Miscellaneous desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 17

Empire State Building elevators

On which floors stop the Empire State Building elevators? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the floors are served by elevators, with the possible exception of service/mechanical floors. If you are asking about visiting the building as a tourist, there are special tourist elevators to take you straight to the 86th floor observation deck and a separate set of elevators to take you from there to the 102nd floor observation deck - see Empire State Building#Observation decks for some details, or the official website. If you have other business in the building, there are express elevators to the sky lobby on the 80th floor (I once visited this lobby because the tourist elevators were out of action that day). There may well be sky lobbies on other floors, but I'm having difficulty finding details of them. Between lobbies, local elevators serve every floor. Astronaut (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But do any of the 73 elevators in the Empire State Building go to every floor ? If not, which floors do they go to ? StuRat (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one of the freight elevators serves every floor. FWIW, when I was researching my first answer, I was looking at floor plans (I could only see plans for some floors with office space to rent) and noticed there were fewer elevator shafts higher up and some shafts had no doors on some floors. The passenger elevators are grouped into banks A-G. I don't know the exact plan of all the elevator shafts, but I do know there is some kind of sky lobby on the 80th floor.

This PDF is a plan of the 5th floor. All elevator banks pass through this floor but only the 4 elevators in bank A and 2 elevators in bank G could stop here. In all, just 6 of 57 passenger elevators and all 4 freight elevators could stop here.
This PDF is a plan of the 31st floor. Only elevator banks D-G pass through this floor (and rather strangely, one elevator from bank A), but only the 10 elevators in bank D and 2 elevators in bank G could stop here. In all, just 12 of 37 passenger elevators and both freight elevators could stop here.
This PDF is a plan of the 61st floor Only elevator banks F & G pass through this floor, but only the 8 elevators in bank F and 2 elevators in bank G could stop here. In all, just 10 of 18 passenger elevators and the one freight elevator could stop here.

Where is Region 12?

For some reason the lyrics of a silly song I used to sing with the Boy Scouts came to mind. It's a version of Mary Had a Little Lamb, set to the tune of a Civil War marching song; the chorus goes

Hurrah for Mary!

Hurrah for the lamb!

Hurrah for the teacher

Who didn't give a ... particle

If all the lambs in Region 12 went marching off to school

Shouting out the battle cry of freedom!

But where is Region 12? The Boy Scouts of America article has regions, but they aren't numbered. Google searches suggest that it's an obsolete designation, but I couldn't figure out just what it designated.

Here's an image of a jamboree patch representing the region: http://oabsa.wikia.com/wiki/File:R12-logo.jpg . --Trovatore (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests Hawaii, California, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming and Nevada. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks very much. That would be quite a few lambs. My father had remembered the song as all the lambs in Washington (where he grew up), and I think that scans considerably better than Region 11, wherein Washington was located according to the wiki you pointed me to. --Trovatore (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Mail to the UK

If I'm sending a letter to a friend in the UK, what am I supposed to write in the country section of the address? Is it UNITED KINGDOM or GREAT BRITAIN? I have found conflicting advice and no clear standard. If I'm supposed to write GREAT BRITAIN then what happens if my friend lives in Northern Ireland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.46.47 (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you writing from? As a UK/GB resident (of Wales), I would have thought that either is likely to be widely understood and acceptable (except that GB should not be used for Northern Ireland - in that case, I would suggest NORTHERN IRELAND, UK). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that postal workers are intelligent humans, too - they might have a standard for which name to use, but their primary purpose is to get letters where they belong as much as possible - and they'll have come across much more confusing addresses than this. Agreed with the above to specify Northern Ireland if that's where you're sending it...but the best advice would probably be to head to the post office and ask them. You could write it and send it there and then. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if there is a standard that is independent of the sending country. I know that there are humans who sort the mail, but I'd like to know the best way to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.46.47 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either will get it there. I usually write "UNITED KINGDOM" when sending postcards home (which is pretty much the only time I send things to the UK from abroad). Worst case scenario, it takes a few days longer to get there because it goes via the wrong place (eg. you put "NORTHERN IRELAND" as the country and it gets sent to the Republic of Ireland who then send it Northern Ireland). --Tango (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be pedantic about it you should use, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But UK will suffice. From Spain, I could use, "Reino Unido" as well, just in case there are any Spanish Postal workers who don't understand UK, but that would be an insult to them and would probably result in the correspondence being "lost in space". Strangely though, as one living in Scotland UK, I have met some Scottish tourists who insist on addressing their cards directly to Escocia from Spain or Ecosse from France without adding UK and I suspect that some of them might not reach their destination because the workers will have been accustomed to using UK in their sorting procedures. And despite living in Scotland, any cards or letters I get from the USA are invariably addressed to England or Britain, but they still arrive. 92.30.141.64 (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Spain for a number of years and sent all my mail with "Reino Unido", including several dozen Christmas cards each year and never lost a single one. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expected to find a definitive list of country names to be used on post at the Universal Postal Union's website, but I haven't found one. The closest I've found is a list of Members in alphabetical order, which lists Great Britain as a heading, glossed as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and listing "Guernsey", "Isle of Man" and "Jersey" within it. But I don't think that list is normative. --ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the sorting office doesn't know what an address means they send it to a dead letter office or similar. The people there are very experienced at interpreting strange addresses and won't have any problem interpreting any of the examples you give. --Tango (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French, where I live, demand Angleterre. This covers all the countries in the UK, plus the off shore islands. Annoys the Scots, Welsh & Irish more than somewhat!!Froggie34 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, when I'm sending postcards home, I always mark them ENGLAND... ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 14:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demand? Surely they still send the letter to the right country as long as they can understand it. --Tango (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some mail sorters are not human. Also, postal codes are supposedly unambiguous. (See also http://globalpostalcodesystem.info/ https://countrywisecodes.com/world-zip-codes )

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postal codes are only unambiguous within a country or when combined with a country abbreviation (as is sometimes done in continental Europe). That "global postal code" site sounds like one of those things that people might invent without any real hope that anyone would start using it.

Canada Post has a list of acceptable "international designations" that includes NORTHERN IRELAND as well as "UNITED KINGDOM (GREAT BRITAIN)" and says the former is included within the latter. It does not explain whether the parentheses indicate an alternate ~~fork~~ form or what.

In practice I would use "ENGLAND, UK" for England and "NORTHERN IRELAND, UK" for Northern Ireland and I've never had a problem. --Anonymous, 19:30 UTC (copyedited later), April 17, 2010.

So what happens if you send your post from a country that doesn't normally use the English alphabet? For example, if mailing from Japan would one need to put "イギリス" or will just having "UK" ensure it gets to the right country? Astronaut (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for China, where, when sending letters to non-Chinese character countries (e.g. Japan), to ensure fastest delivery you would write the country name in both the language of the destination country (e.g. "USA") and in Chinese (in this example, "美国").

However, if (for example if you cannot write in Chinese) you address the envelope entirely in the language of the destination country (e.g. English), it will get there but there is more room for error as the postal worker may not speak that language well - the country name should be written unambiguously and underlined, for example to highlight it from the rest of the address. This is especially important because in some countries the country is written first in an address, while in others it is written last. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed as some like Tango have mentioned, whatever you write it's unlikely it won't get to it's location if it's unambigious. It may be delayed, and this doesn't mean you shouldn't try your best to get it right but provided the location is unambigious, it should get there. (There are probably 3 simplified possibilities, one is if it can be automatically sorted with whatever computerised system may exist, two if it fails automatic sorting and has to be put aside for manual sorting, this will obviously delay it a bit, three if even the manual sorting can't handle it and it has to be sent to a special place for handling this will cause the most delays. Of course an additional problem is if it ends up in the wrong location and has to be sent somewhere else.)

This File:Letter to Russia with krokozyabry.jpg from Mojibake is a good example of that (although in that case it wasn't the country that was a problem), and I'm guessing the Chinese mail authorities also deal with stuff like that, particularly in the past.

I believe I also read once (can't remember if it was a link from here, I think we have discussed this issue in any case or from elsewhere) that worst case scenario, particularly if there's no return address, they may open the mail to try and work out where it's supposed to go, or where it came from.

I also have a personal anecdotal example where the country was just plain wrong, Malawi instead of Malaysia (this was from something online I'm not sure I selected the wrong country or their system was simply borked) and it ended up in Malawi (I think, can't remember the details), the Malawi post office realised Kuala Lumpur wasn't in Malawi so it was sent on to Malaysia and eventually reached me.

BTW, I did come across [1] which has plenty of examples from different countries although not official they tend to be from official sources, it does say UK may be interpreted as Ukraine in the US and also mentions the UPU examples are not necessarily great. It also links to other guides like [2]. We also have Address (geography)

P.S. I have sometimes wondered what would happened if you wrote a Taiwan address and put China or People's Republic of China/PRC or even The Real China; or a PRC address and put Republic of China or R.O.C, but I'm guessing it will still reach there. (Or an equivalent in Chinese.) Similarly I presume the PRC handles traditional Chinese addresses (perhaps with delays) as does the Taiwan handle simplified Chinese addresses.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a large proportion of Chinese speakers could understand the other orthography even if they grew up with a different one. For postal workers who will likely deal with this on a regular basis, this is not likely to be a problem. Afterall, there is regular exchange of mail between Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan (Traditional Chinese areas) and mainland China, and a fiar proportion of users would write in the "wrong" script.

As to "China" - this was more of a problem in the past, when the government in Taiwan insisted that it was (The Real) China. At least I was taught that when writing an address located in mainland China in English, the country should be "P.R. China", not just "China". That might be redundant now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USPS website has guidelines for addressing international mail sent from the USA here. On the London address used as an example, they write the country as ENGLAND and specifically state the country should be spelled out, not abbreviated. Using this standard, your letter should be addressed to NORTHERN IRELAND if it's being send there. —D. Monack ^talk 03:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I'm an annoying little sod and still live in 1980,I have been known to send postcards with the country marked as West or East Germany or to addresses in the USSR. They all arrived safely no problem. Lemon martini (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Island with high mountain

Anyone know small (not Greenland or Great Britain etc) island with quite high mountain on it? It should be somewhere in the middle of an ocean, I think Atlantic one??? 74.15.64.29 (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of islands with mountains, usually volcanoes, on them. The Hawaiian Islands are of this type, with Mauna Kea and others. I can't think of an Atlantic one. How high are you referring to? 2D Backfire Master ^{sweet emotion} 12:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Helena is mountainous but not very high (818m max); however it is certainly "in the middle of an ocean". Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan da Cunha? Madeira? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azores? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! Tristan da Cunha was the one I was looking for. Thanx a bunch! 74.15.64.29 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every major island has a mountain on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... but the OP asked for a small island with a high mountain, i.e. a volcanic island. Dbfirs 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerguelen is yet another, peak height 1,850 metres. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very random question regarding libations

Does anyone have any ideas or theories regarding why bottled water often has nutrition facts, but alcoholic beverages that have more protein (i.e., Guinness} than water do not have said facts? 2D Backfire Master ^{sweet emotion} 12:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because bottled water is often advertised as 'pure' because it comes from a spring (sometimes) and so they will list all the nutrition facts in order to convince the customer that it is really good for you and is 'pure'...Chevymontecarlo. 12:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but what about beer and such? 2D Backfire Master ^{sweet emotion} 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, people don't buy beer for its nutritional content. However, mineral water is often sold for its vitamin and mineral content. It's possible that mineral water labelling is a legal requirement, I don't know. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholic beverages are one class of food exempt from requiring a nutrition panel in Australia [3], and no doubt elsewhere, although they are subject to other legal standards. Bottled water is also exempt, but like Chevy said they often include an "analysis" to make you think you're getting something better than a bottle of tap water (which you're generally not). FiggyBee (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, food is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, which requires nutrition labels for food, but not water. Even though alcohol is a food and a drug, it's not regulated by the FDA. Alcoholic beverages are regulated by the ATF, which has no requirement for nutritional labels. So, neither one must be labeled, leaving it up to the companies to decide. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember reading that some brewer wanted to mention nutritional content on the label (B vitamins?) and was forbidden to do so on the grounds that the People must be protected from getting the idea that drinking beer can be good for them. —Tamfang (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be considerable evidence that drinking some alcoholic beverages, in moderation, of course, can be healthy. StuRat (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Dumont's age at her death is in error

If Margaret Dumont was born on October 20, 1889 and died on March 6, 1965 her age at death would be 75. Wikipedia reports that her age at death was 82. Either a date is incorrect or someone has made a mathematical error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srfish (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It likely was incorrect. Or maybe you're reading something wrong? 2D Backfire Master ^{sweet emotion} 12:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1889 birth date (rather than 1882) has been inserted quite recently by an IP editor, with an inadequate citation. I'll check it out and if necessary raise the question on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References elsewhere say 1882, so I've changed it back in the meantime. FiggyBee (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my message at Talk:Margaret Dumont - I think a stronger case can be made for 1889. In her case, because of the type of roles she played, I think it's quite plausible that she claimed to be older than she actually was. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FamilySearch [4] reveals 20 October 1882, her mother was Harriet Anna Harong and father was William Baker. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both dates should be acknowledged. Follow the lead of the Chief Bender article. Note also that this is a duplicating discussion from Dumont's talk page. It's not really a ref desk question as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of talking with Sinebots

moved to LD, thanks. 70.177.189.205 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Job Employment Campus Interwiew

My son ( a student of BCA Computer Application ) is now studying in 3rd semestar. But he is suffering from depression due to a very strange situation. He got 69% marks in the Madhyamik Exam (Secondary exam), he got 55% marks in Uchya madhymik Exam (Higher Secondary Exam), now he is getting over 70% marks in all the semestar so far(3rd semestar completed)16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC). But I came to know from various sources that when my son will complete the degree (6 semestar) he will not be allowed to sit in the Campus interview of any big well know companies( for employment) because he has got less than 60% marks in the Ucchya Madhyamik exam.. Is it an acceptable explanation ? Every body is telling me that to be eligible to sit in the campus interview of big companies it is compulsory to get 60% marks in the Ucchya Madhyamik exam.(Higher Secondary exam). The situation stands like this:- If any students get 60% marks in the Higher Secondary exam and after that if that students get only 50% marks in all the 6 semestar even then the student will be allowed to sit in the campus interview of big companies because that particular student has got 60% marks in the Higher Secondary exam. Is it not a very strange matter ? Is this matter true or false ? Is it an acceptable or justified condition ? Can you please clarify this point so that my son (student) may get rid of his present depression condition ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallabdutta (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing him from applying directly to big companies. In fact, it could help distinguish him from the marathon of students meeting with recruiters in a single day. --Nricardo (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has only a stub about the Indian Bachelor of Computer Applications degree. Madhyamik is a centralised examination conducted by West Bengal Board of Secondary Education whose headquarters are at Bidhannagar, Kolkata popularly called "Salt Lake City". You may try to get a response from them about the 60% threshold that you heard about but I don't think a 60% mark in one exam guarantees employment to anyone, otherwise why have interviews? Personal recommendations from your son's tutor(s) would count for a lot, as would his own account of what has motivated him to work hard. This could be in a letter he sends to employers as Nricardo suggests. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling from JFK (New York International) to EWR (Newark Liberty International)

I'll be flying into JFK from an international flight on the 5th of July. My next connecting flight will be from Newark Liberty. My question is how feasible is this travel route, considering I have 4 hours between the two flights? And how should I travel? Take a taxicab, or an airport shuttle? Google Maps says it'll take about 1.5 hours; this seems a lot to me. Does anyone have any experience traveling between these two locations?

Thanks. 98.209.119.116 (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the future avoid connecting at different airports. Either of those can get you to most places. Any savings are not worth the trouble. For now, I recommend a taxi, which should go via the Belt Parkway, Verrazano Bridge, Staten Island Expressway, Goethals Bridge, NJ Turnpike to Newark Airport. --Nricardo (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.5 hours total sounds about right for public transportation. It's a non-trivial distance and goes through one of the most dense urban areas in the world. It takes about an hour to get from JFK to downtown Manhattan by subway; it should take at least 30 minutes more to get all the way over to Newark from there. I would factor in 2 hours of travel if doing it by subway, because things will be delayed, be late, go slowly, etc. By car (and thus taxi) it is supposed to be about 45 minutes. Depending on the time of day, that could be a lot more—at rush hour the bridges get completely stopped up. It'll be pretty expensive. Airport shuttle is probably middling in price ($30 or so), more scheduled than a taxi, but probably a lot less slow and difficult than the subway (if you aren't familiar with the New York subway system, it is workable, but not very user-friendly). I would go with the airport shuttle, personally, out of those three options. The taxi will cost at least double the shuttle. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to avoid the roads by using rail transit, the fastest way does not involve the subway. From your terminal at JFK, take the Airtrain (the airport transit line) to Jamaica station. From there take the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) to Penn Station, in Manhattan. From there take New Jersey Transit (NJT) to Newark Liberty Airport station (do not confuse with Newark Penn station, which comes in between). And from there take the Airtrain (again, the airport transit line, this time a monorail) to your terminal at Newark airport. I've ridden all of these but I'm not experienced enough with them to give a good time estimate, but 90 minutes sounds to be in the ballpark. I think you probably have to pay twice, once at JFK for the JFK Airtrain and LIRR, and once at Penn for NJT and the Newark Airtrain. The Airtrains run every few minutes; the LIRR and NJT trains are fairly frequent but might involve a bit more waiting. You can find NJT and LIRR timetables on the respective organizations' web sites.

I'm sure it's possible to do the trip by airport bus using only one or two vehicles, but I don't know the details, and then you are subject to traffic delays on the roads. --Anonymous, 19:28 UTC, April 17, 2010.

See http://www.panynj.gov/airports/jfk-airport-connections.html, there are apparently two options between JFK and Newark, State Shuttle and AirTrain. I have no personal experience in this matter. Woogee (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misreading. It says "Airtrain and mass transit". Airtrain, as I said, is the name for the internal transit line within each of the two airports and connecting to the train station outside. --Anon, 23:48 UTC, April 17, 2010.

I think you might find yourself very short of time. Depending on where you are going from Newark, the check-in might have closed before you get to the airport. Assuming you are flying into JFK from outside the USA, you will need to pass through immigration and collect your bag from baggage reclaim. It could easily be over 30 minutes between getting off the aircraft and getting to your transport for Newark. Add a 1.5 hour journey to Newark and it doesn't leave much time before the check-in closes - sometimes as much as 1.5 hours before departure, depending on airline, destination and airport (though I couldn't find any info about this on Newark Liberty's website). A delayed arrival at JFK, long lines, and heavy traffic could easily leave you missing the latest check-in time. If you can't change the flights to give you longer, or to arrive and leave from the same airport, I suggest you try to find out which terminals and gates you will arrive at, how far you will need to walk (or run), the fastest and most reliable transport option for the time of day, and which terminal and check-in desks you will need to use at Newark. Astronaut (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't know Newark but JFK is very large and not the easiest to navigate. It's also notorious congested. Considering that you probably want to get to Newark at least an hour or two before your flight leaves, that doesn't leave you with a huge amount of time when you factor in all the possible things that could go wrong and cost you 20 minutes here, 20 minutes there. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane Windows along the fuselage - serious question.

As above, do they build an aeroplane and forget the windows if the plane is intended for cargo use only? Or do they build all aeroplanes that way and only convert them to have passenger windows if that is what the airline operator specifies? Or can they (the builders) design them in such a way as to convert them at low cost? Or - why can't they build ALL aircraft of each respective model WITH windows and just remove seats etc., for cargo use? As an aside, why are the words airports and aircraft spelled with an "i" when aeroplane is spelled with an "e" - OK - for purists, "2 x e's". 92.30.1.173 (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure about the first part of your question, but my guess would be that it's simpler to build without the windows. Aircraft designers would probably prefer to keep windows at a minimum, as windows present extra problems, i.e. "something else to go wrong". The first Mercury spaceflight had no windows, just a periscope. The astronauts complained, and the designers grudgingly added a window, which meant they had to cut a hole in the spacecraft and then find an appropriately thick piece of glass and a proper sealant. Regarding "air-" vs. "aero-", that's just English for you. According to my Webster's, "aeroplane" is a French derivation, and there are many English words that use the prefixes "aero-", from "aerobics" to "aerosol". The prefix "air-", which means exactly the same thing as "aer-" or "aero-", is also used frequently, as with the examples you cite and also "airship", "airway", etc. Both "aer(o)" and "air" derive from the Latin and Greek "aer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aeroplane 1866, from Fr. aéroplane (1855), from Gk. aero- "air" + stem of Fr. planer "to soar," from L. planus "level, flat" (see plane). Originally in ref. to surfaces (such as the protective shell casings of beetles' wings); meaning "heavier than air flying machine" first attested 1873, probably an independent Eng. coinage[5]

airplane 1907, from air + plane; though the original references are British, the word caught on in Amer.Eng., where it largely superseded earlier aeroplane (1873 in this sense and still common in British Eng.; q.v.). Aircraft "airplane" is also from 1907; airship is 1888, from Ger. Luftschiff "motor-driver dirigible."[6]

airport 1919, from air + port. First ref. is to Bader Field, outside Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S., which opened in 1910.[7]

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Airfield", also, (1919 given in my source) and "aerodrome" (1908). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Aeroport" is occasionally heard in English (often facetiously), but is the common word for airport in other European languages (French, Spanish, Russian...) FiggyBee (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many cargo aircraft are older passenger aircraft which have been converted. These aircraft usually (but not always, particularly in the case of smaller aircraft or aircraft which may be regularly switched to carry passengers or cargo) have their windows blanked. A lack of windows makes the aircraft easier to service and to paint, and also provides a small safety advantage in case of a crash (rescuers don't waste time trying to look through windows that have nothing behind them). Newly-built passenger aircraft have window holes cut in early in the process [8]. Cargo aircraft don't [9]. Adding windows to a completed aircraft is not easy, so the reverse conversion is rarely if ever done. FiggyBee (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "window = weakness" theory is supported by the case of the world's first jet airliner, the de Havilland Comet, which kept disintegrating during it's early commercial flights. By the time they found out that it was metal fatigue in the window frames, the Boeing 707 had taken most of the orders. Alansplodge (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The de Havilland Comet had structural problems due to itys big square windows, which had to be changed to small round ones. The article also mentions some of the reasons why modern planes no longer have their engines buried in the wing. I believe that some airplanes were built to be capable of having modules for passengers or cargo inserted or removed. 92.29.91.224 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Family Cemetery - Missouri

Can you tell me where exactly the Wood Family Cemetery is located in Monroe County Missouri? I believe it is located on someones Farm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.14.199 (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked in Google? Have you tried contacting the county office? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page, where you would expect to find some information, doesn't seem to have any. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This'll sound silly, but you might try the county health department, county vital records department, or whichever agency in that county issues Burial Permits and Death Certificates. Typically, the cemetery will need a permit from the county to actually bury someone - and that permit lists where the deceased will be interred. They may have records as to where that cemetery is located. You might also track down an obituary for someone you know to have been buried at the cemetery; in many cases, the obit will list where the burial will take place, and will include an address if the location is off the beaten path, so to speak. Your other best bet would be the local genealogical or historical society, if one exists in your area. Many states also require cemeteries to be registered in some fashion - so there might be a state office that has a list. Of course, if this is an old family cemetery, and if it doesn't conduct active burials, then you might be out of luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]