Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:03, 14 May 2022

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

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.

May 7

Us supreme court

Members of — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B110:AD58:B910:2463:23C2:CAE6 (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Supreme Court of the United States. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See misogynists. Fgf10 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTFORUM. --Lambiam 18:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chewing gum sticks availability in Poland

For some weird reason I couldn't find chewing gum in sticks (except for kids) in several convenience stores, shops and supermarkets in Warsaw, as all had it only in pellets or tablets. Particularly, there were no Wrigley's Spearmint or Juicy Fruit in sticks at all. Is it some local problem or part of wider picture? Brandmeister^talk 17:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing chewing gum in sticks for grown-ups anywhere in Europe in the last umpty years. --Lambiam 18:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of chewing gum being categorized into kids and grown-up varieties. Our chewing gum article doesn't seem to have heard of this distinction either. Is the difference simply in the packaging or what? Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most chewing gum cannot be used as bubble gum. I consider blowing gum bubbles to be somewhat childish, and if a branded chewing gum has a bubbly name, such as Bubble Yum or Bubblicious, and is also advertized as "bubble gum",^[1][2] I think the branding aims at kids. --Lambiam 06:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better that than chewing tobacco. See also Big League Chew. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's Orbit for Kids, which is marketed for them and this is the only stick gum available in Warsaw. Looks like I have to contact local supermarkets to clarify the availability issue. Brandmeister^talk 16:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is BrainPOP considered a reliable source by Wikipedia’s criteria?

Courtesy link: BrainPop

The question is in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primal Groudon (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more appropriate venue for this question is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please note that the notion of reliable source is not absolute, but also depends on the context in which the source is cited. I must say, though, that it appears unlikely to me that encyclopedic material that needs to be sourced cannot be sourced from a more appropriate source than BrainPOP, accessing whose content costs money while the permanence of their content is iffy. Do they allow archiving their content? I don't think so. --Lambiam 06:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's of marginal utility at Wikipedia, it's a low-level tertiary source, meaning that a) pretty much everything they cover is only at a very basic level, and b) literally nothing there is not already well covered by other sources. I can't think of a single reason why that would be the best source. Note, however, that this has nothing to do with paid access: WP:PAYWALL makes it very clear that we are agnostic on paid vs. free sources. However, in this case, we're essentially looking at multimedia, general knowledge encyclopedia aimed at children. I can't think of any reason that another source wouldn't be better. This applies to other similar sources like Crash Course (YouTube) or even things like Khan Academy that might be aimed at a more advanced audience: the information contained therein is fine, but there's nothing from those tertiary sources that would not be better served by citing more appropriate secondary sources. --Jayron 32 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Natural gas odorant and Havana disaster

Where I live, natural gas is commonly burned for heating and cooking, and the supply in the gas mains is always treated with an odorant so that if there is a leak, people will smell it. I've heard that this practice was established following the New London School explosion disaster in Texas in 1937.

On a TV news report about the recent disaster in Havana, I heard that this was because of a natural-gas leak. I suppose it's possible that some other sort of gas is burned in Cuba and the reporter's reference to natural gas was an error, but if not, I am led to wonder whether natural gas in Cuba contains an odorant. Anyone know? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latest that I've read (AP, I think),^{[citation needed]} during construction (refurbishing) there was a crane lifting out an old natural gas storage tank when it happened. Speculation is discouraged, but it probably wasn't just a "leak". --2603:6081:1C00:1187:980D:B7DC:4B69:46AD (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An AFP story of two days ago, with the by-line Rigoberto DIAZ, had this: "Mr Roberto Calzadilla of state company Gaviota, which owns the hotel, said the explosion happened while a gas tank was being refilled." --Lambiam 05:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must have conflated the line A large crane hoisted a charred gas tanker out of the rubble Saturday from this AP report: [3] 2603:6081:1C00:1187:980D:B7DC:4B69:46AD (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odorants can be added to every kind of gas and they usually are for domestic applications. That doesn't rule out explosions. In my country (Netherlands), an odorant has been added to the domestic natural gas supply for decades, yet every year a few homes explode (of the 10 million homes we've got). Natural gas gets phased out mostly for climate reasons, but the far majority of homes still has a gas pipe for heating and very often cooking too. Sometimes nobody's around to smell it or people do smell it, but don't recognise the danger. PiusImpavidus (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances suggest a catastrophic leakage during refilling, so everyone was probably well aware that there was a problem for the brief time before the explosion. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that if there was an explosion then an odorant must not have been in use; I was wondering if an odorant was in use. I know nothing about the regulation of natural gas, or indeed other gases, in Cuba. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Caravan

In the Sahara Desert, what is the maximum time a camel caravan can expect to have to travel without any opportunity to refill their water supply? 2601:646:8A81:6070:DD66:FADA:7337:C84 (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Trans-Saharan trade it says Ibn Battuta crossed the desert from Sijilmasa via the salt mines at Taghaza to the oasis of Oualata. A guide was sent ahead and water was brought on a journey of four days from Oualata to meet the caravan. Consulting Ibn Battuta's account of his journey, they travelled for seven days (from a water source at Tásarahlá) before being met with water. The article says "runners", but I calculate that the caravan took the same four days to travel the final stretch as the guide. (I base this on it being "a journey from Sijilmása of two months to a day", and these two lunar months being 59 days probably, and various timespans mentioned along the way adding up to 55 days at the point where the caravan was met with water.) So I'm going to say "slightly more than seven days, but definitely fewer than eleven". By the way, the text uses phrases like "ten nights' journey" and "four nights' journey", so perhaps I mean 7 to 11 nights. Card Zero (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this as a mathematical problem and assuming they rely only on permanent water sources and trek from oasis to oasis, this requires determining the pole of inaccessibility, being the centre of the largest circle that does not overlap with an oasis. The radius of the circle is an upper bound, in case the caravan wants to reach that pole, and twice the radius if they want to return or move on. For that we need a map of the oases that dot the Sahara. Taking the map found here (search for "this is the best I could find") – which I assume not to be complete, though – the pole of inaccessibility seems to be the circumcentre of the circumscribed circle of the triangle formed by El Golea (El Menia), Taodenni and Tamanrasset. Using the distances given by Google map "as the crow flies", the circumradius is about 740 km. Of course, "as the crow flies" is not "as the ship of the desert sails (or ambles)". The speed seems to be about human walking speed, 5 km/h, so traversing 1480 km would require some 300 hours. At 10 hours a day, that would be about a month. --Lambiam 21:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they had to spend a whole month without water then they would all die (both the people AND the camels), so they would avoid such arid areas, especially since those are also completely uninhabited (remember, the whole purpose of a caravan is to deliver supplies to people, so they would go between habitations in the desert, not to uninhabited areas) -- in fact, they would only go into the really arid, waterless areas if they have to, and generally would set their route so as to be reasonably certain of finding a water source within reach. And if they have to go between Taodenni and Tamanrasset -- I expect that they would take the long way around! 2601:646:8A81:6070:E4C1:B321:D6C1:FE54 (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about not refilling a water supply, which assumes that the caravan set out with a water supply. Only when the supply runs out would they find themselves without water, so the question may be interpreted as, a water supply for how many days is guaranteed to be enough?

Lambian's mathematical answer above assumes that in the Sahara a caravan could travel any route with equal ease. In practice I suspect that the terrain puts serious constraints on possible routes, so actual possible journeys between two points may have to take a much longer route than the crow would fly if crows flew over the Sahara. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I said it is an upper bound. (b) I acknowledged that "as the crow flies" may not be the appropriate metric. (c) Most transportation in the Sahara between populated places today is by motorized vehicle, not by beast of burden; the latter, if not used for tourist excursions, may be needed for expeditions to uninhabited areas. (d) The question may refer to a scenario in which Indiana Jones mounts an archaelogical expedition to find the lost city of Jazirat-al-Fatina, whose site he believes to be remote from extant accessible places. --Lambiam 16:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was actually referring to a scenario where a group of Interpol detectives travel with a caravan through the Sahara Desert in pursuit of an international terrorist who had fled there, their route being from Tangier to Tunis via either Adrar and/or Hassi Messaoud. 2601:646:8A81:6070:B56B:12FC:AB50:DBBC (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any legal systems (in the world), that grant inheritance rights to the co-parent (who is not the spouse/concubine nor a genetic relative) of the intestate deceased?

Whether the shared descendants are still alive or had died (without property) before the deceased passed away.

Please notice that the question becomes irrelevant in case the shared children died only after the deceased passed away, because in this case they have already inherited the property and bequeathed it to both of their parents (i.e. including the co-parent).

By one's co-parent I mean, one's biological offspring's other biological parent. Here is a concrete example: A boy's biological parents, have never been spouses, nor anything similar to that, nor do they have any genetic relationship. The boy, who was not raised by them, died some years ago. Some years later, his father died as well, but has written no will and has no (known) living genetic relatives. My question is about whether there's any legal system, granting the father's property - or at least some of it - to the living mother (or vice versa if the father is still alive but she has just died intestate), as a kind of "natural" inheritance or something like that. HOTmag (talk)

At this point, you're toeing the line with regard to the prohibition on asking for, and receiving, legal advice, per the header "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice." If you have concerns about the inheritance rights of yourself or anyone in your family, you should seek the advice of a lawyer. --Jayron 32 18:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No legal advice at all, and please assume good faith. It's actually my academic research (in comparative jurisprudence), about inheritance rights (in any legal system in the world), granted to co-parents and/or to their offsprings. Persoanlly, I have no connection with co-parents. HOTmag (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never once said you weren't acting in good faith. You can still do the wrong thing while acting in good faith. Bad faith means you intend to do the wrong thing. Someone can be acting in good faith, and still be wrong. --Jayron 32 12:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody "can be acting in good faith and still be wrong", then the only wrong thing I have done is my asking you to assume good faith. Just as the only wrong thing you have done is your assuming I was toeing the line with regard to any prohibition. HOTmag (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would take the word of random users, rather than doing proper research? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't master all legal systems in the world, but I do assume that any random user who answers me about any legal system I'm not aware of (e.g. the Icelandic one or the Tibetan one or whatever), has much better knowledge than I may have in that legal system they tell me about. Wasn't that obvious since the very beginning? Anyway, once I get any initial information about any legal system, I will check it out by myself as well, in order to get more details. HOTmag (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong and Macau, pre-Handover (and later?) acknowledged the legal rights of concubines. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concubine and co-parent are two different things: There are concubines who have never become parents (nor co-parents), and there are parents (and co-parents) who have never been spouses nor concubines. HOTmag (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand, de facto partners of a relationship which is at least three years old or who have a child together have similar rights to marriage. See Relationship property laws and how they can affect wills as a possible starting point for your research.-gadfium 04:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found the words "three years", yet not the crucial word "child" by which parenthood (and co-parenthood) is defined. HOTmag (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what gadfium is describing is a good example of what you seem to be asking about. The NZ defacto partner laws generally apply to cohabitating couples and is more like the common law marriage and the couple are close to spouses. It sounds like you're interested in the situation where two people have only agreed to co-parent and do not otherwise have a personal relationship other than that which arises from co-parenting and perhaps from whatever got them there (as probably the most common way this happens is when the co-parents were in a romantic relationship but no longer). In some situations they may be cohabitating but wouldn't generally be called a couple. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Actually, by one's co-parent I mean, one's biological offspring's other biological parent. HOTmag (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the term Coparenting is a neologism that is certainly not more than a few decades old as a word; I have only every heard it since the start of the 21st century, and it's new enough that none of the free online dictionaries I can find has a dated etymology for it, such as etymonline or Merriam Webster. I don't have access to the full OED, so they may have an entry for it with a more definitive date-of-earliest-use, I doubt it is much before the year 2000. As a neologism, it doesn't have a firm formal and official definition in any legal system; though there is a chance that the some of the concepts covered by what coparenting may mean could be covered by some legal systems somewhere. It is certainly not a term that everyone would recognize like "mother" or "aunt" or something like that; at best most people recognize it because the "co-" prefix is productive, which is to say that you can created just about any novel word at any time using the co- prefix, and native English speakers will understand it just fine; so if you describe your relationship with another person as a "Co-parent", most people will know roughly what you mean, but there is not a long history of the term, and it's not a well-used term in the way that say, "mother", is. The U.S. situation is summed up here, note that the term "co-parent" or equivalent is non-existent in the legal code; this is generally referred to as Joint custody; not all states recognize joint custody, some require that the legal custodian of a child of non-married or non-cohabitating parents must be a single person; such states often allow negotiated visitation rights which may be the functional equivalent of joint custody except in a legal sense. For better or worse, child custody and parenting laws in the US at least have a presumption of children being born to married nuclear families, the law is pretty much silent on custody and parenting rights unless and until there is a situation that deviates from that, such as divorce, legal separation, or pregnancy out of wedlock. The rights of a "coparent" will vary depending on whether or not the parent is the biological parent of the child in question, and/or whether or not the parent has married the biological parent if they aren't, and whether or not the non-biological parent has legally adopted the child in question. If we're talking about a non-biological parent, who is not married to the biological parent, and who has also not been designated as the adoptive parent or legal guardian of the child in question, then there is usually no legal relationship between the child and that adult, regardless of whatever informal parenting arrangement may exist. It would really help if the OP would explain the exact situation they are asking about, since Co-parent as a word is a nebulous, not well-defined concept beyond "people who parent together but aren't married to each other". --Jayron 32 16:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response. Actually, the reason my original question had added a link to our article co-parent, was just that: to make sure the readers understood what I was asking about. Anyway, I'm referring to biological parents, whether the case involves joint custody, or doesn't. I have just added this clarification to my original question. HOTmag (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking about joint custody, that's the standard legal term in many English speaking countries. I would use that terminology, rather than the neologism "coparent", as your search term, and you are likely to find better results. Are you asking for the parent's inheritance from a deceased child, or a child's inheritance from a deceased parent? --Jayron 32 17:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the case involves joint custody, is irrelevant to my question - being only about inheritance rights granted to the co-parent of the deceased. As I have explained in my original question, by one's co-parent I mean, one's biological offspring's other biological parent. Here is a concrete example:

A boy's biological parents, have never been spouses, nor anything similar to that, nor do they have any genetic relationship. The boy, who was not raised by them, died some years ago. Some years later, his father died as well, but has written no will and has no (known) living genetic relatives. My question is about whether there's any legal system, granting the father's property - or at least some of it - to the living mother (or vice versa if the father is still alive but she has just died intestate), as a kind of "natural" inheritance or something like that. HOTmag (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it highly unlikely. Inheritance laws almost always involve either genetics or marriage. If two people have a child, and the child is dead, then one of the parents dies, if they are not married, the surviving parent has no claim to the inheritance of the deceased, unless they were so designated by a last will and testament. I have no reason to believe that any legal system in the world would recognize such an inheritance claim, under the extraordinary claims doctrine, there's no need to "prove a negative" here. The claim that such a situation did exist seems so unusual on the face that I don't think we need to hunt for them. --Jayron 32 12:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. However, user:gadfium, who has responded in this thread, seems to disagree with you - as far as the the NZ defacto partner laws are concerned. Indeed I'm not claiming user:gadfium is correct (I doubt if they are), but unless we prove they are wrong - there's still a need to "prove a negative" here. HOTmag (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, they seem to be referring to common law marriage-type situations, where cohabitating partners can establish the same legal protections as formally married partners. That seems different than your scenario; I took your scenario to mean two people who have a child together, but live separately. --Jayron 32 14:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

French death records

I would be grateful if a user could please inform me where I can find French death records between the years 1945 to 1970. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have some suggestions. --Jayron 32 12:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayron for your prompt reply which I appreciate. However the link you gave me only gives the death records from 1970 onwards. I also require death records between the years 1945 to 1970. I would therefore be grateful if you could please suggest where I can find these records. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure; such records may or may not be available freely online. I haven't looked to deeply at that search, but some countries may restrict access to certain records before a certain time-frame, such as 100 years, in order to protect the privacy of individuals or their close relatives. The U.S. Census, for example, will not release individual census records (stuff like names, addresses, ages, etc.) for 72 years. France may or may not have similar privacy laws for records of a certain age. --Jayron 32 15:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayron once again for your help and research which I appreciate. I have found that French death records for the years 1970 to 2018 are freely available for all on the internet. It would therefore seem strange if the death records for the years 1945 to 1970, which are older records, are not available. I would therefore be grateful if you could please assist me to locate them. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The register from 1970 onward is called Fichier des personnes décédées. The French state's commission in charge of questions related to freedom of information [...] argued that the register was a set of administrative documents not containing any personal data in need of protection, since the persons concerned were not alive anymore. This explains nothing about records prior to 1970, and helps you very little. I searched for "Fichier des personnes decedees avant 1970" and found this post on a French genealogy forum. Automatic translation follows: Before 1970 there are no INSEE statistics on death data. It is therefore necessary to use all the usual conventional means. For a death after 1945, one will generally find the mention of death on the fringes of the birth certificate. For a death between 1900 and 1970, when the acts are not online on the site of the departmental or municipal archives, there remains the solution to question the town hall of the place of death or burial. Search for death in Succession Tables and absences by registration office (in AD). Search for burial (raised, photo) on online sites. When you have no idea of the municipality or the date, it remains a complicated search, you must try to tighten the period from the other acts available (death of the spouse, marriage of the children, ...) who can give an indication. Here AD is "archives départementales", that is, you could seek out local records. It might be his place of birth which is needed, rather than last address? "Succession Tables and absences" is a translation of tables de successions et absences. Sometimes they are abbreviating this to TSA. Another quote: If you know where this person lived, you could consult the censuses, you would have their place and year of birth. Card Zero (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing an electric fence

I've downloaded a couple of walks around Gloucestershire and they say "cross the electric fence". Of course, until I go on the walks, I don't know if the fence is there. In case it is, how do I cross an electric fence without getting zapped. I'm way to old to jump over it. Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be stiles at those places, allowing you to cross fences fairly easily. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such fences are designed to discourage livestock, and in my experience often have their strands wide enough apart that one can slip between them without touching flesh to them (dry clothing is enough to insulate the current). Also, the shocks they deliver (usually in brief pulses rather than continuously) are, though not exactly pleasant, bearable if one is expecting them. I have traversed electric fences several times in this manner. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like that funfair game where you move a metal hoop along an undulating copper wire? Ah, what fun. Would you feel as confident if you had a pacemaker fitted? But, yes, it is low voltage and in pulses. If you're very lucky you might even find the box and be tempted turn it off temporarily. (Although that might be a criminal offence, lol.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the landowner must provide a means of crossing. Many have an insulated handle on the wire, you can use the handle to unhook the wire, pass through, and then re-connect after yourself. If you find a public right of way obstructed by an electric fence with no safe means of crossing then report it to the local authority. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP suggestion sounds like a lot more fun. :) Maybe the ramblers who devise walks in Gloucestershire are just a lot more sadistic. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As children we used to dare each other to touch electric fences. If you time it right you can touch between the pulses and not get shocked. Sometimes you can hear the pulse. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When nature's calling, don't be stalling, use your common sense. Before you let it flow, find a place to go, just don't whiz on the electric fence! --Jayron 32 16:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the greatest game in the whole yide yurld! Card Zero (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that one of the big differences between UK public rights-of-way and US rights-of-way is that in the US, with few exceptions, roads and other rights-of-way are usually public land and rarely, if ever, would require a person to cross private land. Rights of way in England and Wales often cross private property, and property owners are required to allow access to designated rights-of-way across their land. Such rights-of-way may be very disused, to the point of being basically invisible, but as long as they a) exist on a map so designating it (some of which may date to time immemorial) and b) no subsequent law has removed said road from the designated map, the right-of-way exists and the public must have access to it. The U.S. does have private roads, but in general all public roads are property of the state or local governments, and are built on public land; when new roads are designated the land is purchased from private owners via eminent domain and is then owned by the government itself. The U.S. has no requirement that private property owners allow access to the public at large to cross their property, with the exception of specific easements attached to a property for use by things like public utilities to access their equipment. There's no situation in the U.S. where I would be walking down a footpath, and where said footpath crosses someone's private property, and where they are required to allow me and anyone else the right to cross their property on that footpath. The U.S. does have greenways that are often the equivalent of Long-distance footpaths in the UK, but again, these are on public land (or as part of a public/private partnership of some sort) and do not cross random people's farms or things like that; unless such land was previously acquired by the government for such use. As always, please feel free to correct my assessment of UK law here, it comes from the understanding of an outsider, but this video by native Briton Tom Scott seems to confirm my understanding. My thoughts are aligned with DuncanHill that these means of crossing said electric fence are required by UK law to allow people to access rights-of-way on said property. --Jayron 32 16:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important to note anything about US practices, when the question was about the UK? --184.144.97.125 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am an asshole, as you have correctly surmised. --Jayron 32 16:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The British concept of public rights-of-way is pretty special. Most of the world is more similar to the US in this respect. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, it's not so that generally public rights-of-way are wholly owned by the government. See for instance this discussion for Washington[4]: As a general rule, a city or county right-of-way is an easement for public travel. (An easement is a privilege or a right, distinct from ownership, to use in some way the land of another.) So, typically, a city or county does not own the fee title to the property underlying the public right-of-way; the abutting property owners have that fee title, and that title usually extends to the centerline of the right-of-way. (Because this is a “general rule,” there are always exceptions.) But also that the state typically has fee title to the land for state highways. For Georgia[5]: ...it is well established that where title to a public road or highway is not shown to be in the public by express grant, there is a presumption that it exists merely as an easement...the great majority of cases, however, an express grant or express dedication is by fee simple It will depend on the conveyances, municipal code, county ordinances, state laws, court rulings etc. Very often when walking along a sidewalk you would be walking on private land and the owner allows you and anyone else the right to cross their property on that footpath.

The Appalachian Trail began with 60% crossing private land, with easements and informal grants.[6], but i think is now wholly or almost wholly publicly owned. There has been an effort since the seventies to acquire land for the National Trails System through purchase and use of eminent domain[7], but many still rely on easements (10% for the Pacific Crest Trail[8]) Also rights-of-way may not dependent on a conveyance in title, but come from acts of the legislature such as various states beach access laws, various recreational use statutes[9], or prescriptive or adverse possession easements under common law such as for the dispute over the Crazy Mountain trails[10] We are most certainly "right to exclude" over "right to roam"[11], but there are many cases where a private landowner would be required to allow the public to cross their land. fiveby(zero) 21:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your corrections and expansions on the topic. --Jayron 32 11:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having to cross an electric fence using such stiles when I was about 7 years old. Back then, my legs where too short to safely cross that way and I got zapped. When I had to cross the same fence again later, my mother offered me to hold her hand instead of the wet wooden post of the stile. Both of us walked on rubber boots, which seemed to work. I didn't get zapped again. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrogWoolley: If there is a right of way, there should be pinch posts; two posts very close together but with enough room for you to turn sideways and squeeze past.--Ykraps (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

$300,000 per berth

What does this sentence mean in the article Queen Mary 2?

Queen Mary 2 was intended for regular scheduled crossings of the Atlantic Ocean; the final cost was approximately $300,000 per berth.

Does it mean that tickets to a scheduled crossing cost $300,000 per individual cabin? If so, how can the price be that high? I just had a look at the ship's official website and saw that tickets to a transatlantic cruise start at £742 per person, which is far more reasonable. Or if the sentence does not mean that, what does it mean then? JIP | Talk 12:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cost to build divided by amount of rooms = cost per berth (to build) = 300,000 is what I think they're trying to say. Nanonic (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it's more like the cost of the berth itself, rather than for a ticket to use the berth? JIP | Talk 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, have checked the source and that's what they mean. Suppose it's useful to find out how many sailings you'll have to do to make a profit. Nanonic (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It seems from reading our article this is referring to the construction and checking out the source confirms this. I don't know if it's a normal way to describe the cost of an ocean liner. But in any case even considering the added running costs, it shouldn't be surprising that the owners don't expect to make their initial outlay back with one ticket or even 10 so the difference between the cost of a single ticket and the construction cost shouldn't be that surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Review of article

I have made a article named "Mothparja". It is a village. It exists on Google Maps with same name mentioned above. But except that I can't find it's coordinates to add them on Wikipedia. I don't have much references to add because it is a small village. I have a lot of information about it but not much references. So please help me to improve this article (Mothparja). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FAAHS (talk • contribs) 08:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The English word "coordinates" means "latitude and longitude", which you have added. 89.240.119.222 (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We are the first" (Fermi Paradox)

Lex Fridman recently had Christopher E. Mason on as a guest. Mason is a proponent of the "we are the first" explanation for the Fermi Paradox, which over the last 15 years or so has become more popular.

My question for the ref desk is, how can this be? I was under the assumption that due to the timeline and evolution of the universe, the probability or likelihood that we are the first intelligent alien species is much lower than other explanations, as there has been enough time for other species to have come and gone.

To narrow the question, are the assumptions that we could be the first intelligent species in the universe on equal or greater footing with other explanations? And if so, what recent changes to our understanding of the universe have led to the more recent popularity of this explanation over others?

I should note, there was a YouTuber who attempted to answer this question a few years ago with detailed explanations for the supporting assumptions, including data and evidence from recent missions, but they seemed too arbitrary and haphazard when I first heard it. In other words, I wasn’t convinced by their argument. Am I missing something? Should this be the default assumption? Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we are the first life, we are the first intelligent life, or we are the first life to explore space? The latter appears in the article under Extraterrestrial intelligence is rare or non-existent, and sounds reasonable to me. Space is very big, so we assume multiple instances of abiogenesis are likely, creating lots of opportunities for this unlikely thing, space exploration, to happen. Those are two opposed probabilities which we can't measure. Even if life is likely, we don't know how unlikely space exploration is. Card Zero (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that we are the first intelligent life to arise in the universe. As I said above, this explanation has become more popular over the last 15 years. There’s a YouTuber (whose name escapes me at the moment) who backs this up with selected assumptions based on our current understanding of the universe. As I write this, I’m starting to see this is really a subset of the rare Earth hypothesis, which is apparently back in vogue. The YouTuber in question argued that this is because our latest observations support the idea that the conditions needed for life to arise are rarer that we used to think. I have no idea if this is true. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems of these assumptions is that the universe is so huge, and the number of planets likely to be so huge; just about any probability of any size that Earth could form the first time, it could form somewhere else. There's a small-but-possible probability that we are currently the only life of our level of "intelligence" within our own galaxy. Given the number of galaxies in the visible universe, however, extending that to all of the visible universe is just not reasonable. At those scales, the Law of truly large numbers becomes relevant. It is also worth noting that the Fermi paradox was really only ever extended to our own galaxy; under our current understanding of the laws of physics and our technological ability for the near future, resolving signs of intelligent life is only barely possible at the scale of the Milky Way. Extending to other galaxies, it may not be possible to ever detect even the most advanced civilizations outside our own galaxy. --Jayron 32 12:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I should have limited this discussion just to intelligent life in our galaxy. With that said, why do you think someone like Mason, who works closely with NASA, takes this position? To me, it seems like another way of saying he’s a proponent of the rare Earth hypothesis, because they rely on the same assumptions. So maybe I should rephrase my question for you: how likely is the rare Earth hypothesis given all the other hypotheses? Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However if it is very improbable that life can arise, then Earth may be the only place. Say there is a 10⁻⁴⁰⁰ chance that the right molecules could form and be in the right place for a life form to arise on a planet, then Earth would be the only place in the observable universe. The problem is to get the information into the system. It could be extremely unlikely, or deliberate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant to the discussion is the idea of the Great Filter, the notion that while intelligent life similar to ours could be very common, but to reach the level of detectability by other intelligent life, such a civilization would need to cross some extremely difficult barrier that none yet has. --Jayron 32 12:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more sophisticated form of the argument that we are likely not alone is based on an equation of the kind (1 − p_E)^H = 1 − p_U, where p_E is a very small but positive number while H is humungous, and the conclusion is that p_U is very very close to 1. It is possible to give convincing lower bounds for H that are indeed truly humungous, but any lower bounds I've seen for p_E have no solid scientific basis. If p_E ~ 1/H, the argument falls flat. --Lambiam 15:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proportion of Wikipedia articles primarily written by one person?

I saw, above, someone had written their own article, and it's primarily edited by them. Similarly, I have articles like that. And I was wondering if anyone knew what proportion of Wikipedia articles are just one person's "baby", like maybe that 1 person has written 75%+ of the content, for example? 2A00:23C8:4384:FB00:354E:690B:4FF5:390F (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you would determine that, nor if we should see it as a good thing. I've created a few articles, so for a while they were 100% my own work, but fortunately other editors came along later and improved them. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per HiLo48, there is currently no way to extract that information. It may be technically possible to do a full database scrape, find how much of the current text of an article matches the text added by each person who edited that article, and figure out a percentage of current text that each person added, compile a list of those people and answer your question. Given the absolutely huge size of the Wikipedia database, which is not just the text of Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia, but also includes the full data of every edit ever made to any article ever, accounting for 5.6 TB of data. The task is not likely to ever be done. --Jayron 32 12:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's this Wikimedia toolserver tool for finding contributors per-article. I guess one could hit the "random article" button a thousand times, and run the results through this tool, and call it a survey. Card Zero (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I specialize in Greek Letter Organizations, and I think there are a few former members of the National Interfraternity Council and National Panhellenic Conference that I'm responsible for a great deal of the text. Also, difficult to figure out would be situations where a page has been created from another one when that page got too large. A *great* deal of text may be moved, and it would show up as being from one editor, when in fact many people contributed on the old page.Naraht (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. CardZero's utility does list the contributions of the current text by character count. That means we would just have a means of getting the output of that tool for every article, and scraping the one particular statistic from each run of the tool, then collecting those articles for which there is 1 editor with >75% of the added characters. Still daunting, but much more doable with the data readily available. --Jayron 32 14:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone. I agree that it's not really ideal to have one article primarily written by one person because it can introduce bias, but when I used to seriously edit Wikipedia 10+ years ago I realised that some popular articles have overprotective admins, so I would just make or significantly expand articles on niche but noteworthy topics of interest... now 'my' articles are greatly changed since those days, however. Because it's not ideal for an article to be primarily authored by one person, it's more the reason to know the proportion that are. I'm sure a script could get the data for 1000 articles using that toolserver tool, but I neither know how to code and nor am I *that* interested. Just wondering. Thanks again 2A00:23C8:4384:FB00:543F:6BC8:2B87:AF4F (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not ideal for an article to be primarily authored by one person, it's more the reason to know the proportion that are. How weird to see this here, as I was just having this conversation offline. To answer your question, the proportion of articles authored by one person is extremely high, and gets even higher as the article goes through the improvement process going from a stub to a FA. I believe the Signpost or some other internal report published the actual metrics behind this some years ago. This is also an example of how Wikipedia works in theory but not in practice. In reality, close collaboration between writers and editors is extremely rare, particularly before the article enters the improvement process pipeline. However, as it moves up the ladder, more collaboration is likely to occur in good faith, except in controversial topic areas where competing special interest editors tend to favor introducing bias over compromising for neutrality and article improvement. A great example of this is the edit history of Thomas Jefferson. Because no single author emerged as the dominant writer, multiple secondary editors arrived, each pushing disparate POV that failed to coalesce. Instead of compromising towards a working version, each editor stubbornly fortified their position and refused to budge. This is why the article remains B-Class to this day and is unable to move any higher in the improvement process. This is also why the first rule handed on down from those seeking to improve an article and its coverage is to avoid controversial subjects. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a tool called Who Wrote What which enables you to view contributors by hovering over the text of an article. --Viennese Waltz 11:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros dvd complaint

How do I contact Warner Bros about a DVD in the UK? 81.152.221.235 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean: you are in the UK and want to contact Warner Bros., or

you want to contact a representative of Warner Bros. who is in the UK, or

you want to contact Warner Bros. about a DVD that is or might be available in the UK?

Whichevers, the infobox in the linked article has their website linked at the bottom.

(That is, the link is at the bottom of the infobox, not that the infobox has a link to the website's bottom. Curse you, ambiguity!) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source of this image?

(https://www.winterson.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Titanic_in_dry_dock_c._1911__Getty_Images.jpg) What is the source of this image? I see it a lot and was thinking about it eventually being uploaded to an article. I am curious what the source is. Apparently, the image comes from Getty Images. This explains where it's being distributed, but not who took it or anything about it. RanDom 404 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons says it's RMS Olympic. (Seems the 1911 date gives it away as Olympic.) They've simply credited it to "Harland & Wolff Shipyard". Card Zero (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is very commonly misattributed. RanDom 404 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one really is the Titanic, if that helps. Card Zero (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

How and when did short hair become dominant over long hair for men in the US?

Pretty much all of the pre-revolutionary depictions of men in colonial America show men wearing long hair. At some point, this fell out of fashion and short hair became the norm. How and when did this happen? If I had to guess, I would venture that long hair fell out of favor with the adoption of industrial and factory work, where it could become a serious liability given close working quarters with machinery. Am I thinking in the right direction, or was there something else in play, like health concerns or war enlistment? Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Hairstyle has this: "Short hair for fashionable men was a product of the Neoclassical movement." That would place the transition probably in the last quarter of the 18th century to the first quarter of the 19th century – the same period that wigs for men fell out of fashion. This coincides with the Industrial Revolution. I don't know whether this is a mere coincidence. --Lambiam 03:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pigtails, Queues, and Campaign Wigs of Revolutionary War Soldiers has some information about the wearing of hair tied back into a queue in the War of Independence. I couldn't find a date when the US Army abandoned queues in favour of a short haircut, but our article says it was 1800 for the British Army and 1807 for the Prussians. I believe that the US employed Prussian military advisors at around that time. Alansplodge (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Army Lawyer (March 2012) p. 1 long hair in the US Army was abolished on 30 April 1801, by order of Major General James Wilkinson. It was highly unpopular with the troops and prompted several desertions. Alansplodge (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It coincides with the Age of Revolution, which contained the industrial revolution and several other ones. I suppose connecting hairstyle to political climate is a reach, but certainly modifying one's appearance is a way to assert a modern identity (and modern is a word with connections to fashion). C. Northcote Parkinson says that the following time period, from 1850, was an age of uncertainty, mediated by beards. Card Zero (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 186: / Line 186: @@
 How do I contact Warner Bros about a DVD in the UK? [[Special:Contributions/81.152.221.235|81.152.221.235]] ([[User talk:81.152.221.235|talk]]) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 :Do you mean: you are in the UK and want to contact [[Warner Bros.]], or
-:you want to contact a representitive of Warner Bros. who is in the UK, or
+:you want to contact a representative of Warner Bros. who is in the UK, or
 :you want to contact Warner Bros. about a DVD that is or might be available in the UK?
 :Whichevers, the infobox in the linked article has their website linked at the bottom.