Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 August 8

= August 8 =

B-Type Bus Photos
I am writing an article on the B-Type bus I have my own current photos but would like to use the two black & white ones you are showing of it converted to pigeon and troop carrier, am I allowed to re-use? if I give credit to you???

Many Thanks Mr D.Wiffen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.167.200 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To find licencing and permissions for any image on Wikipedia, you can view its description page, such as this one: File:B340LA9928RearView7May2006.jpg, where it specifies:


 * This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license
 * You are free:


 * to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
 * to remix – to adapt the work


 * Under the following conditions:


 * attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).


 * The file's description page can be found by right-clicking on it. —Note that on the bottom-right of the LGOC B-type article there is a link to Commons where related images can be found; often more than are included in the article itself. →
 * The old B&W photos you mentioned are probably in the public domain, but it is wise to check the image description page.
 * I hope this helps, ~E: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 

linking of production
construction where production exceeds stated value of $2 million or equivalent in riyals-what are advantage of production in Saudi Arabia to levels of Western technology?

Why increase of share for steel in Jiddiya AFC or Himal Brothers... is expansion or constriction more desirable? Please I have been trying to contact with no answer-why Wikipedia not acknowledge technology-they should have pages named for them-Jiddiya and Himal Brothers prime customer in Saudi economy

SURELY if no article created shows anti-Saudi bias-why this show of Western kaffir discriminate-when articles of rogue Zion state Israel create under Zion protocols and exist because Wikipedia must be anti-Muslim

Please to contact me to produce such article also ouguiya article not currency of Mauritania-blessed Islam state-but other ouguiyA.

Alcohol create problems of dry skin,tremens,trembling,failing of the member of sexual potency,limp and flabby weapon-how to solve this to be great warrior of Islam-why this create so articles to lead away non-believer.

Please help to solve question that I have to be glorifying great Islamic site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.213.216 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that Google does not attest the existence of "Jiddiya AFC" (Al-Ahli SC (Jeddah), perhaps?), or "Himal Brothers". There's Himal Southasian, a Nepalese magazine, and there's a "Himel Brothers" in Toronto, but nothing apparently in Saudi Arabia. WP:AGF, and that, but I suspect the question may be a little disingenuous. Tevildo (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure about disingenuous,but as far as I can seem the question is more than a little gobbledegook... Lemon martini (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. It's true that there are many biases on Wikipedia. There is nothing sinister about this: Wikipedia is created by volunteers, who write about the things that interest them. So there are many topics which have not been written about just because there has not yet been anybody who was interested enough in that topic. If you see topics which we have not got articles about, you are very welcome to contribute such articles, but please make sure you follow all Wikipedia's rules and guidelines (see my first article). --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I for one do not know a difference between ouguiya and other ouguiyA. —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't even want to speculate on the failings of his 'member of sexual potency' or 'his limp and flabby weapon'- Erectile dysfunction perhaps?? Lemon martini (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, caused by drink. That part at least is clear. —Tamfang (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

On royal weddings
Since all weddings to be legal have to have the bit 'if any man here knows any reason why these people should not be legally married,let them speak now or forever hold his peace'-that would apply even to royal weddings. So how would an objection to the wedding be dealt with? It seems like a prime chance for a nut who wants their five seconds to fame to pipe up-I'm assuming if you had a genuine reason,you'd have got in touch with the powers that be at St.James'Palace and pointed it out to them... Lemon martini (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First, the nut would have to get onto the guest list... HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Who says that phrase is required in order to make the marriage "legal"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The entire ceremony, including that part, is optional.  All you typically need is a witness or two when you sign the wedding license. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In Britain you don't sign a licence (you do sign the register though). And There are legal requirements for the ceremony. DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can imagine they might want to ensure that both parties agree of their own free will, are who they claim to be, aren't married, and are of legal age. Is that what you mean by "legal requirements" ? StuRat (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, things have been relaxed a bit lately, but for a church wedding there has to be the reading of the banns over the weeks before the wedding. It also used to be the case that weddings could only be contracted in the morning. I think the CofE has to use one of its recognized forms of service. DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By "church" (not "Church") we mean Roman Catholic? μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and, of course, there are many other churches in the UK that are neither Anglican nor Catholic, and most of these don't read banns.   D b f i r s   07:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading StuRat's comments correctly, those would be the civil requirements for marriage, and the content of the vows would be strictly the doctrine of whichever church (if any) that's conducting the service. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On a factual point, royal marriages are specifically covered by the Royal Marriages Act 1772, rather than Lord Hardwicke's Act and its statutory successors. I'm sure that the procedure for an objection is in there somewhere. Tevildo (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but the RM Act is very brief and only seems to impose an additional requirement on royals marrying, that of obtaining the monarch's permission. In all other respects, the marriage must still comply with the law of the land regarding marriages generally.  For a hypothetical example, the Act does not give the monarch the power to agree to two of her children marrying each other, because that would breach the general law.  Regarding the banns, this article is quite instructive.  Something I've learned from it is that banns are not just announcements of forthcoming marriages; they are invitations for anyone to present impediments to the marriage going ahead.  It's virtually unthinkable that anyone on the guest list would be objecting to the marriage, but marriages are supposed to be open to the general public, precisely because it affords one final opportunity for objections to be raised.  Maybe they don't ask this question at the wedding ceremony itself in the case of royal weddings, because while the public are prevented by the security arrangements from being present at the church, they have already well and truly had their chance to object.  I'm sure there's a big book of objections to every royal wedding; mostly letters from nutters, I imagine; but there could be some matters that cause the royal lawyers to burn the midnight oil.  Anyway, this would all have to be thoroughly examined and settled well before the wedding.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that purpose of banns is partially mentioned here Banns of marriage and also.
 * Note that marriages conducted outside the Anglican church in England and Wales (whether with a religious or civil ceremony) have a similar requirement of giving notice at the register office which will be publicly displayed, these don't really mention the objection part but other sources do  . (Of course, in the case of religious ceremonies besides Anglican ones, the religious authorities involved may impose additional requirements.)
 * That said, the previous Anglican church source mentions (and a further discussed here ) the possibility of a non guaranteed Common Licence procedure (which requires you have a recognised connection to the church), for those where it's needed like where there's not enough time for the banns or where one of the partners is not an EU citizen. Although the notice period for non Anglican weddings is shorter than that required for the banns (16 days vs 3 consecutive Sundays), I don't think it's using the 16 day notice period of non Anglican weddings and I'm not sure if there is any specific notice period (although the recognised connection bit does mean at least one of the putative spouses needs to have had their place of residence where the parish is for 15 days).
 * Those earlier sources and others like   instead suggest that the couple need to make a sworn affidavit and the minister who will conduct the ceremony will investigate to ensure there's nothing legally preventing the marriage (so the couple will need to provide the appropriate evidence). Amongst other things, they're supposed to ensure the marriage will be recognised in the non EU citizen's/ home country. (Considering the complexities, I wonder how common it is that the marriage can be conducted faster then the minimum that comes from the banns. Of course it will depend on the minister, the couples relationship with the church and their reason for needing it so soon.)
 * And interesting point mentioned in the last source, it seems those making spuriously raising impediments to Anglican weddings (not sure about those in the register office) can actually be held accountable, although I suspect this only really happens in cases like where it's a jealous or just plain nuts ex-partner or similar like the source mentions.
 * While I didn't look that hard, I didn't find any mention of there being a requirement to ask for objections during the ceremony itself. I suspect Jack is right and this isn't generally required since the banns or the notice is supposed to take care of that. OTOH, Anglican church weddings in England and Wales are I think strongly covered by fairly old not always updated UK law, so may be there is a requirement somewhere even if it's not considered significant.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The CofE service does ask for objections - the Common Worship version is here, and there are links there to other versions of the CofE service. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Book of Common Prayer says "At which day of Marriage, if any man do allege and declare any impediment, why they may not be coupled together in Matrimony, by God's law, or the laws of this Realm; and will be bound, and sufficient sureties with him, to the parties; or else put in a caution (to the full value of such charges as the persons to be married do thereby sustain) to prove his allegation: then the solemnization must be deferred, until such time as the truth be tried.". DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looking a bit more I found which links to . While IANAL etc, the wording there as well as in the whole part  does seem to suggest there's no requirement to raise such an issue during any non CoE wedding ceremony in England or Wales although the couples must declare there's no impediment.
 * As for the CoE part, since it seems to be part of the CoE required wording, I suspect this may be it is currently a legal requirement. However from what I can tell (with earlier disclaimers) from, it doesn't seem the wording itself is a legal requirement. When it comes to solemnization, the law just mentions "according to the rites" etc without any details. Unlike with the banns which does mention it should follow the Book of Common Prayer as per Jack's link. (In case there's confusion, while the law itself doesn't prescribe a version, as per our article, there's only one official version due to other legislation.)
 * Complete speculation here but this combined with the apparent lack for such a wording for non CoE weddings, it sounds to me like the church could just remove the question, whatever the wording itself says. It doesn't sounds like they a couple even have to declare there's no impediments. (Although I'm pretty sure there's something somewhere which means they shouldn't try to enter in to a marriage if they believe there are.)
 * P.S. IIRC they did ask the question at ole Willy & Kate's wedding. In fact, I suspecte you can find some forum where a person could tell you the exact time down to the second in the official video.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)