that it was unambiguous because "faggot" is rarely, if ever, used to refer to a lesbian. If you easily get offended by statements of fact, the RD may not be a comfortable place for you. Matt Deres (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And if reading comprehension is such a problem for you, then perhaps the desks are not the place for you, either. --LarryMac | Talk 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be over-reacting, Larry Mac. You say StuRat "implied" the f-word is a standard, but I don't see that. All he said was that such a word exists, which is indisputably true. Your inference =/= his implication -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A faggot is a bundle of sticks used for firewood, or as the symbol of the Fascist party and state. A fag is a ciggie. Just because Americans use a word offensively doesn't mean the rest of us can't use it in a civilised manner. DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for completeness, in the UK a faggot is also a kind of meatball made from offal, which is the word's primary current meaning here. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are equally offensive words for female homosexuals, some of which are unrelated to land reclamation projects in the Netherlands. Let's just leave it at "There's some words that are acceptable and others that are offensive". --Jayron32 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This place looks like it could have a couple of polders Going Dutch. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This question has a historical answer. During the early days of gay liberation, a number of organizations were founded with the word gay as part of their names. Most of these organizations were founded by men, and many of them intended to appeal to lesbians; however, they often had little lesbian participation because lesbians did not like that men dominated the organizations. Also, some women had founded separate organizations, such as the Daughters of Bilitis. Beginning in the mid- to late 1970s, many gay organizations added the word lesbian to their names in an effort to attract more female participation. Those that were successful in broadening their appeal also engaged women in leadership positions. It was only later, during the 1980s and '90s, that organizations began broadening their scope to appeal to bisexuals and transgenders. The LGBT acronym has been in common use for less than 20 years. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are homosexual. He is a Male homosexual. She is a lesbian. As you state there is no gender specific term for the male homosexual that is not negative. The term they (men) used to self-designate was "gay". The answer is to stop being confused by LGBT. As JackofOz said...we don't get to choose. Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages aren't logical. But they do have common usage conventions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde and his ilk used the word "Uranian" for male homosexuals, if you need a noun rather than the adjective "gay". That would lead to LUBT, which has a certain charm (if pronounced to rhyme with "love it", but is a little, er, suggestively lubricious if sounded like "lube it".  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, they used the demonym for "Uranus" to refer to male homesexuals? Holy shit, I knew that Uranus jokes were old, I didn't know they were THAT old! --Jayron32 05:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Uranian is thought to come from the German word Urning, coined in c. 1864, which predated the coining of "homosexual" by about 5 years. In this meaning it doesn't appear to have any connection with Uranus, although it is also coincidentally the adjective denoting things from that planet. If there were any sentient beings on Uranus, I suppose there could be Uranian Uranians. I guess we'll never know, and we'll have to settle for Uranian Ukrainians Ukrainian Uranians. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The answers you are getting here have good historical and sociological meat to them, but if you would like more linguistic input, you might try asking again, after a suitable pause, at the Language RefDesk, which specialises in that sort of thing. In brief, languages live and change, as those who study English (including lexicographers) recognise and record: see Linguistic description and Linguistic prescription. Words which were once disparaging can be reclaimed; the technical name for this cultural process is Reappropriation.

LGBT, which contains no vowel and therefore functions as an initialism rather than an acronym, was intended as an umbrella term, to encompass groups that previously felt excluded by the simple moniker "gay". Social movements move on, however, and the umbrella covers even more people these days. Toronto Pride, which our article says is one of the world's biggest such events, exists, according to its website's section on Mission Vision Values, "to celebrate the history, courage, diversity and future of Toronto's LGBTTIQQ2SA* communities. (* Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer/Questioning, 2 Spirited, Allies)". I wonder how long it will be before the asexual contingent win recognition? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Jack of Oz: Well, Urning IS actually connected to Uranus. K. H. Ulrichs, the granddaddy of all gay activists who coined the term, derived the word from the name Aphrodite Urania, who was created from the body parts of Uranus. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, me thinks this could have been phrased somewhat more elegantly. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. So, it was derived from the same source used to name the planet, but not from the name of the planet itself. An indirect connection at best. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What skill set

What would be a very comprehensive skill set to describe the kind of person who could make this from scratch? I was going to post this question on the computing reference desk, since undoubtedly skill with certain software tools is part of my answer, but I wonder also what specific art skills could be identified as necessary too. Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your link is to a Computer Generated Image and its poster has noted underneath "Software: 3DS Max - Textures + Background: Photoshop" that identifies the software tools used to make it. Wikipedia has an articles on the Autodesk 3ds Max and Adobe Photoshop programs. The required skills are familiarity with these programs, plus creative motivation to draw complicated spaceships. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would describe the general technical skill set as "3D modeling and texturing." What you have here are really two separate things: the model itself (a 3D connection of vectors and planes that makes up the ship), and the textures (a set of 2D graphics that are mapped onto said ship to make it look real). You can have people who can do one without the other (I can do modeling, but I'm not very good at textures), and in any really professional environment they are often disentangled (you'll have full-time texture people and full-time model people). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And let's not forget the artistic design skills needed to dream up an interesting space-ship design. APL (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The 'skill set' will presumably include good Visual-spatial ability, along with an artistic imagination, and a great degree of patience - 3D modelling in software can be a long-winded process. In many ways, this is probably most analogous to sculpture as an artform. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I might disagree on that last part. The spatial skills for a sculptor and a 3D modeler are pretty different in my experience. The reason is that with a 3D model, you not only have an infinite number of undos (which makes a big difference between it and any analog world), and you also have the ability to abstract the work in ways that you can't do with actual sculpture. I have no skills at sculpture, but I can make 3D modeling work, because I can reduce the work to literally one plane at a time, constantly subdividing the complicated parts into simpler parts. You can do 3D modeling entirely without reference to the materials or appearance of your final object, and just have that all done in post-production. You can't really do anything like that with sculpture. In general I'm not sure the "analog" art skills map over to the digital ones very straightforwardly. Being good at Photoshop won't make you a good photographer (or painter, or anything else), nor will being a photographer (or painter) make you good at Photoshop. Generic visual sensibilities are important to both, but the practical and tactile skill sets are so different as to be utterly unrelated. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You might enjoy reading about Randy Pausch, whose lecture and book Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams touched many. His career exemplified building bridges of creativity between computing and arts. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can any amount of skill make up for talent? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talent implies potential, skill implies actual. History is littered with individuals who had great, and ill-used, potential. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This humble imaging talent should have been nurtured better. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Had he been encouraged instead of disparaged, maybe history would have turned out differently. I wouldn't be surprised if those critics were at the top of his "exterminate" list, maybe even ahead of the Jews. "Don't get mad - get even." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Revenge is sweet. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

NIGHT-TIME PARKING LIGHTS IN BRITAIN

When I was much younger than today - about 50 years ago - it was a legal requirement that cars parked at the roadside during darkness, had to display red lights towards the rear and white lights at the front. Oh dear, I can almost hear the lecturing tones of some academic Wikipedian Guru telling me not to seek legal advice here. But here goes anyway. Nobody nowadays seems to obey that rule - and nobody gets a warning or gets arrested. Question - was that law abandoned, or else, has it passed quietly into redundancy because people woke up every morning to flat batteries? Thanks 92.30.149.195 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying they had to leave their parking lights on all night long ? That's just crazy. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Highway Code, as ever, has the answer. See this page, particularly rules 248 to 250. (below)

Parking at night

248

You MUST NOT park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space.

[Laws CUR reg 101 & RVLR reg 24]

249

All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).

[Law RVLR reg 24]

250

Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 1525 kg unladen weight, invalid carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if they are at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb and facing in the direction of the traffic flow in a recognised parking place or lay-by

Other vehicles and trailers, and all vehicles with projecting loads, MUST NOT be left on a road at night without lights.

[Laws RVLR reg 24 & CUR reg 82(7)]

— The Highway Code

reformatted for legibility --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I used the {{tl:quote}} so it don't scroll off the side. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That leads to another Q ... do Brits really spell curb as "kerb" ? Anyone spelling it that way here would be sent to spelling jail (not gaol). :-) StuRat (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Marnanel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stu, how is it that you can get away with using the word "Brits"?! I nearly get death threats for using the full word "British" and here you are using "Brits" which I've been flogged over here before. Dismas|^(talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because us Brits use it right. You foreigners always use it inappropriately, and annoy the Irish. Or the Scots. Or the Welsh. Or the English. There is no point in having an ethnicity if you can't argue about it... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The reverse is also true. If you called a redneck in the Deep South a "yank", he'd head for his confederate flag-decorated pick-up truck to grab his shotgun off the gun rack. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But I think the question is about whether 249 and 250 (in particular) are actually enforced. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably not. And I would be interested in an answer to exactly the same question for Australia. Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Will vary from state to state in Australia. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite for UK, certainly 249 seems fine, roads faster than 30mph (ie 40mph+) do not generally have cars parked on them, they're double-yellow lined. 250 is a little more iffy, I've seen a lot of cars parked nearer junctions than 10m, and many people don't pay attention to the "flow of traffic". But as to the lights issue, I've never seen a violation. Worm 08:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Lighting-up time and The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (RVLR) for more info. Nanonic (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

An accessory light was (is?) sold in England that clipped on a side window and contained a single bulb powered by a cable to the cigarette lighter socket. It had a plain glass facing forwards and a red glass facing rearwards. Thus it satisfied the legal parking light requirement with only 1/4 of the current of the regular lamps. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember those, but I haven't seen one for many years. Modern LED lights would solve the problem of battery drain. Dbfirs 13:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As, not a lawyer, but a UK driver for 25 years, my understanding is that the requirement for parking 'lights' is acceptably met by the colour reflective properties of a (parked) vehicle's rear brake and fog lights, and red reflective plates which may additionally be part of the rear light cluster, and by the similar properties of the front light fittings, which like road centre-line cats' eyes reflect some of a moving vehicle's lights back at it. That said, I've never myself had to park at night on a roadway with more than a 30mph limit, but I've often driven at night through 40-60mph zones with parked cars, and have never in my life noticed one vacated with lights left on.

Back in the 1960's, my father was once fined for being incorrectly lit, having parked in a line of other cars, facing "the wrong way" (and without lit lights). He did so outside my grandparents' house to enable my arthritis-crippled grandmother to exit the car more easily: the scores of other cars on both sides of the street were parked with no correlation to the traffic flow (and no lit lights), as they always were, so he did not think to amend his position, and we assume that he uniquely attracted the fine because his car was not recognised as that of a local resident. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I consider myself "old-school" when it comes to using parking lights... I work part-time for a food delivery company and I'm constantly in and out of my car parking on many different types of roads... However I can guarentee that everytime I leave my parking lights on, I get a good half dozen people come over to me to tell me my lights are still on... Parking lights just aren't recognised by drivers nowadays it seems... Admitedly the shop I deliver for is in a 30mph zone, but they all just seem to have no idea what parking lights are... Shows how little the rule over them is enforced! gazhiley.co.uk 13:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

January 6

The end of the land

England has Land's End, France has Finistère, Spain has Finisterre. Are there any other countries that have a geographic feature that translates as "Land's end"? --Carnildo (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lands End, Cabo San Lucas, Baha California Sur, Mexico.Buster Seven Talk 08:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I googled on the phrase "means land's end" and found:

• Gaspé Peninsula, Quebec, Canada, possibly from Micmac for "land's end"
• Tianya Haijiao, China, Chinese for "land's end" according to this web page, but Wikipedia gives a different translation.
• Chile, the country, possibly from Mapuche for "land's end"
• Pembrokeshire, England Wales, from Welsh for "land's end" according to this web page
• Tanjong Berlayer Point in Fort Pasir Panjang, Singapore; the first word is Malay for "land's end' according to this web page and an identical sentence in Wikipedia.
• Uluwatu, Bali, Indonesia; according to this web page the first part of the word means "land's end" in "the old language".

That's as many as I felt like chasing. I certainly do not claim that they are all correct. --Anonymous, 11:47 UTC, corrected 23:27, January 6, 2011.

There are also a Landsende in Hooge, Germany and a Landsende in Rømø, Denmark. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is a Landsenden in Norway. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Landsenden is the name of a farm and a blog, and I suspect the only people who are aware of its existence are the residents, neighbours and their friends and family, the readers of the blog, and perhaps some genealogists. Verdens Ende (the end of the world), on the other hand, is a geographic feature which is quite well known. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tanjung/tanjong is probably better translated as cape, headland, promontory or something of that sort. (Tanjong is an older spelling.) See wiktionary:tanjung (Only Indonesian) or [2] (click on Kamus Bahasa Inggeris, wrong way but should give you an idea or perhaps Istilah Malaysia as well) or heck even Tanjung. If you're going to include tanjung you have a lot of candidates [3] [4]. There is also the related semenanjung which means peninsula. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW I forgot to mention I'm not sure were tanjung comes from. It may derive from tanah hujung which would roughly translate as 'lands end' 'end land' Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention Lands End in Maine, Lands End Light on St. Helena Island in South Carolina, Lands End in San Francisco CA, Lands End NZ, Lands End in Indonesia and so on. Just about every country which has a shoreline seems to have one! Collect (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pen Fro" means something like "head of the region", but this is the name not of Pembrokeshire but of its county town, Pembroke. Marnanel (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, originally it was the name of the cantref or administrative area. Penfro cantref gave its name to the town, and the town later gave its name to the county of Pembrokeshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But it is not, and has never been, in England, (even if the area was once referred to as "The little England beyond Wales"). --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued that legally it was, certainly between 1535 and 1707.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, the Great War memorial outside Pembroke Castle honours those who "died for England". Still "Little England" in 1918? Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Or it could be argued that I goofed, which is correct. I even thought "Is that in England or Wales?", but still didn't actually check. Sorry about that. --Anon, 23:28 UTC, January 6, 2011.

Some argue that there is no England, and there is no Wales. There is only England and Wales. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Others would argue that that is even less true than it was before since the National Assembly for Wales was created in 1999. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

South Australia has World's End at 33° 46' 0" South, 139° 3' 0" East. As you might suspect, there isn't much there. --TrogWoolley (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Then there's this place, which I hear has a real good steak (that doesn't even mind being eaten). --Jayron32 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There's another World's End in Massachusetts. The name is misleading and hyperbolic, because it is just a small peninsula protruding into Boston Harbor, with land visible in every direction. Marco polo (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is a World's End halfway down the Royal Mile in Edinburgh between the Castle and the Palace of Holyroodhouse. The Royal Mile is a rather modern term to cover the distance between those two prominent sites, which actually begins at Castlehill before becoming the Lawnmarket, and then the High Street, and then the Canongate. The crossroads between the High Street and Canongate was, in Mediaeval times, genuinely regarded as being the end of the world for those living in the "Old Town", given that there was a tollbooth erected there that most folk would have been unwilling to pay to pass through, not having any business to conduct on the other side. There is a famous pub on that crossroads called, "The World's End" which is the site of the last-known sighting of 2 young girls who were subsequently found murdered, thus forever instilling in the minds of we locals, the "World's End Murders". 92.29.45.20 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wivelsfield railway station is at World's End. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tianya Haijiao does not literally mean "world's end", but the name is an idiomatic expression meaning the ends of the earth, so in that sense it is a world's end. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a World's End in the Horton Plains National Park in Sri Lanka. - Akamad (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

turmeric where to purchase

please advice stores that sell this herb. (cleveland ohio area) ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIKE1939 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is common. Supermarkets sell it. Just look in the spice section. Or ask store personnel where it would be located. I removed your email address, as inclusion of that is not advisable. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a very sharp or scientific distinction, but in culinary lingo, turmeric is a spice, while oregano e.g., is an herb. See Herb#Culinary_herbs for clarification. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I never understood that term when in the USA - "an herb". I get "an apple" or "an orange", but "an herb"??? I know there will always be exceptions to traditional English usage, and I am not having a dig at how American English has drifted from its parent tongue, but "an herb" is as wrong-sounding as "an car" or "an dress". Can anyone explain how that jarring difference came into common USA usage? And, by the way, "herb" begins with an "h" followed by an "e" so what is the problem with pronouncing it as HERB, and not URB? Thanks 92.29.45.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Why is the <h> audible in honey but not in honesty? See also Phonological history of English fricatives and affricates#H-dropping and h-adding. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do now and slough rhyme with each other, and low rhymes with dough, but now does not rhyme with low, and slough does not rhyme with dough? Welcome to the English language! Googlemeister (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. Penzeys Spices on Chagrin Blvd in the SE of Cleveland would have turmeric. Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Slough rhymes with 'few' in AE though, not with 'now'. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) You answer your own question. Americans pronounce 'herb' as URB, so when I type 'an herb', I hear 'an urb', much like 'an urban environment.' This is consistent with English grammar rules for indefinite articles and USA pronunciation. If you choose to pronounce the H, then you would say 'a herb'. I agree that pronouncing the H and using 'an' sounds wrong. If you don't like the way we pronounce 'herb', that's fine, but don't begrudge us the use the correct article. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most everyone is aware that there are differences between AmEng and Brit/CommEng. But if there was a list ordered by Coefficient of Irritability, the herb/urb difference would probably appear at or near the top. To non-Americans it just sounds completely weird and thoroughly objectionable, hence the above comment from 92; but I guess Americans also scratch their head about this guy called Herb others are always talking about when they get to discussing culinary things. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it cuts both ways. I just wanted to clarify that the the difference in pronunciation mandates a difference in the correct article, which 92 above seems confused about. Saying 'an herb' in AmEng is completely correct; the incorrectness of 'an car'. is totally unrelated. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The pronunciation of herb without aspiration didn't come into common USA usage, it was there all along. The OED, treating of the pronunciation of herb across the English-speaking world, says that "the h was mute until the 19th c[entury], and is still so treated by many". It cites William Caxton as writing "He toke an erbe", for example. So it's the British, not to mention the Australians, who are guilty of deforming the language. I hang my head in shame. --Antiquary (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, it's the New Zealanders who are most to blame in this area. You look and I'll point.  :) -- (Jack of Oz) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I suspected as much...thanks for digging into the OED Antiquary :) SemanticMantis (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made this point before, but Americans speak the generally more conservative version of English, and although the language is named for the English, it is the English who have departed further from our common linguistic heritage. Marco polo (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Some would say that, since the English "own" the English language, they have the right to alter it as they see fit without seeking approval from their transatlantic cousins or anyone else; but the reverse does not apply.  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All languages change over time, and some varieties of English have had deliberate changes made. I don't think any regional variety has any right to dictate to others (I object to the south of England dictating pronunciations to the north). Perhaps, eventually, we will lose the language called "English" and have separate languages called "American", "British", Australian", etc. but, personally, I would prefer to acknowledge minor differences and facilitate easy communication. Dbfirs 11:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My father (speaks Southern RP with just a hint of a West Country accent) insists on saying "an hotel". Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that he sounds both the "n" and the "h"? The standard pronunciation (from the French, without the "h") used to be "an 'otel". I always sound the "h" (and so omit the "n"), but I'm a northener. Dbfirs 08:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's about the only "h" he drops - not bad for someone who has lived in east London since 1920! Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a root, like ginger, and roots are not usually called herbs to my knowledge. Every full grocery store sells ground-and-dried turmeric, but the OP may be asking about fresh turmeric, which is easily available at natural grocery stores here in Berkeley, but I'm not sure about the Cleveland area. (The fresh form is much more interesting than the dried form, by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for the actual root, you should try an Indian grocery, of which there are several in the Cleveland area. Indian groceries can also sell you large quantities of dried, ground turmeric powder at a much lower price per pound than the supermarket. Since I have time on my hands, I will list them for you. There is a cluster in the Parma area (Patel Brothers: 440-885-4440; Krishna Indian Grocery: 440-292-0240; India Grocer: 440-885-0215; Laxmi Groceries and Spices: 440-842-2402), there's one in Warrensville Heights (Indo-American Foods: 216-662-0072), and there are two in Mayfield Heights (Lakshmi Plaza: 440-460-4601; Indo-American Convenient: 440-446-8200). You might phone a couple that are convenient to you and see if they have what you need. Marco polo (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the question of what an herb actually is, the Herb article indicates that the usage of the term varies. In the broadest sense, any part of a plant can count as an herb. I tend to think of herbs as being the leafy parts, but that's only one interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Without looking it up...What is the largest herbaceous plant? (Happen to have just found out earlier today) |:~) Buster Seven Talk 03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Banana. Buster Seven Talk 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazing Adventures Of Spider-man Ride

It has that Grey Deside plays the voice of Scream and Frank Welker plays Electro do you think it's true or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandrade77 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you have evidence to the contrary? --Jayron32 03:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why they would say so if it wasn't... The mentioned actors alone would probably have issues with their names being used if they weren't actually used... gazhiley.co.uk 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

January 7

golf membership for over 80,s

can anyone tell me of a golf clubs who reduce membership fees for existing members over the age of 80 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.156.127 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No location was given, but the IP address tracks to the London England area. I'm in the United States, but will offer my two pence. Do you mean that the person is already a club member paying standard fees, turns 80, and hopes for a reduction in the cost of membership? Hard to say, but if the person has been an established club member for a number of years, it may not be unreasonable to think that s/he could negotiate some sort of loyalty discount directly with the golf pro. Or do you mean that someone over 80 is shopping for club membership and is wondering if it will be less expensive than for a 79-year old? Probably not, since most American establishments that offer senior citizen discounts start well before that, say, at 60 or 65. Maybe you could clarify a bit? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 12:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Most golf clubs in the UK have a huge range of membership options, but I doubt whether any have a specific concession for 80+ as the concessions for seniors usually start at 60+ to 70+.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the golf clubs in your local area first, and then contact the ones you are interested in to see if they offer any discounts. Chevymontecarlo 19:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Giant checks

When somebody wins a lottery and gets a giant check for the photo op, do they actually have to take that to the bank, and does the bank have to accept it ? Or does the lottery just wait until the cameras leave, tear up the big check and issue a normal-sized check ? StuRat (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

According to giant check... assuming they actually have all of the right information on them, they can be cashed at a bank, though a bank may charge special handling fees for them. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the US government have to accept them as payment for taxes? I have often considered inconveniencing them by paying via a giant check for a small amount and pennies for the rest of it. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Drawing extra attention to yourself with the IRS might not be the best plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I once saw one being presented on television and it was turned over and you could see an actual cheque stuck on the back. I think a bank could print a cheque on the side of an elephant if they wished and as long as it contained the right elements it would be valid, doesn't mean any other bank would honor or feed it though. meltBanana 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock on the writing of a cheque on a cow - sadly fictional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The speculation that they "could" be cashed as long as they had all of the correct information AND you can find a bank to cash them is moot. They are not, nor to my knowledge have they ever been, intended by the presenter of the Giant Check, to be anything more than a prop for a photo opportunity. In every instance I know of, its not intended to be a real check. Does anyone have any evidence of one actually being cashed, or more to the point of the practice of cashing Giant Checks as a common thing? --Jayron32 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching for giant checks to purchase turns up many sites that indicate they will make them cashable by putting account and routing numbers on. They say the bank usually copies, voids, and returns them. --Sean 19:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, that it could be done is ultimately irrelevent over whether it is being done as a matter of practice. --Jayron32 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Futher to elephants and cows, I heard the former advertising boss mentioned in this article speak recently. He tells a story (and I have seen news clippings reproduced in his autobiography that confirm it) that during a dispute with his firm's bank, he arrived at the premises with a photographer and attempted to pay in a Giant Cheque, complete with all the correct information, that had been painted across the chest of a comely young Page Three girl. There was some consternation and scurrying behind the counter, but his deposit was eventually refused, apparently without even an attempt to copy it! Karenjc 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That comes down to the other point: Banks are private businesses, and cannot be forced to do business with you if you are being a pain in the ass. They also cannot be forced to accept anything as a check. They may, but that's a choice. --Jayron32 20:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't hold true everywhere, Jayron. There must be jurisdictions where banks are either government owned or tightly regulated, and do not have the freedom to reject cheques written on non-standard forms for that reason alone. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR warning... I've actually seen one of these checks. A local bank went to an animal shelter that I volunteer at. They were presenting the shelter with a donation. They had the big check and a little check. The big check was nothing more than a white board decorated to look like an actual check. When the time came for the photo-op, they simply wrote on the big check with a dry erase marker and took the photo. After it was done, the board was erased, put back into its special bag (think: portfolio case) and the small check was handed over. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The following is info found in references, but is not presented as legal advice. Art Linkletter once had a TV contestant cash a check written on a watermelon. Checks written on a watermelon have sometimes been honored by the bank. The US Internal Revenue Service sometimes gets checks written on a shirt ("the shirt of my back"). Checks written on shirts have been held to be valid in the US so long as the bank is willing to accept it. An Iphone ap advertised on US TV allows a check recipient to merely take a cameraphone picture of a check (front and back) to deposit it. My bank quit storing or returning original checks years ago. The bank scans and destroys checks. A business might also only send the bank an image of the check. I requested an official copy of a check from my bank, and got back a low res scan: it could have been from a normal-sized or a billboard-sized check. It could have been written on a cow. The bank does not necessarily receive the original check at any time and check it for watermark, size, or magnetic ink.. If it has the account number and routing number, what earthly difference does the check size make? A 2007 "Idiot's Guide" book indicates that, yes, a giant check can be valid. Not sure about "cheques.") Edison (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(The ability in the US to return an image of a cheque rather than the physical instrument was provided for in the Check 21 Act, which came into effect in 2004.) Some people appear to have a mental model of a cheque as being a piece of paper in a chequebook, rather than a formalised letter to your bank requesting them to pay someone some money from your account, and I believe this is where the confusion lies. Marnanel (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The bank I work for has them - each branch has a couple in storage... The customer borrows them, writes the cheque out (they are laminated/plastic) use them for whatever presentation they are doing, then hand them back... they are wiped clean for the next customer to borrow then... The initial borrower then just gives the charity or whoever a normal cheque... They cannot be cashed, as they are "presentation" cheques only... I would imagine this is a fairly standard practice... gazhiley.co.uk 02:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

While I'm sure that the occasional joker will do this from time to time, in general it seems like a pretty bad idea to have a completed, signed check, complete with account numbers, held up for newspaper photographers to take pictures of. That's just asking for trouble.

Still, I'm pretty sure I've read about this being done as a publicity stunt. I can't find a link though, sorry.

(You'd want to check with your bank before you tried this stunt. My checking account comes with a warning that I'll be charged a processing fee for writing non-standard checks, but it doesn't specify how much it would be.) APL (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

January 8

Photographs of convicts

Regularly on the news (I'm in the UK) we see people attending trials or just convicted being driven away in a police van. Always, there are photographers desperately holding their cameras up to the small, dark and high windows in the van. The thing is, I've never seen anything that might be one of those pictures anywhere before; since I very much doubt such a technique would give a press-quality picture, one is left wondering: why do they bother? Are the photographs not for artistic merit? Are there always newbie photographers who don't realise that's not going to work? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/gallery/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-high-court-pictures -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The mass media, particularly television, loves pictures. If they don't have a picture it's not news. You probably see quite a few such pictures, but only those that work. HiLo48 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of them are probably amateur would-be paparatzzi. There are several windows in those vans, you'd be lucky to get the right one. The image is likely to be blurred at least. 92.15.7.205 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange is not a convict. Flashlights on police vans can serve to focus public attention on the circumstance, or to reassure the arrestee that their case is in the public eye. Taking pictures of people taking pictures is also a way of making news where otherwise there might not be much to record. If and when I launch my career as a mega-celebrity, I shall employ jostling hordes of Paparazzi to pursue me as I wail I want to be alone. Just be sure to photograph my good side. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me be the first to advise you of what Garbo herself said: I never said, 'I want to be alone.' I only said, 'I want to be let alone.' There is all the difference. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you get up-to-date movies where you live? As the Russian ballerina Grusinskaya in Grand Hotel (1932), Garbo said "I want to be alone." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's what her character said in that movie. But Garbo herself said, about herself, "I want to be let alone". The confusion comes from people taking the movie quote and mixing it up with what she said in real life in a completely unrelated context. This has not yet made it to our List of misquotations, but it's high time it did. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, informed people know this about Garbo and her words are sourced here. Strictly speaking, she said "I want to be alone" on at least 3 instances: A)Practicing her lines before filming Grand Hotel, B) in the movie (there may have been re-takes) and C) when she quoted the sentence for the purpose of denying it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, yes, all very true. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the prison vans have seperate cubicles for each person. I expect the seats are on the outside and the person faces inwards towards a central corridor. Mr. Assange may have deliberately stood up, turned around, and looked out of the (red?!) window, but most people would want to keep their heads down, literally and metaphorically. 92.15.24.111 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The vans do have separate cubicles in which you are seated facing forward so you can look out of the window.Hotclaws (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The windows are blacked out with a plastic film. After his conviction Dennis Nilsen stripped the film off so that photographers could get images of him in the prison van. Author Brian Masters used the resulting picture on the front cover of his book about the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

January 9

Could anyone identify this city for me?

This is the picture in question. http://www.city-photos.org/_rss/4054877.jpg

AlmostCrimes (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Moscow, that ship thing is Peter the Great Statue [5] meltBanana 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Military terms or language

When a soldier in the military says, "The enemy is five clicks down the road", what is the distance of a "click"?71.53.237.28 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've only ever heard it used as a synonym for a kilometre. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a click is a kilometer/kilometre. Dismas|^(talk) 04:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See also the article on klick. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That is also used as a synonym of kilometre by non-military people, at least in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In Perth, Australia, I have occasionally heard it used as a speed. Ie one might be doing "100 klicks" on the freeway, but I've never heard "klicks per hour". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would Americans be using metric: kilometres rather than miles? 92.15.24.111 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

American scientists widely use the metric system in keeping with the rest of the scientific community -- well, most of the time. The military has used metric since the late 1950s, likely to reduce with armies from other countries. Canada began metrication in the 1970s, but it was stopped and partially reversed in the mid-1980s, so they use a mixture of both systems. Xenon54 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that operating in Western Europe, the US Army would have to use the existing metric maps. Using miles and yards on a metric map can be done but is a whole lot more difficult than using kilometres and metres. The maps available for Vietnam would have been surveyed by the French, so the same applies there. I suspect that maps of the USA continued to use US measurements for quite a while longer. Maps of the United Kingdom were not metricated until the mid 1970s. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

IPO

Resolved

I want to understand in the simplest manner how a company makes shares for itself without lessening the current owners' ownership -- unless, of course, that is what an IPO will do. So when Facebook, for example, has an IPO and Mark Zuckerberg currently owns let's say 25% of the company, how can he retain 25% of the company? If whoever now owns whatever percentages of the company get that much in stock to equal their current ownership level, how are there any remaining stocks for sale? Perhaps I'm confusing everything, and that's where I'm lost, but I read the IPO article and it didn't really help me at all on this. Thanx. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't. That's the downside of an IPO. Of course, you could have two classes of shares in which the A class has 1,000 times the votes per share as the B class. That would allow the existing management to maintain control of the company even with a minority of the equity. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that although the percentage of ownership decreases, the value of ownership will not, if the IPO is priced correctly -- because the money brought in by the IPO is distributed across all the shares that exist. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain that a bit more please? And could you just sell off as many non-voting shares as you like, and therefore sell most of the company but still keep control of it? 92.15.24.111 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I own all 100 shares of MyCompany and its assessed value is US$1,000,000. My shares are worth US$1,000,000. Suppose I perform an IPO and issue 200 new shares. In some perfect world, the market would agree with the assessed value and would pay US$2,000,000 for the 200 new shares. This is because at the end of the day of my IPO day, my company, already with US$1,000,000 in value, has an additional US$2,000,000 in the bank. My 100 shares are now worth one-third of US$3,000,000, which comes to US$1,000,000 — no change. To your second question, yes, this is possible, but it makes large investors likely to value the shares less. One significant company with a structure like this is Ford Motor Company. Our article does not discuss this for some reason, but a criticism over time is that the Ford family still controls a much larger share of the voting shares than the economic shares would indicate. (This link states the Ford family controls 40% of the voting shares.) The pension funds (which are some of the largest investors in private companies) are always complaining about this, because less voting power means they have less ability to pressure Ford's board into replacing the CEO or making broad strategy changes if the pension funds deem it appropriate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very intrigued by the idea that simply by doing an IPO, the business gets an extra $2M (in your example). Is there anything I can read about how this pans out in practice rather than just in theory? Why isnt every business doing this? Thanks 92.15.3.168 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's Succession to the throne of England

Perhaps someone out there can explain why succession to the throne of England went to Queen Victoria and not to Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. He was the next male in line after all of his older brothers died (two of whom were kings- George IV and William IV). Please refer to the following link from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchs%27_family_tree Since all of his older brothers had died, and had not produced any male heirs to the throne, wouldn't he be the next king? Queen Victoria was the child of one of his deceased brothers, The Duke of Kent, and a female. Why would the throne go to her when Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, the direct, legitimate MALE offspring of George III, was still alive?Xeyedcat (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In brief, because he was not next in line. That is simply not how British Primogeniture (male-preference primogeniture) works. It isn't about exhausting all male options first. Look at it this way: the current line of succession to the British throne shows you that Charles's sons are next in line after him, before his brothers. He doesn't have to take the throne before he dies for them to be before his brothers in the succession: if Charles died tomorrow, William would be next in line and the new Heir Apparent. If Charles had three children, let's say William, Winifred, and Harry, and he died tomorrow, the line of succession would go: William (Heir Apparent), Harry, Winifred, Andrew (Charles's brother), Andrew's daughters (in order of age), Edward (Charles and Andrew's younger brother), etc. As you can see, the fictional Winifred would come behind her brothers, but still before her uncles. And, in the real line of succession, Beatrice and Eugenie come before Edward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.214.50 (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In the British primogeniture system, the direct lines are exhausted before moving to the junior lines. In other words, brothers come before sisters, but they ALL come before uncles or cousins. So, let's say that we have the following family tree (fictional):

• King Andrew (M)

• Bertrand (M)

• Charles (M)
• Ernestine (F)
• David (M)

• Francis (M)

If Andrew dies, and no other children are born, the succession goes

1. Bertrand
2. Charles
3. David
4. Ernestine
5. Francis

This is because a) David is younger than Ernestine, but as a male, gets to succeed BEFORE her (that is, males in the direct line, come before females in the direct line of the oldest son) b) Though there is a living male descendant of Andrew (his younger son Francis), Ernestine comes first because we must exhaust the line of the oldest son of Andrew BEFORE moving on to the lines of any younger sons of Andrew. I hope this makes sense. --Jayron32 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So not only does Bertrand come before his younger brother Francis, so do his children? Does this extend to their children as well, and so on? Assuming Ernestine has a daughter, and all of Bertrand, Charles, David and Ernestine die before her, does she then inherit the crown, even if Francis is still alive? JIP | Talk 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your first question is correct. If Bertrand were to have children, they would come immediately after him in the succession, and before Charles. Bertrand's sons would come before Bertrand's daughters, but ALL of Bertrand's sons and daughters as a group would come before Charles. For your second question, yes. Ernestine's children would come before Francis, so even if Ernestine had only daughters, they would succeed before Francis. In the British primogeniture system, once a person is in the line, their children all come in the line immediately after them, and before anyone else, ordered sons before daughters, oldest before younger. --Jayron32 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Question (Divorce)

what is the process for a divorce in the state of California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marztech5 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC) what is the process for a divorce in the state of California? In 1998, I had paid for a divorce decree in the Modesto court house and followed all that expected of me. I found out that in 2010 that I am still married to my first wife. In 2005, I had married my new wife, we have three children together. When I had applied for a marriage licience at the Hemet court house, the courts examined my devoire decree and had issued my wife and I a marriage licience. Now I found out that a long time friend is in the same situation. I tried to have others do it for me and that didn't work, so I would like to learn how to do it for myself. There is almost no information on how this process really works, which leaves the residents of California very vulnerable. --Marztech5 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marztech5 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we are not permitted to give legal or medical advice (and that's what an answer to this would be). Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the question and added the template. I concur with Louie496's assessment, and advice the original question asker to seek a lawyer to get answers to questions like this. --Jayron32 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the deletion, because I don't think that was the proper thing to do here. The original original question, "What is the process for a divorce in the state of California," is acceptable. Asking the RD to respond to one's personal legal situation is not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nolo Press publishes a self-help guide for uncontested divorces in California (link); they also publish a general guide which covers divorce in the United States in general (here), presumably with less detail; I have no personal experience of either book, but some of Nolo's other books have proved to be excellent. It's my understanding that some people of limited means file uncontested divorce paperwork with the assistance of a paralegal alone (a Google search for "california divorce paralegal" finds any number of paralegals offering their services in this regard). Contested divorces, and cases where the custody and maintenance of minor children is an issue, most often require parties to engage lawyers. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How to get to John o' Groats?

After reading the article about John o' Groats, I have speculated with the idea of actually visiting it. I have visited Nordkapp, which is almost the northernmost point in mainland Europe, so I'd like to visit the almost-northernmost point of Great Britain as well. So how do I actually get to John o' Groats? I don't have a driver's license, so my own car or a rental car is not an option. Is there a railway or bus connection to John o' Groats? I don't know if John o' Groats has its own airport (Tromsø in Norway does) but I guess it does not. In terms of economy, should I fly from Finland to London and travel to John o' Groats from there, or to some nearer airport in Scotland? JIP | Talk 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a bus from Inverness: [6]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a quick Internet search on how to get to Inverness, in order to get on that bus. It turns out that a direct flight from Finland to Inverness costs about the same as a flight to London and a train trip to Inverness, but I guess a direct flight is faster. The bus connection from Inverness to John o' Groats seems to be direct, so if I decide to ever go on the trip, this is perhaps the best option. JIP | Talk 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The same website Mwalcoff linked has details of all buses from Thurso and Wick: [7] - but do check, as these haven't been updated since 2009. Be warned, there's very little to see in John O'Groats; the main attraction is the ferry to Orkney. Warofdreams talk 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's at least a shop and a hotel at John o' Groats, which is a lot more than there is at the actual northernmost point of Great Britain. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW there's also a train service (four times a day) from Inverness to Thurso and Wick, and Wick Airport. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Orkney is worth a visit. Heart of Neolithic Orkney is a UNESCO world heritage site there. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You might find it cheaper to fly to a larger Scottish airport - Blue1 starts a Helsinki - Edinburgh service in April. The train can take you as far as Wick or Thurso, or you can fly from Edinburgh to the aforementioned Wick Airport. It should be easy to get a bus or taxi to John O'Groats, though I'm surprised would want to go there (in my opinion, a more challenging place to visit would be Cape Wrath with its lighthouse and no shops selling tourist crap). Astronaut (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an answer, but a bit of extra trivia. Lots of people do charity walks from Land's End to John o'Groats, and if you look up the walking route on Google Maps, it tells you to take six ferries, including one to France. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that the northernmost point of Great Britain is Out Stack, but it's even less inviting than Dunnet Head, which is the most northerly point on mainland Britain.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain is "an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe.." (my emphasis). Out Stack is the northernmost point of the British Isles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

...and indeed of Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

... but not of Great Britain. See Terminology of the British Isles for the whole sorry saga. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Department store with the most floors

Which department store has the most floors? --84.62.210.80 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It was the J. L. Hudson Department Store and Addition, with 23 above-ground retails floors and two in the basement, but it was demolished in 1998. Still searching for the current record holder. The world's largest, Shinsegae Centum City, clocks in at a measly eight.Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This claims there's an 18-storey one (plus a basement floor?) in Taiwan, but I can't make out any details. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which department store in Japan has the most floors? --84.62.210.80 (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Field and Company Building in downtown Chicago has twelve above and one below-ground floor. So you need to beat 13. It was once the largest department store in the world. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The building has 13 floors, but are all 13 dedicated to retail space? A store is a continous area of retail space, and the size of the store may be somewhat smaller than the size of the building housing the store... --Jayron32 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Which department store in Japan has the most floors? --84.62.209.181 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kansas, in area, compared to other states, pre 1912

This book says Kansas is the thirteenth state in area, but Kansas is now 15th. in size. The book was published in 1912. Assuming that one state is Alaska, what accounts for the other? Albacore (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico and Arizona both joined the Union in 1912. Both are bigger than Kansas. If the book was written before both joined, you'd expect Kansas to lose 3 positions (those two and, as you say, Alaska). If it was written after both, you'd expect it to lose only 1 (again Alaska). For the state to lose 2, the book would have to be written (and I appreciate that there are potentially big delays between books being authored, typeset, printed, and distributed) in the six week period between the accession of NM and before that of AZ. Hopefully there's a smarter reason than that... 87.115.125.162 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii, also 1959? A bit before August 4, 1961:) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives Hawaii's area as 10,931 sq miles, making it much smaller than all the states in question. I guess the book could be counting using some other measure of area, taking into account some particularly ambitious definition of Hawaii's territorial waters? 87.115.125.162 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that the book's value for Kansas' area (82144 sq miles) and our value for Kansas' area (82277 sq miles) do not match. As such, I expect the difference is in consideration of water area or some other value. We note that Kansas is 0.56% water, but Michigan, at 97000 sq miles, is a whopping 41% water due to Lake Michigan. So my best guess is that Kansas drops from 13th in 1912 to 14th in 1959 (due to Alaska, as above) and possibly another spot depending on how you treat Michigan. — Lomn 13:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not just our share of Lake Michigan but our large shares of Lake Huron and Lake Superior as well. See File:Michigan.svg. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Time between Logan airport and Back Bay Station

We're going to be travelling in Boston this summer and one point of our journey is getting from Logan airport to Back Bay Station to catch a train to New York - does anybody have any idea (roughly) how long it takes on the subway to get from the airport to this station? ny156uk (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

MBTA's journey planner is here. For an arbitrary weekday I just plugged in, it estimated 39 minutes using the Blue Line. 87.115.125.162 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From the airport you have to catch a (free) shuttle bus to get to the Airport subway station. Then the correct routing by subway is the Blue Line as far as State station, then the Orange Line. The actual travel time isn't a lot, but the need to wait for three vehicles and make two changes will slow you down (and the way State station is laid out, you have to walk about a block inside the station between trains). 39 minutes sounds like it's in the right range, but it might be a bit low, especially if it doesn't include the shuttle bus.

An alternative is the Silver Line express bus, which you could take directly from your airport terminal to South Station, where your Amtrak train originates. Being devoutly of the rail persuasion myself, I have not tried this and am not sure how long it takes, but I expect it would be more convenient. --Anonymous, 05:57 UTC, January 10, 2011.

The Silver Line is very fast and about as reliable as rail. It travels through tunnels a good portion of its journey and generally does not have to contend with traffic except in the terminals. It's truly faster IF it lets you avoid switching trains (e.g. before the Silver Line, I used to have to go Red > Orange > Blue > Shuttle to get to Logan; now I go Red > Silver and I'm done; it's quicker and easier). BUT I would note that South Station and Back Bay are not the same thing at all, and that there are trains at both, and presumably the OP meant the Back Bay when they said it and not South. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why you are taking the train? It is a very expensive and very slow way to get to New York from Boston. It is probably much slower than you realize. It will take you about as much time as taking a bus would from South Station, and cost you ten times as much. For reasons that are unclear to me, the train system in the northeast is entirely ridiculous in terms of its reliability and its cost. Just putting that out there, as someone who has made the trip many times before...! The new bus lines (Megabus, Bolt Bus, etc.) are all pretty comfortable as far as bus travel goes (electrical outputs, WiFi, bathrooms, reasonable amount of space) and are much cheaper than Amtrak. They would probably add no more than an hour or two to your trip. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Trains are a lot nicer than buses. You can get up and walk around if you want. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And on the Northeast Corridor they're substantially faster, as 98 states himself or herself: "no more than an hour or two" is a big difference on a trip that length. It's most other North American passenger railways that are relatively slow. --Anonymous, 05:45 UTC, January 10, 2011.

Anyway, I'm just suggesting, from experience: avoid the rail in the northeast. It costs about as much as flying does and takes about as long as a bus. Just to indicate what I'm talking about: the Acela Express, the fastest one, can do it in 3.5 hours, but at a cost of $95-$110 each way (at least on some sample weekday I chose). The Northeast regional takes 4 hours at $67 each way. (That's right—the "high speed" rail saves you... 30 minutes! At a cost of nearly double most of the time.) A direct flight from Logan to JFK on Jetblue costs $39 (sorry, that's just a sale they're having at the moment) $69 each way and takes a little over an hour. A ticket on Bolt Bus costs $15 and takes 4 hours 45 minutes. Megabus costs $13 for a trip of 4 hours 15 minutes. Do you see what I'm indicating? It's very hard for me to see the utility of the train. Nobody I know who travels between Boston and New York opts to take it. All of this assumes, of course, that the Amtrak will be on time, which it will not be. (The flights usually are, though the extra hassle of airport security can add an hour if you have to go through it again. The buses usually leave on time but arrival depends very heavily on the traffic in the last mile or so of the trip, which can be brutal. However, it is very scenic — much more scenic than the train — for that last hour into Manhattan.) Anyway, it's your trip! Do what you feel. I'm just pointing out that, as a Bostonian who makes that trip once or twice a year, the train is really the odd way to go. Don't get me wrong: I wish rail service was a competitive option around here. I love the European model of getting around. But for reasons unbeknownst to me, it isn't very workable here, in my experience. (Of course, if you're not going to NYC, the prices and times are different. But there are probably buses anywhere a train is going.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the train is an efficient means of travel when one considers the time for a flight to NY is not just the time in the air - but includes security time, and the wonderful ride from Laguardia into the city on a $20 cab ride. The half hour flight can easily take three hours :) and cost as much as the train. And if the person is actually trying to get to, say, Stamford CT, the train beats the plane if one is starting from the vicinity of Logan. I would point out, however, that South Station is a preferred station - it is to Boston as Grand Central is to NY, and Back Bay is like 125th St. Collect (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that on my trip to the US I took the Acela Express from Boston (South Station) to NYC and found it excellent - punctual, comfortable and remarkably quiet. The price seemed reasonable at the time. I can't recall precisely what it was now, though it was booked some way in advance. Would also thoroughly recommend the Silver Line in Boston for getting to/from the airport. the wub "?!" 19:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just curious... if you are flying into Logan, why not change your ticket to fly into an airport closer to NYC? Astronaut (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

January 10

Roy Cleveland Sullivan (February 7, 1912 – September 28, 1983) was a U.S. park ranger in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.

Do you have a photo on file of Roy Cleveland Sullivan (February 7, 1912 – September 28, 1983) was a U.S. park ranger in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.

Please advise - Mike O'Mallon Brisbane Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.198.113 (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not seem to have a photo. If you google "Roy Cleveland Sullivan", the first link is to the WP article Roy Sullivan and the second to images of the man. There are also links to photos at the very bottom of the WP article. Bielle (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

help finding Wikipedia basic design info.

Hi, I’m trying to find info, very simplified info regarding Wikipedia’s volunteer: editors, administrators, etc. as a hierarchy tree or organization design, as well as Wikipedia’s paid administrative basic hierarchy tree style structure as a simplified business model example. I signed up, in hopes to find relating info. I’ve searched online and read many articles but have come up dry in this area. Any help would be very much appreciated. I also searched at the village pump:) but no luck.

Thank you

JOhn  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pariah07 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 

You'll get a lot of information at Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation is the charitable organisation behind Wikipedia, and that page contains information on the members of the board of trustees, its relation to Wikipedia, etc. Wikimedia and Wikipedia have only a very small paid staff, and do not resemble conventional business organisations. You may have read those pages and draw your own organisational tree. If you have further questions, please ask. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link (same site as above) with a clear organization chart and list of staff of the Wikimedia Foundation. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Wikimedia is separate from Wikipedia. Only Wikimedia has paid staff. Wikipedia has only volunteers and not so much a hierarchy but a mob with various privileges - all of whom are editors. See Wikipedia:User access levels. The most restrictive being non-logged-in editors. The various privileges are assigned individually (like rollbacker) or in packets (like admin which includes deletion, protection and rollbacker). Some users and admins have other tools like oversight and checkuser. Rmhermen (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And there are several different language editions of Wikipedia, each with a large degree of autonomy (although all share certain basic principles). the wub "?!" 19:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Identify who the statue in the picture is of

Can anyone identify whose statue it is in this picture http://copytaste.com/l244 ?? Thanks in advance. 110.225.172.58 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a (reconstruction) of a statue of Athena Parthenos. The reconstruction was carried out by American sculptor Alan LeQuire. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Saddhiyama beat me. Let me just add that the statue, as I found out on the Internet, is apparently situated in the Nashville Parthenon. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No Japanese elevator companies in Switzerland?

Why aren't there any elevators with a Japanese brand (Mitsubishi Electric, Hitachi, Toshiba, or Fujitec) in Switzerland? --84.62.209.181 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think there aren't? --Jayron32 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)