Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 September 28

= September 28 =

Hamilton Alabama
My name is Jamie Brown I am a graduate of Samford University and reside in Hamilton. I was suprised to find that all the information about my family had been edited out of the gambit of the Hamilton page. This is very disturbing how do I correct this misjustice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.39.135 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking the requirement is that information in Wikipedia articles be verifiable using reputable published sources. If you are referring to A J Hamilton, Robert Lee Brown, and Jamie Lee Brown, no sources were cited to back up the information that was included about them.  I don't know whether Jerry Dolyn Brown is also a member of your family, but you might note that his name is still there.  (For ease of reference, the article is Hamilton, Alabama.) Looie496 (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note in particular that most or all of the sources here were correctly removed. They were either not WP:RS (unpulished genelogies) or possibly primary sourced which need to be used with great care. Also articles should not be written from a first person POV, in fact it doesn't even make sense in a case like this, when you say 'he is my X', no one can be expected to know who's POV you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Position of ship's bridge
Are navy ships' bridges always in the middle and commercial ships' bridges always in the stern? If yes, why? Ptg93 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not on aircraft carriers for obvious reasons. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cruise ships, they are up front.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WAG: they're in the center for naval ships for maximum protection, while for cargo ships, they want no obstructions around the hold. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Most combat ships have large superstructures to support radars, uptakes and such, with the bridge at the front of that block. Naval ships' propulsion machinery is usually near the center of the ship for best protection and because it is bulkier in a naval vessel. Most cargo ships maximize hold space by consolidating the superstructure at the rear over the engine room. Specialized vessels like auto carriers have the bridge right at the front of the very large superstructure that extends all the way to the front of the ship.  Function, not affiliation, is the main determinant.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Traditional lake freighters on the Great Lakes (like the Edmund Fitzgerald) have the bridge in the front (bow) of the ship but newer ships are changing to the bridge in the stern pattern. Rmhermen (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

See our article, Bridge (nautical), for the evolution of the bridge. Obviously, you get a better view of the bow of the ship if the bridge is somewhere in the forward part. If the funnels are in the mid-section of the ship, you want to be in front of those too, otherwise you can only see smoke. As Clarityfiend says, in some cargo ships like tankers and bulk carriers, the forward part of the ship is entirely taken-up by the holds with the engines and crew accommodation at the stern, so it makes sense to put the bridge there too. Note that some naval landing ships have stern bridges, where there is a requirement for a large hold space connected to bow doors. RFA Sir Galahad (1987) is an example, although the modern requirement for a large helicopter deck and the idea of a floating dock in the stern for smaller landing craft has resulted in forward bridges in many larger landing ships; the British Bay class landing ships for example. Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Manslaughter
Regarding the fact that 'manslaughter' is defined as 'killing a person unintentionally', why is the word very often connected to 'involuntary'? Would this not be tautological? Is there such a thing as 'voluntary manslaughter'? That would be 'murder'. What is the point in having the extra word? It's like saying 'a brown bear which is brown'. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  07:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While murder is a word of the common language, manslaughter is almost exclusively a legal term, so it depends on the jurisdiction. In any case we have an article on voluntary manslaughter, which explains that it does not always mean there was no intent to kill, but that that intent was somehow mitigated, say by provocation or by imperfect self defense. --Trovatore (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Manslaughter covers it pretty well:
 * "Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder."
 * "Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm."
 * "Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention."
 * --Wikimedes (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that the definition "killing a person unintentionally" is wrong from the other direction too &mdash; my understanding is that if you kill a person by pure misadventure (accident), in a situation where you had exercised ordinary care and caution, this is ordinarily no crime at all, though you might still be sued for the tort of wrongful death. Obviously this is not intended as legal advice, and may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. --Trovatore (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Intent" is the top level of mens rea. Below that, you have "recklessness" and "negligence" (this is based on English law, but it is similar in a lot of jurisdictions). To be successfully sued for a tort, you need to be at least negligent. If you "exercised ordinary care and caution" then you haven't broken the law at all (with a few exceptions for strict liability offences, which I don't believe wrongful death is - there has to be something to make it wrongful, after all). The difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter is the level of mens rea required (murder always requires intent, although, not necessarily intent to kill - under English law, intent to commit grievous bodily harm is sufficient). --Tango (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In some jurisdictions, there is also "felony murder", which is distinct from normal garden variety murder in that if death occurs as the result of another felony, you can be charged with felony murder, even if there was no intent to cause any harm at all. -- Jayron  32  04:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

German-Belgian border oddity
What's going on with the border between Belgium and Germany here and here? If you zoom in, you can see that the white curvy line is actually a narrow tract of Belgian territory running through Germany - in effect, Mützenich and Berkhahns Kopf appear to be exclaves of Germany within Belgium (albeit separated from the rest of Germany by a few metres). It looks like the Belgian land might be an old road or an abandoned railway bed, but I can't find any mention of it either here or on the German Wikipedia. Is it just a mapping bug, or some interesting historical quirk? Smurrayinchester 08:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The latter, apparently. List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves says: Germany also has a group of 5 enclaves created by the Vennbahn railway trackbed between the towns of Roetgen and Monschau (south of Aachen) that was granted Belgian sovereignty. -  Ka renjc 08:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a bit more information at Vennbahn, and also this site is quite helpful. - Ka renjc 09:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Smurrayinchester 17:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For further Belgian border funkiness, see Baarle-Hertog and Baarle-Nassau; two halves of the same village divided between Belgium and the Netherlands, with the border running, in some cases, right through the middle of houses and restaurants. There are even exclaves within exclaves. Apparently, restaurateurs use the border to their advantage - when it comes to closing time in one country, they simply shift the tables to the other side of the room and carry on selling. It seems Obelix was right - these Belgians are crazy. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Europe isn't the only place this happens. There's a town in Vermont/Quebec where the US-Canadian border runs right through the public library. thx1138 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have to produce a passport or visa or even ID to move from the Fiction section to the Reference section? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See Derby Line, Vermont and Stanstead,_Quebec. It used to be a quaint oddity prior to 9/11/01.  Then things became very complicated for the residents.  I had been there pre-9/11 and it was a neat little oddity, but they got along.  Now there are weird customs issues that the residents have to deal with on a daily basis.  The library is the Haskell Free Library and Opera House.  -- Jayron  32  00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also of interest is Fort Montgomery, aka "Fort Blunder", which they had to move because the U.S. built it 3/4 of a mile into Canada. Oops.  -- Jayron  32  00:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For a similar blunder and its consequences, see Märket. —Tamfang (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Soda cans 'G##G'
I grabbed the second-to-last can of Diet Coke out of a 12-pack and while opening, noticed that engraved in the top of the can, visible through the large circle of the pop-top, was 'G23G'. I looked at the remaining can, and it had 'G22G'. What are these numbers? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably a lot number. It's a little strange for two cans in the same pack to be from different lots, but I suppose it can happen (lots aren't necessarily always in multiples of 12, I guess). Alternatively, it could be some kind of competition code or free download code or something - see if any such thing is described on the can or the pack. --Tango (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would tend to lean towards lot number as well. Either of the lid, the can, or the contents, I couldn't say.  If I'm right, the lid is put on after the can is filled.  Contest numbers for cans are normally on the bottom of the inside of the can.  That way you have to at least buy the can before you have the numbers to enter into the contest.  Dismas |(talk) 01:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh, I happened to be drinking a Coke (not Diet) and my lid has F411 with a slightly smaller G above the 4. I believe this is some kind of code for the material of the can itself (as opposed to the product inside); the lot code for that is stamped on the bottom: MA27138NE 21:16 1 (i.e. produced at 9:16 pm on May 27, with the remaining text being some code for the bottling plant and line. Matt Deres (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Coca-Cola Company would suggest that neither your nor the OP's Cokes were bottled by Coke, but rather by (probably different) independent bottling companies. Different companies will have different equipment and systems, so it's more likely that the OP's code will resemble that found on a locally bought mineral water or beer (bottled by same company, for the bottlers almost never make just Coke) than your Coke bottled in another territory. It would certainly help the OP if we could provide some idea of who that bottler might be, but I'm having little luck in finding decent territory maps for Coke bottlers. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)