Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 September 17

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.

September 17

Leeches

How do fresh water leeches get into an Alpine lake? 75.37.12.197 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Lakes drain by rivers, leeches can climb, both in water and out. They also hitchhike on fish. I am currently reading After the Ice Age by L. E. Pielou which goes into the colonization of lakes. A book on limnology (one of the most fun undergraduate courses I have had) will also cover this. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was about to add that they or their eggs could be carried on the feet of birds, but A Review of New Zealand Leeches by L. R. Richardson, Victoria University College says; "Although this means of transport (ie by birds) can be accepted for a very limited number of species, some other method of dispersal must be available to the rest. Migratory behavior has been shown for one North American species, giving an indication of the method of dispersion over continuous land masses; but the means of passage across salt-water barriers cannot yet be considered solved. Certainly, bird transport is not the solution...". The answer seems to be that nobody knows for certain in all cases. Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Textile production

What kinds of fabric were most produced in Britain (and especially in Northern Ireland) in the early 19th century? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I would expect wool, but please wait for somebody else to confirm this. StuRat (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland was particularly known for linen. In the early 19th century it was produced at home by farmers, but by the middle of the century it had been industrialized - just about every town had at least one linen mill, and Belfast had dozens. Some links: [1], [2], [3]. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of a fabric that wasn't produced in Britain at that time. Linen was big business, as Nicknack points out, as was cotton. At that time, the cotton mills in Lancashire alone were producing more than 60% of the world's cotton.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So, wool, cotton and flax were all produced on a large scale in Britain, but in Northern Ireland it was mostly flax? Thanks for the info, this will help me with the research for (another) historical novel. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What do pilots do when their radio goes out ?

They can't communicate with air traffic controllers or airport towers to get landing clearance, so what do they do ? StuRat (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

NORDO talks about US procedures for that situation. - Karenjc 11:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't they just use a cellphone?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A pilot could use a cell phone but A) they'd need to know the phone number of the tower and that information isn't always at hand especially if it's a field that they've flown into a hundred times before and they don't have all of that fields info with them at the time and B) that would require something that isn't already on the plane, i.e. pilots aren't required to have a cell phone so the FAA or other governing body can't depend on the pilot having one.

If the radio goes out during flight, the NORDO article covers that pretty well. Though I didn't see where it mentions the practice of making circles in the air to try to get the tower's attention. While doing the circles, the pilot should be watching for light gun signals from the tower (light signals are mentioned in the NORDO article). If there is no radio, it's not actually required if the plane never had one to begin with (think old aircraft), then the pilot should call ahead to the airport that they intend on flying to if it's a controlled field. If it's uncontrolled, then they have a procedure for entering the traffic pattern and landing.

Stu, if you need more than what we're providing here, I can dig out my old flight manuals and get more info. I haven't flown for years but I think I still have many of my text books somewhere. Dismas|^(talk) 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This link "Lost Communications", Air Traffic Bulletin. Issue# 2004-5 August 2004, FAA seems to have all the relevant information.

"If the failure occurs in VFR (Visual flight rules) conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable." The IFR (Instrument flight rules) (14 CFR(title14, Code of Federal Regulations), section 91.185) are rather long. ¤ 220 of ^Borg 13:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that modern, especially large passenger, aircraft have far more communications equipment than just a 'radio' as the NORDO page mentions "Aircraft equipped with a transponder should indicate a NORDO situation by setting the appropriate transponder code: 7600". There are also digital no-voice systems for monitoring aircraft systems by their airline. Also used for communicating with Air Traffic Control, see Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System ₪ 220 of ^Borg 14:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so far. I didn't realize it was actually legal to fly a plane in much of the US without a radio. That seems absolutely insane to me. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Have the rules changed since 9-11 ? That is, a plane which goes silent now might well be assumed to be controlled by hijackers who plan to crash it into some building, so how do they determine if this is the case ? StuRat (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a buddy who owns and flies a Pitts Special (which is beyond cool BTW!). His is classified as an "experimental aircraft" and has no radio (no battery, no generator, no wiring or electrical systems of any kind!) - it's perfectly legal to do that...and, no, the rules have not changed (at least in that regard) since 9-11. Technically, I suppose he does have a radio because he carries his cellphone (which he can use in flight because there are no other electrical systems to interfere with) and sometimes navigates with the GPS in his phone.

There are specific rules about how to land at an airfield where there is a control tower - I forget the details - but it's a well-thought-out system. SteveBaker (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've found it helps people understand it if it's explained like this: Flying a plane with no radio these days is a bit like driving a car without a seat belt. If the car was made before seat belts became standard or they weren't included from the factory, then it's perfectly legal to drive without a seat belt. If the plane was the same with regard to a radio, then a radio is not required.

Steve, I forget the exact details as well but if the plane has no radio and is going into an uncontrolled field, then the pilot just observes any traffic pattern in use (i.e. looks out for other aircraft in the area and on the ground) and then joins that traffic pattern on the downwind leg. Dismas|^(talk) 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

But driving a car without a seat belt doesn't represent a danger to anybody other than yourself, while a plane with no radio can't be warned that it's on a collision course with another plane, has drifted into a restricted area, etc., and thus represents a serious danger to others. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the case. If you're involved in an auto accident and are not belted in, there's a greater likelihood that you'll be unable to maintain control of the car, potentially compounding the damage to other vehicles and humans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're at the point of being thrown from behind the wheel unless a seat belt holds you in, you aren't likely to regain control of the car by then, in any case. StuRat (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The gist of the IFR lost-comm procedures is, you follow the last instructions given to you by ATC, and then stick to your flight plan after that. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Planes that are small enough and old enough to have no electrical system would crumple like a paper airplane if you flew them into a building. I doubt they're worried about planes being hijacked into buildings. You could do more damage with a Volkswagen. APL (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Like this one? (See image at right - damage done by a Piper Dakota flown deliberately into the IRS offices 9/11-style in Austin, TX back in 2010.) SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I expect that plane did indeed crumple. However, it was also full of fuel, and presumably the resulting fire is what caused most of the damage, as with the 9/11 attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Several hundred pounds of engine, moving at 150 mph and with a pair of handy scythe-blades rotating at close to the speed of sound on the front will make a considerable mess of most buildings. You may be unaware of it - but the 9/11 attack wasn't the first aircraft to fly into a major New York landmark. In the 1940's a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State building. The engine of that plane went right through the building (taking out several walls along the way), out the other side and landed on the roof of another building entirely! The kinetic energy of an airplane engine at cruise-speed is quite impressive. The idea that a light aircraft will crumple like a paper plane against the wall of a building is quite the wrong impression here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to comment on that at some point. B-25 Empire State Building crash As I recall, that crash also started a fire, which was soon put out. The most impressive thing is that there was relatively little damage to the building. I have to wonder, if the WTC towers had been built the same way the Empire State Building was, would they have collapsed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course they wouldn't -- the Empire State Building was built to twice the safety margin of the Twin Towers! (Back then, the USA had a steel industry that was second to none, and as a consequence we could use all the steel we wanted -- not the case today now that our steel industry is hardly worth the name! Oh, the wonders of "globalization"...) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

2006 New York City plane crash is another example of a light aircraft failing to "crumple" when it hit a building. There are many more cases just like it. SteveBaker (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Anglican and Catholic

If an Anglican man (who was previously married in an Anglican church) wants to get married again with a Catholic girl... Is that possible? Which church should they choose; Anglican or Catholic? Can he get married twice? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

With Anglicans and Catholics, you are talking about the U.K. and its current and former colonies. In the U.S., Anglicans are called Episcopalians. A couple can marry in most countries in a registry office with a judge officiating, and skip the whole "your church or mine" problem completely. In general terms, if a church ceremony is required, an Anglican church will have fewer hoops to jump through. The couple can have as many marriage ceremonies as they would like, but the first one that also creates a marriage certificate is the "real" one. I have family members married in a registry office in one province of Canada, and then married in a church in another one weeks later, as well as friends who had three marriage ceremonies in three different countries, in order to satisfy all family ties and religions in three countries. I even know of one where the man's divorce papers did not arrive in time for a huge, expensive wedding ceremony and reception. So, they hired an actor to play the minister's role without telling anyone, had the party, and then were quietly and legally married in a registry ceremony about a month later. Bielle (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean with an Anglican church will have fewer hoops to jump through?

What about doing a ceremony like in "Freaky Friday"? What are the necessary things to take into account. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The laws vary widely throughout the world. In the UK, if you don't want to marry in a church, you have to go to a government run "registry office" instead. In the US, you need a judge or an ordained minister (although there are ordained ministers in the church of the flying spaghetti monster who will be happy to marry you!). It's generally agreed that on a ship at sea, the captain is legally entitled to perform the ceremony. But laws are different in different places. In most countries, there are many choices beyond purely religious ceremony - so people from different backgrounds have options. Of course whether the religion will subsequently recognize the marriage is anyone's guess.

If this is for your story - and one of the parties to the marriage is a catholic - then there are bigger problems. The Catholic church takes a dim view of divorce and an even dimmer one of remarriage afterwards. Depending on the exact circumstances, the catholic church might very well refuse to perform the ceremony - and even if they would do it, you have to jump through a bunch of issues to get a "Declaration of Invalidity" (i.e. prove that your previous marriage was "invalid" for some religious bull-crap reason and get a priest to formally sign off on that) - and there all manner of weird loopholes and catches that may or may not screw things up for you.

The Anglicans would, however, be more than happy to take on the job.

For a story - maybe your happy couple are determined to do the catholic thing - and you can add more trials and tribulations for them...maybe some happy coincidence makes the church relent and to squeak through the declaration of invalidity on a technicality. A whole extra chapter there! Maybe the grief of the catholic wedding is enough to make them hire a row-boat with a captain at the helm who marries them on the edge of international waters. You can talk this problem up into any kind of complicated situation you want.

Personally, being married by someone ordained into the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (cost of ordination papers: $20) sounds kinda attractive. You could have a friend do the job for you - which would open up all manner of weird and exotic locations for the ceremony!

SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Steve, Ship Captains are rarely able to legally officiate marriages unless they have the appropriate qualifications in addition to being captain. The Straight Dope debunks this, as do a number of other websites.

Seems to me that smart ship captains could handle this if they wanted to. Nowadays it's so easy to get the appropriate paperwork from an outfit like the Universal Life Church or some such, they could make reality line up with people's expectations. APL (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, you should become a writer :D... Religion and marriages and weddings are a tricky stuff. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(Already am!) SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, thank you for all your help. Have someone already told you that you are great!? :D Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to point out that, while it is not impossible for a divorced Anglican to remarry in a CofE church, it depends on the vicar's personal choice as to whether it can happen or not. The blanket ban has ended, but it's not a given that anyone can remarry in CofE churches. However, it would generally be possible for them to remarry in a Methodist or other non-Conformist church. Here's the official link. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK then - so we're back to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I guarantee they won't have any problem with marrying this troubled couple! (Although they might insist that they dress like a pirate during the service and serve pasta at the reception :-)

Speaking of which - it's International Talk Like A Pirate Day on Thursday! Avast! Arrrrr! (sorry, just practicing for the big day!) SteveBaker (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• For a Catholic marriage they'd have to ask the bishop's dispensation. Given an Anglican wedding would have been a Christian wedding he'd probably want the prior marriage viewed as annulled. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic determination of annullment is really problematic. Our article lists possible reasons for annullment as:

• Being too young. The absolute minimum age is 16 for males, 14 for females, but episcopal conferences can set a higher limit. -- This would put him in legal difficulties and label him as a sexual deviant...unless of course *he* was too young!--- (At the moment they decide to get married) She is 24 and he is 44
• Antecedent and perpetual impotence -- Not in this novel, I strongly suspect!-- No, God, no!
• Ligamen, being already married -- Doesn't help, now he has to get his OTHER marriage annulled too...unless it's his ex who was the bigamist! -- Nope
• The situation in which one party is a Catholic and the other has not been baptized (unless a dispensation is granted) -- This one has possibilities. If his ex-wife is catholic - and if he's never been baptized - then maybe this can work?-- He is Anglican and his ex-wife is Anglican as well
• The man was ordained to holy orders -- I doubt it. -- Negative
• Either party made a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute -- His ex-wife was a nun?! -- Nope LOL
• Abduction with the intent of marriage (known as raptus), is an impediment as long as the person remains in the kidnapper's power -- She kidnapped him! --Nope :D
• Impediment of Crime, bringing about the death of one's own spouse or the spouse of another, with the intention of marriage -- His ex murdered her previous husband? He murdered his previous wife?! -- Holy Gosh, no!
• Close relationship by blood, called Consanguinity, even if the relationship is only by law -- He discovers that his ex is really his long lost sister! (oooh! ikky!) -- No, no no...
• Close relationship by marriage, called Affinity -- Not sure about this one. He married his borther's ex-wife or something? This is complicated and messy stuff. -- I don't think so... nope

Seems like you'd have to work quite hard to put any of those into the plot without making our hero look like he's sterile or otherwise pretty seriously screwed up! The best option would be if he could demonstrate that his ex-wife was a Catholic and he was never baptized. But even then, he'd have to prove that - and it takes two Catholic courts to agree on this decision and they are picky, picky, picky! From what I can tell, it may take years for an annullment to be accepted. It's not going to be a spontanous wedding of the kind that plays well in the last three pages of a romance novel! Bottom line is that the Catholic church would fight this tooth and nail - and since our hero is evidently a man of some notability who's not a Catholic anyway, they'd almost certainly want to deny him his remarriage by any means at their disposal.

Seems to me like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster may be their only option. ;-) SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the simple option would be if the character was not previously baptised and nor was his or her spouse ever baptised so could take advantage of Pauline privilege or if the character was baptised but their spouse was never so they could take advantage of Petrine privilege rather then worrying about getting an anulment. Okay the requirements would need to be slightly stronger than this [4] [5] [6], for example I believe it would help a great deal if the earlier spouse clearly has no desire to get baptised and in fact thinks the whole thing is a big crock (for example they're a member of the CotFSM) and has absolutely no desire to live with the character any more (perhaps this exspouse realised they're a lesbian or gay). It would still take a long time and be a long convulated process, but my impression is the church would not really want to fight them on it provided it's clear that the marriage is a goner through no fault of the character and the exspouse will never be baptised. One of the intended spouses not being Catholic would not help, but I don't think it would be a barrier provided the kids will be raised Catholic. (Although my impression is that somewhat controversially, annulments seem to be granted fairly readily in some cases too.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh Steve, I have split the novel in 4 parts, each one have their own plot. They decide to get married in the 3rd :D. I'll explain to you above... ↑ But, what about if they both have a deep faith, they wouldn't marry in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ¿(O_o)? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If she's a deep-faith Catholic - then she's not going to marry a divorced man - period. The catholic church is really, really clear about divorces being a huge "no-no". SteveBaker (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Steve so, they cannot get married, unless she is not a deep-faith Catholic... I wonder if I can mould my character a little bit? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• My indirect experience with annulments is that the Church uses casuistry to achieve the desired end. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What about if they get tired of so much wait and decide to marry in the registry office? How is the divorce process/annulment for the Anglican Church? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Divorce in the US is a secular matter and a matter of state law. Nevada is famous as a state for offering a divorce even if only one party resides there for a week. People seeking divorce would go there for a one-week vacation and then show the clerk there motel bill for proof of residence. Other states then have to recognize the divorce's legality according to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Churches can object and punish or expel their members, but that has no legal import. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The Spaghetti Monster seems like a funny way to have fun :) Steve, do they have to get dressed like pirates during the service and serve pasta at the reception or was just a joke. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, registry office weddings (which is what I had 25 years ago) are completely non-religious. You get told how serious marriage is - that it's a legal contract. You get to say whatever vows you feel like saying - then you go sign some legal paperwork - and you're married - and no religious bullshit can say otherwise! If you wanted to have a religious ceremony, I believe most churches will do some kind of deal where you can re-affirm your vows or some such thing.

Certainly both divorce and marriage are secular matters. The church can't stop you from getting divorced. They could try to forbid it - or (as in the case of the Catholic church) refuse to actually recognize it - but that won't prevent your from legally re-marrying - and it won't necessarily prevent other religions from refusing to perform the ceremony. Similarly, you don't need a church to marry you. In fact, if you go through with a religious marriage ceremony with out getting a government-issued marriage license first then (at least throughout Europe and the USA) you aren't married.

But it's a messy and complicated thing. In Texas (at least) you can enter into a "common law" marriage just by spending the night with someone - providing you both agree that you're married. Many US states even allow for common-law marriage people that subsequently separate to file for "palimony" payments.

Another weird kink (again, in Texas - I don't know about elsewhere) is that in Texas, you are married from the point of view of the law from the time you get the marriage license - but you only have 7 days to have the ceremony performed (by a judge, religious officer or ship's captain at sea) or else the license is considered invalid. I have not idea what state that leaves you in! If you get the license but don't have the ceremony - were you married just for that week? Are you retrospectively not married? Eh?!

It's all a bit of a mess, quite honestly!

But hey...this is all for a novel. Maybe our hero wants his bride to get her catholic wedding despite the protestations of the church - so he swoops in above the church in his stealth-modified personal UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. Leaving the aircraft on silent auto-hover, he FRIES down to to land on a particularly ugly Gothic sarchophagus wearing his full, black Ninja gear. From there he dives headfirst through the 17th century stained glass window, finishing with a tuck-and-roll to the feet of his dearest love. He hands the bride a loaded Uzi machine pistol to hold at the Priest's head while he peels off the Ninja gear to reveal a (perfectly un-wrinkled) Armani tuxedo. Once the bands have been read, they leap onto the Suzuki Hayabusa he's previously hidden in the confessional and as they leave the church, he leans past her and uses a blow-dart to shoot the priest full of Flunitrazepam. As they leap together into his nearby class 1 offshore powerboat (he bought it as a movie prop from "From Russia With Love" - the director happens to be a personal friend) he yells "Your accursed Ecclesiastical jurisdiction will never catch us now suckers!". Finally, we see the confused priest stagger from the church, and at that very moment the helicopter runs out of fuel, crashing into the building to produce a gigantic fireball. The "Holding Out for a Hero" theme builds to it's climax. Roll credits, fade to black.

(This stuff just writes itself doesn't it!) :-)

SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah Steve... and then a second part of the novel, shows the heroe 3 years later in jail, just like Danny Ocean, he had managed to escape with the bride before the helicopter crashes. He has a double citizenship in France, so he travels secretly there with the girl, but his ego and his megalomania are so big that he leaves the country to go to Italy and have a fancy dinner with a crazy-rich businessman who is friend of him. Some people recognize him (as he is world famous) and call the police, he is arrested and deported to USA... the girl realizes that he is a very very very bad person and she leaves him and find a better man and she marries him :D End of story... Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Crazed by the loss of his new wife, and hounded at every turn by Opus Dei hitmen, our ex-hero spends his entire remaining fortune to build a heavily fortified underwater lair just off the coast of Howland Island in the South Pacific where he incessantly asks subtle questions on the Wikipedia science reference desk until his army of similarly named sock-puppets have gained unsurpassed expertise ranging from genetics to molecular engineering. He soon develops a nanotechnological weapon that is able to recognize the DNA of the girl's new found lover and rearrange it to make him incapable of love. With her half of his fortune from their divorce, she hires a shadowy Austrian ex-secret agent to stop him by parachuting into his secret lair and activating the secret lairs' self-destruct system As the plume of smoke rises above the pacific ocean, she meets with him on the airstrip at Baker Island for the first time to hand over his payment. Suddenly she realizes that he is in fact her new lover - but to everyone's surprise he spurns her. (Final shot of nano-bots in his blood stream rearranging his DNA - credits roll with the words "But the Nanobots had mutated to infect all of mankind...").

My writing motto: Always leave room for a sequel! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool, Steve... Next part, she wakes up in a cold sweat in her luxury room in a fancy villa in the South of France... her husband is lying next to her and slowly wakes up too. They both look at each other and he asks her... did we marry in the Catholic Church or in the Alnglican?, she replies - I don't know... I had a strange nightmare about you... but never mind... let's take a shower :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is cute, Miss Bono, (encantador) that you say "his husband" instead of the correct "her husband"; her being always "de ella" and his being always "de el" regardless of the sex of the noun being described. Do you speak french? They say son mari and sa femme. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops! μηδείς, Sorry, I know the meaning of her and his and know how to use them, but sometimes I forgot and just... wrote it as it sounds better for me lol-- I can speake a little bit of French :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No tengas verguenza. It is a perfectly understandable mistake for a Spanish speaker. See linguistic interference. Just be glad English doesn't have 14 gender agreements like the Zulu language, where for tuyo and tuya you would have 14 choices instead of one or two. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Foo bird

What is a foo bird as in Neal Heftis Flight of the foo birds.86.171.126.239 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

All the google hits I get are variations of this joke. According to this I found on Google Scholar, what's supposed to be funny is the possibility of swapping initial consonant sounds in the moral of the story (foo shits/shoe fits). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also a range of humorous terms that take the "Foo" or "Fu" suffix to indicate prowess - as a back-formation from "KungFu". eg "NorwegianBlue has GoogleFoo" - meaning that this person is very good at using Google. So I kinda-sorta wonder whether this is intended to mean that the Foo Bird is a very adept bird. But this is unlikely because it's a fairly recent linguistic weirdness and "Flight of the Foo birds" comes from the 1950's.

Another possibility is that computer programmers often use the words "Foo" and "Bar" as "metasyntactic variables" (don't worry about it - we're a weird bunch) - they derive from "FUBAR" - f**ked up beyond all recognition. A computer programmer might understand "Foo Bird" to mean - "any kind of bird you might think of will do here"...but, again, it's a bit of a stretch - the timing is all wrong and Neal Hefti doesn't appear to have come in contact with that sub-culture.

However, the acronym "FUBAR" has been around in the military since at least 1944 - perhaps he originally wrote it as "Flight of the FUBAR" but cleaned it up to put it on the record sleeve?

But probably this is just an invention by the Hefti - maybe he just liked the sound of the name or something? SteveBaker (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

SNAFU is a close relative of FUBAR and was already well-known by WWII (see Private Snafu). The term "foo" by itself has been around for a very long time. I would guess it derives from "faux" or "fool" (or maybe both). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Fou" (pronounced foo) is a bird name in French. The "fou de bassan" (Northern Gannet) is the best known of the various species that bear the name. --Xuxl (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Its mates are kept in a cage aux folles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility is by analogy to Foo fighter - a WWII term for a class of unidentified flying objects seen from warplanes of the time. The etymology section of that article bears reading - I think it's probably the answer here. SteveBaker (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)