Miscellaneous desk
< October 25	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 27 >

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.

October 26

Life expectancy of Elizabeth II

What is the current most widely accepted estimate as to how much longer Queen Elizabeth II will live, and is it likely that the monarchy will continue after her death? Also, if the United Kingdom were to abolish the monarchy following her death, would it be able to continue in other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada or Australia?99.251.239.89 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two questions are entirely guesswork. Elizabeth is 83 years old, so in principle she could pass away at any time — but on the other hand is generally described as being in good health, so there's no reason why we should expect her demise. Prince Charles automatically succeeds to the throne upon Elizabeth's death (the throne doesn't remain vacant under Commonwealth law), so absent a Constitional amendment the monarchy will absolutely continue after Elizabeth.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 established common rules of succession for all of the Commonwealth realms; the Statute's provisions for succession remain law in all of the realms. In principle, if any realm (including the UK itself) chose to abandon the monarchy then the sovereignty and succession of the Crown in the other realms would be unaffected. (By long convention, none of the Commonwealth realms may change their order of succession without the unanimous consent of the others — but that doesn't bar the others from eliminating the monarchy from their legal systems by constitutional amendment.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The government's life tables for people in England suggest that an average 83-year-old will live to 90. But with the best medical care, health which is apparently generally good, and a history of longevity in her family, she could well live longer. There is no reason to expect anything other than the succession of a new monarch on her death; while her eldest son is not universally popular, he remains the heir presumptive, has indicated that he wishes to succeed, and is expected to do so. It's hard to imagine any government attempting to challenge that on the death of Elizabeth, and there's no strong movement to abolish the monarchy. Of course, were there to be an unpopular monarch, that might strengthen the case for the abolition of the monarchy at a future date. Warofdreams talk 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles is heir apparent. Only females are heiresses presumptive, as Elizabeth herself was, even though her parents had only had daughters. When there are only daughters of a monarch, the assumption is that there is always the possiblity, however remote, that a son could later be born, supplanting the claims of any daughter. But Charles was the first-born of four children, so he will never be removed from the head of the line of succession unless he converts to Roman Catholicism, or marries a Catholic, or dies before his mother. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles hasn't been that great an heir apparent. I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth's plan is to outlive him. PhGustaf (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She might have that in mind, and is just stubborn enough to pull it off. To put a spin on an antique joke, the name of Charles' second son reminds me that Charles is both an heir apparent and an 'Arry parent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you are right that Charles is heir apparent, men can be heir presumptive - the younger brother of a King without any children, for example. --Tango (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that her mum lived to be over 100. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Queen Mum was born a year before Queen Victoria went to Valhalla, and lived a couple years past the Y2K problem - literally spanning the 20th Century. Yep, she saw a lot of changes in her time. And she was agin' every one of 'em. (Or I might have her confused with Titus Moody.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm against the monarchy. Just the same it's kind of fun to speculate about one aspect of it: Charles has apparently said that he will not be "King Charles", apparently because of some bad associations with that name, but IIRC his preference is "King George", which has much worse assonances for Americans.

His name is Charles Philip Arthur George. I think it's obvious which he should take. He should be King Arthur II. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that would go down to well. And though the Americans had problems with one earlier George, They didn't have that much problem with the most recent one, George VI If anything, it's Brits who have had complaints about a recent American ruler called George, but I digress :) Grutness...wha? 05:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George is an honored name among British royalty. That's an interesting idea, that he might switch names upon becoming king - just as his grandfather George VI did, as he went by Albert ("Bertie"), but probably had tired of all the "Prince Albert in the can" jokes. William is another honored name but there hasn't been a King William for quite awhile now. Prince William seems an agreeable sort, so once he finally becomes king after his old man croaks, he might become known as William the Concurrer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's been a William more recently than there's been just about anything else. And Charlie's alright, imo. As for regnal names, "Charles" is off the table because of the Stuarts, "Albert" because Edward VII declared the name should be reserved for his father, and "Arthur" because of mythological associations (Incidentally, he would be Arthur, not Arthur II, since even if we accept Arthur as historical the numbering only counts from 1066). I'm not sure how British people would feel about a "King Philip", as that name has a long royal history in France and Spain, but not England. FiggyBee (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the idea of King William always reminds me of Weeties Mitch Ames (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

There was a debate here a while back about whether Queen Mary I's husband (King Phillip II of Spain), was a co-monarch (Phillip I of England) or merely her consort. If the former is true, and Charles adopts Phillip as his regnal name (which nobody has ever seriously suggested), he'd be Phillip II of the UK. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you say Charles is "off the table", FiggyBee. Surely his parents were aware of the first 2 Charleses when they named him. It's only been of recent years that anything other than Charles III has been canvassed; Charles himself added fuel to the fire by stating somewhere that he was considering calling himself George VII, but not, afaik, because of any negative historical connotations about the name Charles. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very common for a new monarch to choose a different regal name to their given name. His parents may have just thought Charles was a nice name and that he could choose a different one if he wasn't comfortable. --Tango (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite uncommon, actually. The first 5 Georges were all Georges; William IV was a William; Victoria was Alexandrina Victoria, but she was known as Victoria from an early age and she was never going to be Queen Alexandrina; Edward VIII was Edward (although he was known as David to his family); and Elizabeth II was Elizabeth. The only 2 historically recent exceptions were Edward VII, who was christened Albert Edward and chose his 2nd name; and George VI, who was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George and chose his 4th name. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Edward VII was originally Albert Edward; Edward VIII was originally Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David; and George VI was originally Albert Frederick Arthur George. Maybe ER II and her mate were just sick and tired of all the Edwards and Alberts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference [1] for the relevant section in Charlie's Article suggests an avoidance both of the Stuarts and of Bonnie Prince Charlie. FiggyBee (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles talks to plants. QED. SteveBaker (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would guess that those plants hold up their end of the conversation well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Liz likely has another 10 to 15 yrs (her mommy nearly made it 102). Charles has longevity as well (mom in 83, dad is 88). As for male heir-presumptives around the world? yep they're common, they even include the monarch's oldest son (just ask Prince Charles of Sweden). GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain that last comment? I've found Charles August, Crown Prince of Sweden who was adopted by a childless King - are you saying he was heir presumptive because the King could have had a natural child that would have taken precedence? I don't know how Swedish succession works, so that's entirely possible. It couldn't happen in the UK, though - adopted children aren't eligible to inherit the throne. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's talking about Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, who was the heir for a little while after his birth, but then they changed the law on him to put his elder sister ahead of him. I don't know if that really counts. They can always change the law, right? Even to make Richard Rich king, if Thomas More was right. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the fellow I'm speaking of. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was heir apparent for those few months, though. Just because you don't actually inherit doesn't mean you were heir presumptive. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if Victoria ascends the throne 'before' having a legitimate child, then Carl Philip would become the heir-presumptive. But yeah, he was 'heir-apparent' in 1979 (Victoria replaced him, New Year's Day 1980). GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I gave the example of a younger brother of a childless King being heir presumptive myself. The same is obviously true for a childless Queen in a country where the eldest child, regardless of sex, inherits the throne. --Tango (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see that Sweden, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands & Denmark (the ones I remember), have changed their succession laws (to eldest child). Perhaps someday, the UK & Spain will follow. Japan? not for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? That's your idea of a stroke for equality? How about just abolishing the monarchy? --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs serve a purpose. They're good for tourism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could start working on that ball of twine. --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they take care of all that pesky Head of State stuff, freeing up your elected officials to do the decision-making and discussing and anything that you'd want to hold people accountable for. And they're a fluffy abstract for everyone to say they're working under, so that the army (for example) are never supposed to be loyal to a specific government or politician, but rather to a fluffy abstract figurehead supposedly embodying the interests of the country. And since we're unlikely to confiscate their land, abolishing the monarchy would just remove the duties to the country they are supposed to carry out with the unfair quantities of money they'll already have. Real equality would be raising every child in equal circumstances with equal opportunities: that's not going to happen any time soon. The monarchy seems inconsequential to the equality of the country, and it's not like their lives are lives I'd wish on any member of my family. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly an egalitarian myself, except as regards formal equality; that is, equality under the law. But it seems incongruous to me to stick on one aspect of sex-based inequality, while upholding the underlying royal system deriving from feudalism.

Of course my real reason for wanting to abolish the (specifically British) monarchy is that it's the closest I ever expect to see to an admission that, in 1776, the Yanks were right and they were wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could happen. But the British take their time acting on some things. I read once that the British government established an outpost on cliffs overlooking the Channel, for the purpose of watching for Napoleon. And they kept allocating funding to it every year, to keep it going. Until they finally shut it down. In the 1940s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Charles ever be Duke of Normandy as his mother is Duchess?70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Normandy article has more. It would be an interesting coincidence, if Prince William, as King William, lives to a ripe old age: "William, Duke of Normandy, 2066 edition." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double-spacing with typewriters?

Please don't "exploit for [humorous] purposes...[your questioner's] youth and inexperience", but I don't remember a time when typewriters were common. In the days before electric and electronic typewriters, was it possible to doublespace a typescript by any means other than hitting the [similar to "Enter" on a computer keyboard] key twice? Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By doublespace you mean a blank line between each line of type, yes? (It's been awhile for me also.) Yes, there was a setting on at least some typewriters that when you did the "return" (i.e. the carriage return lever on the left side of the carriage) that it would skip a line. P.S. That term lives on with the "CR" character in the ascii character set, even though there is no "carriage" on a computer keyboard as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article [2] while not showing it, points out that many typewriters had a "line space mechanism". It controlled how far the paper would advance upon performing the carriage return. Normally it would be 1 line. You could do 2 lines (doublespace) or 1 1/2 lines (one and a half space), and sometimes others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you'd better archive that web-page doublequickwise, because GeoCities ("the gorgeous palaces, the cloud-capped towers") will vanish into fairy dust ("into air, into thin air") in fewer than 24 hours, as Yahoo! shuts the whole enterprise down. User:ThaddeusB has unleashed WebCiteBot_2 to archive as many of those references in Wikipedia articles as possible, but talk page references won't be saved, and I don't know where the Ref. desk would fall (and the archiving may have been done before you gave your link, as he tries to save the references in other languages of Wikipedia). See http://www.geocities.com —— Shakescene (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. So all that site's content will disappear, eh? As could wikipedia at some point. That's the nature of the internet. Nothing lasts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLASH!!! (3 bells) In the finest traditions of minitrue, I've rectified your link to one most kindly created by Thaddeus B (see User talk:ThaddeusB, passim). Of course that link will endure only so long as it's on http://www.webcitation.org and so long as WebCitation.org endures. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a several old typewriters. IIRC, there's a small lever somewhere on the carriage to adjust the paper advance from 0 to 2 lines in 1/2 line increments (see this image from a user manual). For the occasional doublespace in otherwise singlespaced text, it was easier to operate the carriage lever/carriage-return button twice. Astronaut (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The metal lug between the roller handle and the start of the ruler scale is the line-space setting lever.

The image on the right is the top left-hand corner of a brother 3912 Electric Correction typewriter, circa 1984. You can see a little metal lug with the settings R, 1, 1½, 2. Those are for free-rolling, one line, one and a half lines, and two lines. free-rolling is similar to inserting text in a drawing software package at any height on the page ("grid off", if you like). God but this makes me feel old :) Grutness...wha? 05:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the most useful setting was for 1-1/2 line-spaces, even though it was probably the least-used, because while double-spacing by hitting Carriage Return twice was trivial (if tiresome to repeat over and over again), adjusting for spaces that weren't exact multiples of one was tedious. Footnotes, subscripts and accents (often added by hand) were a particular chore. You could hit Carriage Release and move the paper up or down a little for such purposes, but then returning to match the original line was difficult and rarely perfect. When writing copy for publication, I often triple-spaced or quadruple-spaced so that there was enough room to show whether a particular (usually handwritten) mark, edit or adjustment referred to the line above it or the one below it. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example, from my old typewriter. It had three settings, which I've drawn arrows to: 1, 1 1/2 (represented by that little line), and 2. It also had a release-bar to free-form the positioning of the paper. You're right that that kind of manipulation was a serious pain, to be avoided if at all possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems like something to be added to theh typewriter article. Gzuckier (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An added point no-one's mentioned: When you turned the paper up by hand on a machine which didn't have a carriage return lever (e.g., using the round knob on the end of the platen in the first photo), you'd move it up two "clicks" to get a whole line space. This meant you could move it up half a line only if you wished, to add a superscript or subscript character. Grutness...wha? 13:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic page advance? My those were advanced! My old one I had to move a pointer to the appropriate letter on a pad and then press another lever for each letter. You could change font by replacing a cylinder with the letters on :) To be serious though I couldn't see anything like that on wikipedia, sounds like another article waiting to be written. Dmcq (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I just realised that there is no enter key on a typewriter...I remember playing with my parents' typewriter when I was little (insert a piece of scrap paper and type gibberish :-), but it's been long enough that I didn't remember that you had to hit the lever to go down a line. Thanks much for the input; I'd imagined that the answer to my question would be "no", and that the only way to do anything except hitting carriage return twice was to move the paper with your hands and hope that you had placed the paper in the right place. Sorry if there were any confusion at the beginning of this question: yes, I did mean "doublespace" as we think of it on a computer. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "enter" key is equivalent to "return", and I have a vague recollection that some computer keyboards (or maybe keypunch machines) called that key "return". And when you're typing certain kinds of text in a computer, "enter" essentially behaves like "return". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there really is this type of key on a typewriter? I looked at the photos at typewriter and didn't see one, and assumed that all typewriters had something like part #13 on the (not yet gone) Geocities diagram. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that some older keyboards had "return" in place of "enter". Now, it's possible some of the more recent electric typewriters had a "return key" of some kind. I don't know. But in the case of my old manual typewriter, the return "key" was that lever in the upper left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were some electric typewriters that had this key. I'm pretty sure the IBM Selectric did. These were almost all in office or professional use, I think; they were a bit pricy to buy your kid for a book report on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I don't remember whether it was called Return or Enter. --Trovatore (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother electric typewriter (as pictured above) had a return key (not an "enter key"). Note that Mac computers tend to use "return" and "Enter" interchangeably (my iBook G4 has both words on its key, and the keyboard on my old iMac simply says "return"). Grutness...wha? 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a typewriter with an "enter" key. I think most electric ones except for cheap portables had a "return" key. I'm pretty sure my mom's Olivetti had one. Some cheaper electrics had no powered return mechanism, so you'd return the carriage by hand (with a lever), just like a manual typewriter. That made the mechanism simpler and lighter. As with the OP, the era of typewriter hegemony over computers was a bit before my time, but I do remember using them, and I owned a tiny manual one (mostly as a curio) from a flea market until fairly recently. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. With mechanical typewriters the paper moves to the left with each letter you type, and the carriage return lever is how you move it back to the right and also advance the paper. Conventional electric typewriters move the paper the same way, but you press a return key. Typeball (IBM Selectric) and daisywheel typewriters move the print head left and right, not the paper, and the Return key may then be officially called "carrier return"; but it's still called Return. Incidentally, it's Return on the computer terminal keyboard I'm typing on, too.

I've used a mechanical typewriter that did not have the capability of advancing by half-lines; the settings for the paper-advance control were 1, 2, and 3 for single, double, and triple spacing. --Anonymous, 23:35 UTC, October 27, 2009.

Leroy Anderson composed a famous musical piece called "The Typewriter" (mp3) which features a mechanical typewriter as a solo instrument, if you want to hear what one sounds like. Nobody seems to have mentioned that manual typewriters were usually equipped with a bell that would ring when you were getting near the end of a line, so you would know to return the carriage if you weren't watching it. It appears prominently in the Anderson piece. For some reason electric typewriters in my memory didn't seem to have that feature. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese and booze

On a silly TV show I saw (Spooks), they said that eating fatty cheese will help a person cope with being plied with drinks (that is, will help them stay relatively sober, compared to what they normally would be). This was not actually even evidenced by the characters in the episode (read: silly show), but I was curious whether there was any truth to this in real life? (No, not medical advice, I am not planning to eat a bunch of cheese, do shots, and go driving.) --98.217.71.237 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the more you have in your stomach, the slower the alcohol will enter your system (maybe it's not necessarily the speed of absorption but someone will be along to correct me if I'm wrong). Breads are good for this as well. Dismas|^(talk) 12:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known that having a full stomach stops you getting drunk as quickly (students have been known to exploit to reverse - fasting before a night out so you won't have to spend as much on drinks!). Whether fat is better than other food, I really don't know. --Tango (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any volunteers to test this phenomenon? :P - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 14:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spooks is definitely one of those shows where they should've known when to call it a day. It's gone from being a quasi-realistic "gritty" drama where the characters did vaguely-intelligence-officer-like things, to a run-of-the-mill spy show where they spend three-quarters of their time running around with guns and gadgets, saving themselves, each other and/or the world every week by some ridiculous contrivance. Ahem. Anyway. Yes, the more you have to digest, the slower the alcohol will get into your system. FiggyBee (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite sources on the reference desk — your last statement is that there is a linear relationship, which sounds doubtful. If it were true, you could stuff yourself to the gills and your shots of vodka would barely get you intoxicated. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement doesn't say its linear, just that it is monotonic (ie. more food always means slower absorption, regardless of the amounts of food and alcohol being compared) - that is probably true. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is not on the amount of food, but the food being cheese. Fatty foods cause delayed emptying of the stomach. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charities that build roads

I was wondering if anyone had heard of charities that focus on road building. I would think that was an effective way of reducing vulnerability to famine and spurring economic development in some regions, but I've never heard of a charity explicitly created for that. Do Engineers Without Borders do that? Or are roads so expensive and require so much planning and government involvement that they depend on World Bank or IMF funds? Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are charities concerned with transportation in the developing world, but I can't find any that focus on building roads. Transaid do general development-related transport aid[3], but don't seem to do much road building. Make Roads Safe campaigns for road safety globally[4]. Possibly it's too expensive for charities to do. The UK's Department for International Development does fund road building[5] - recently committing $100m on a project in the DRC.--Lesleyhood (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template to cite or reference TV news

Is there a way to cite or reference TV news reports. I'm referring to this [6] source in this [7] article, but also if I was just watching TV and there was a news report on, rather than it being a video on the news channel's website. As instructed (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the {{cite video}} template, which is documented at Wikipedia:Citation templates. For future reference, this Reference Desk doesn't specialize in questions about Wikipedia; the best source of answers for this type of question is Wikipedia:Help desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

airlines adress in lagos nigeria

please i want to know the adress of royal airmaroc in lagos[nigeria] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.177.74 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked in the Lagos telephone directory? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, they don't have an office in Nigeria - there's one in Niger (Niamey), Cameroon (Douala), or Benin (Cotonu), or you could call their international enquiries number (which is on their website). Tevildo (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research and Development

What is research and it's relevance to developmentAAN (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research and development --LarryMac | Talk 17:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 Questions about registering to vote in the UK

I recently recieved a form requiring me to register to vote. I shall be sending it back stating that I am registered elsewhere, same as I did last year, however I am curious on a few points.

1) At the bottom of the form I am asked to sign and give the date and my phone number. What happens if I do not actually know my phone number here, having never had to call it, can I just leave this blank?

2) The address given on the encolsed envelope is almost right next-door to where I live. Suspecting that it may be closer than the nearest post box, can I deliver it in person to the City council offices?

3) The form asks, amongst other things, whether these are busines premises. I was wondering what rules there might be over whether somewhere might count as such, and what effect it might have were I to say it is.

4) It asks about people living here on October 15th, which has long since gone, and also requires me not to pass it on to the previous residents. What, then, might someone do if they had only moved into their home after that date?

148.197.114.207 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nobody living at that residence that wants to register to vote then you can just not send it back. There is no requirement to register to vote in the UK. Given the postal strikes that are going on at the moment, delivering it by hand would probably be a good idea - I can't see that being a problem. I can't help with questions 3 and 4 - is there not a phone number on the form you can ring for advice? --Tango (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you don't have to register? My mother forced me to, saying I didn't have a choice... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been correct: as far as she was concerned, you didn't have a choice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official site, "If you do not respond, or if you provide false information, then you could receive a £1,000 fine." However, it doesn't say (in so many words) that registration is _compulsory_, and I can't immediately find anything in the words of the statute itself (The Representation of the People Act) that makes it compulsory. Tevildo (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly don't have to be registered to vote, plenty of people aren't. You may have to send back the form having ticked a box saying you don't want to register or something, though. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be registered to vote, but I don't believe that there is any sort of active pursuit of people who don't register. The form should have arrived before October 15th, making question 4 moot - perhaps you have received a reminder, with the previous occupants having not completed it? The form generally has the details of the people who were registered at the address last year, so if you believe that they were still there until after October 15th, presumably you should return it as having no changes, then use the facility on the Electoral Commission website to download a new form and complete it with your details (great bit of bureaucracy!) I can't find anything definitively stating if there are any consequences of marking an address as a business property, other than that they may not continue sending forms in future - but you should only complete that section if there is nobody living at the property, so it refers to a property used solely for business purposes. Warofdreams talk 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty compulsory to me. That site says, quite clearly: "You need to be on the electoral register to vote in all UK elections and referendums. You are not automatically registered even if you pay council tax. If you receive a request for your registration information from your local electoral registration office then you are legally obliged to respond. If you do not respond, or if you provide false information, then you could receive a £1,000 fine. Not being registered may also affect your credit rating." -- JackofOz (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vimescarrot (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The telephone number is purely so the office can call you to query anything, not part of the registration.

2) The council wants your form back, they will save money if you return it by hand. Where I live, they positively encourage non-postal return by having collection boxes in council offices, libraries etc.

3) If a form arrived at a business premises, where there is no residential accommodation, the council may then remove the address from the list for the forms in future.

4) If someone move house at any time during the year, they can register at their new address by contacting the council or via the Electoral Commission web page. The annual registration forms are still used because so many people do not bother to do that.

With regard to your first statement, I shall be sending it back stating that I am registered elsewhere, you are entitled to do that but equally, you are entitled to register at more than one place that is genuinely your residence. For example, this applies to many students. (You are not however entitled to vote more than once in the same election!) The advantage of being on the register includes the fact that electoral register entries are used by credit checking companies so it is harder to get a bank or credit card account if you are not regietered.

Legally there is a requirement to register to vote, even though voting itself is not compulsory. But it is very rare for anyone to be prosecuted for failing to register. Sussexonian (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ This is more by way of a digression, but until the Representation of the People Act 1949, there was a business vote (for example, my grandfather, who owned a business in one London constituency but lived in a different one nearby could have cast two votes; I'm not sure if he did.) While I think the questionnaire is asking about business premises in order to purge them from the address list, I suppose that the question could be an obsolete holdover from an earlier era. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a formerly active member of a political party, I have some experience of these matters! The phone number is nice to have, if they have any queries about the registration, but even in these days there is no requirement for everybody to have a telephone (we never had one in my home when I was a kid, until I was about 16, in the mid 1970s). The Council just wants to have the information back, they're not bothered about whether you send the form back by post or by hand, indeed, my council lets you report online that there are no changes from the previous years' registration, which is cheaper than paying the Royal Mail to carry the form back. Until 5-10 years ago, the Electoral Register was only updated once a year, with an effective date in the middle of October, with the new Register coming into effect the following February (though the actual forms were usually sent out in mid-August, and you were encouraged to return them as soon as possible); nowadays we have "Rolling Registration" which means that people can be added to the register at any time during the year, up to within 2-3 weeks of an election, so it doesn't matter if you move house later than October. I echo the advice that you should get yourself registered somewhere - I can safely say from my work that if you don't have a (preferably continuous) record of registrations then you are much less likely to be able to get things like credit cards. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

old firm games of football

has any1 ever scored an own goal in an old firm football match,if so then could could you say who the player was and when it was scored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab-chap (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Tosh McKinlay scored an own goal while playing for Celtic in November 1995 - see this match report. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerbase lists all the Old Firm games, and you can check out the teams and scorers[8]. It's not very uncommon. Stefan Klos (Rangers) scored an OG on 09-11-2005 in the League Cup. Zurab Khizanishvili (Rangers) scored one in the Premier League on 04-10-2003. I'm sure there are many more if you go back further. --Lesleyhood (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]