Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 12

= February 12 =

IDs/kin and kinning
http://listography.com/2309224874/ids___kin_list__doubles_are_fine_/4473514330 This webpage lists fictional characters as "kins" or "IDs". http://listography.com/2309224874/dont_follow_if_/8706615680 This other webpage uses the word "kinning". Is this a form of otherkin or something else? -47.151.26.64 (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears to be a form of otherkin and/or furry. Matt Deres (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Rail Network statements
Who writes railway network statements? Is it lawyers or policy experts? Clover345 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Congo–Ocean Railway network? O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  09:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * on the uk rail network. Clover345 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are generic announcements that you may hear at railway stations, that have been pre-recorded by speakers variously identified as Anne, Mike, Celia Drummond, Phil Sayer, etc. Rail staff referred to Sayer's voice as "Metal Mickey". Example: "Here is a security announcement. Please do not leave luggage unattended anywhere on the station, any unattended luggage will be removed without warning and may be destroyed" Blooteuth (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The keyword here is "generic".  Many of these announcements are heard almost word for word at Walthamstow Bus Station, which is operated by Transport for London.   To fill up the spaces between announcements they do a nice line in classical music. 86.151.49.189 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I don't think the OP is referring to announcements at stations. I'm assuming they're referring to press releases by Network Rail, especially those which actually say they are statements. Stuff like this            . However I'm not saying there's a clear cut answer. A big problem is even you're restricting to press releases which call themselves and are structured as statements, as reflected by the exaples, you're still covering a whole bunch of different stuff. From issues which could would be an extremely major PR and perhaps even legal disaster if you're not very careful like statements after someone dies, or perhaps statements on strikes, legal cases, some major controversy and in some cases government or political or regulator proposals; to slightly more mundane stuff like a response to a some minor media story or political kerfuffle and maybe some more minor legal cases and crashes without injury or death, to more routine stuff like statements about annual general meetings or minor damage etc. (To be clear there's no clear boundary between these, it's going to depend on the specific case.) However while I don't know about the specifics for Network Rail, I'm fairly sure in most large companies or goverment bodies, both PR and legal departments are going to be involved in most cases. PR is more likely to be the one who'd actually write the statement. The more it matters the more care is likely to be taken (including using higher up people and more carefully reading it rather than just a cursory read). Some level of management is likely to be in there as well, and perhaps other departments as needed. Specific issues will also affect how much each is involved, e.g. regulatory issues or legal cases will get more attention from the legal department. Unfortunately I don't have a specific ref to support these claims. Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also I'm not sure how well the OP understands the structure of the UK rail network. As I understand it and supported by the refs, Network Rail owns a lot of the rail network infrastructure including tracks, many stations etc. The trains are mostly owned by others who also operate them (maybe not always the same), and the stations may also be managed by someone else. Network Rail statements are obviously for Network Rail. TOCs and FOCs and the station management (who tend to be TOCs or FOCs) have their own statements, processes etc. Then there are other organisations e.g. National Rail. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, and this is possibly reflected in the above examples, I don't mean to imply there is always going to be that level of involvement. For example, if the CEO is at a public event with reporters and word reaches that someone was killed, they can't just say "wow that sucks, but no comment until I've consulted with PR and legal". Instead they'll likely make a brief generic statement like "I'm saddened to hear of the tragic death of XYZ and my thoughts are with their family and friends. Network Rail will cooperate fully with the investigation." Similarly if something arises in a media interview etc. It's possible this will be repeated in a later released written media statement. (Although it's also possible the person will screw up and there will need to be some walking back of the statement.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought a network statement (in a narrow sense) was a document, published every year by the company managing the railway network (in the UK that would be Network Rail), describing the railway network, timetable planning rules, fees for using track and stations etc. It tells the train operators (both passenger and goods) where they can run what kind of trains and how to apply for timetable slots. It informs the operators of their rights and obligations. So the technical chapters (on loading gauges, electric power supply standards, speed limits, platform lengths, ...) would be written by the technical department, the financial chapters (on fees, fines, liability in case of accidents, ...) are more likely written by the legal department. And of course the general management has to give its approval. Apparently (so tells the dutch wikipedia), the legal status of these statements is exactly described in EU rule 2001/14/EG5 article 3. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some names here if you want to go direct to Network Rail for information:

156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How do we read a file on your computer? -- Jayron 32 13:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Try typing the part inside the bracket into your address bar.  If that doesn't bring up the document there's another way to access it which I will tell you about. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It won't work for anyone except YOU because the part in the bracket is a location on YOUR hard drive. This is not an internet address, it's a hard drive location.  -- Jayron 32 14:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Go to then click on "Department for Transport Network Rail reporting requirement".   Scroll down to section 8. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A simple link to what you're referring to is probably . Anyway it may be that PiusImpavidus is right about what statements are being referred to in which case they're probably right about who's involved. Edit: And I apologise for any confusion by my answer. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Edit: 05:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Privilege and prestige of different ranks of peerage in the UK
I'm aware that peerages have only limited significance in British life today, but that this wasn't always the case. In times gone by, were there ever differences between --Leon (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) rights and privileges awarded to different ranks of peerage?
 * 2) significant differences in prestige of different ranks of peerage? I'm aware that this may be a harder question to answer as degree of prestige is ill-defined; however, as I understand it, dukes are seen as much "higher" than marquesses, whilst the difference between a Marquess and a baron is smaller. Is that at all correct?


 * Does our article on Peerage Ranks help at all?--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not that I can see. But maybe I'm missing something.--Leon (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * [1] different ranks give different positions in terms of precedence, with (as you'd expect) the higher ranks higher in the order of precedence, and individual title holders order within those ranks by the peerage in which the title was created and the date of creation of their titles. So at social affairsand official ceremonies the higher ranks would enter first, sit closer to the monarch, etc. Each rank also has traditional coronets, etc.  [2] Dukes are, as you point out, though of as much higher than any other rank. They are expected to be richer, and are thought of as nearly prince-like. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Various distinctions would have existed in the past.


 * 1) At the most basic level, peerages came with lands, and higher ranks generally got more/better lands, with more people to serve/fight for them. I don't know if there was a formal rule about how much each title was supposed to get you.
 * 2) The sort of land or its location did vary by title: from Marquess "the distinction between a count and a marquess was that the land of a marquess, called a march, was on the border of the country, while a count's land, called a county, often was not. As a result of this, a marquess was trusted to defend and fortify against potentially hostile neighbours and was thus more important and ranked higher than a count".
 * 3) Marcher Lords (which as far as I can tell is basically an older term for a marquess) had a lot of specific rights: within their own territory, they had various powers (e.g. lawmaking) that elsewhere were reserved for the king.
 * 4) Duke doesn't actually say much about the rights and powers a duke gets, other than that the may (but not necessarily) get a duchy to run and extract income from. Originally (as dux in the Roman Empire) they were provincial governors, later becoming the highest-ranking nobles and military commanders after the king.
 * 5) According to Count, the title originated in the Roman Empire, as comes, a non-hereditary title for high-ranking courtiers and provincial officials, either military or administrative. It later became an intermediate title of nobility, that could also be used as an honorific title for special services rendered without necessarily any lands attached.  The UK doesn't use the title, using Earl instead (although an earl's wife is a countess).
 * 6) Earl seems to have originally been a title for a chieftain, then became equivalent to dukes. After the Norman Conquest, the title seems to have been downgraded to equivalent to a count.
 * Iapetus (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In Britain, below Earl would be Baron and then Baronet. There are also counts palatine which carry the rank of count with certain privileges of autonomy not usually allowed to garden variety counts.  If we're looking to ranks outside of England, to Scotland, there are Mormaer which are usually translated to English as "Earls" but whose rank within Scottish society was something more like a Duke.  Scotland also had Lairds, which are usually equivalent to Lords of the Manor in England, except they tended to have power somewhat greater than that.  There's also other titles from outside of Scotland and England but still "British", such as the Lord of Mann which unlike other lords, was semi-sovereign, having grown from the King of Mann.  -- Jayron 32 03:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Baronet is not a rank of peerage. It's a hereditary knighthood. Baronets are not peers. - Nunh-huh 05:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)