Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 4

Is a conlang usefull as a cypher?

Is a conlang usefull as a cypher or able to work as one?177.207.102.151 (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

That depends on context, I suppose. Although not a constructed language, Navajo was used in WW2 for example. See Navajo code talkers. In today's world of electronic wizardry, it's unlikely that you'd fool a modern intelligence entity for long, however. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

My family have occasionally used Esperanto to avoid being understood by others – an ironic inversion of its creator's purpose. —Tamfang (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If some of the undeciphered writing systems are conscripts or conlangs, they are successful for writing. It is doubted if they are gibberish, though. Cants have had a long use as cryptolects. Some have become very well understood, though, --Error (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Trivia about the 1960 presidential election

Hello. It is often said that the 1960 presidential elections between Kennedy and Nixon were decided in Illinois and Texas, both of which were won narrowly by the Democratic senator. If they had been won by Nixon it would have been the latter who won the election, and many people claim that fraud was committed in these two states; there was never any clear evidence but I am not interested in delving into that. I am interested in another aspect; with Illinois and Texas Nixon would have won the presidency with 270 Electoral College votes, and since the "quorum" was 269 votes, it would have been a very narrow victory and probably the members of the Electoral College until the actual vote in December I presume, would have felt a bit pressured. I'll throw it out there, since one Oklahoma voter was unfaithful to Nixon anyway, in the event of Nixon's victory, would the 24 Texas voters and 27 Illinois voters have remained loyal by confirming Nixon's victory? Thank you. Andreoto (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There are too many hypotheticals in this question (If Nixon had won... Would the electors (not voters) have remained loyal...) for this to be answerable in a meaningful way – any answer would be pure and futile speculation. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Note also that the slates of electors in each State are selected for each presidential/vice presidential ticket by the corresponding party, who will attempt to select trusted party members. I think this was also the procedure in 1960. There have been faithless electors through the centuries, but it has remained a somewhat rare phenomenon.  --Lambiam 16:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

see unpledged elector#1960. fiveby(zero) 19:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

September 5

Venetian island

In the Venetian lagoon, directly above Castello at around 45.441039°N 12.356454°E / 45.441039; 12.356454, there is an "island", or at least a couple islands in a patch of wetland that probably gets submerged at high tide.

This island is not given a name in any maps of Venice I have seen, official or unofficial, other than in a Navionics chart (found here) where it is labelled as "B Marani H", although I suspect this has more to do with its proximity to the Canale dei Marani.

Moreover, this island appears to be artificial; no maps prior to 2007 have the island existing, and Google Earth has no traces of the island in and prior to September 2007, until its (very defined) outline appears in the April 2010 satellite imagery. Note that although the outline has not changed, the features of the island appear to be constantly shifting, probably thanks to natural lagoon movements.

I have pursued the possibility that it has to do with MOSE, headquartered directly south near the Venetian Arsenal, but as I am unable to read Italian, I have made little headway. As such, I was wondering two primary questions:

1. Does this island have a name?

2. Why was it constructed?

151.198.1.205 (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It ought to be be in the intersection of Category:Islands of the Venetian Lagoon and Category:Artificial islands of Italy, but the only member of that intersection is Tronchetto, located at the other end of Venice, to the west. The new island is remarkably close to the current location of the MOSE control centre (see MOSE § Venice Arsenal), from which it is separated by only a 170 m-wide channel, and has a comparable size, so perhaps (speculation alert) the idea is to relocate the control centre to the new island once MOSE is fully operational.  --Lambiam 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Google Maps[1] has the island tagged with "Unione Sportiva Carmini Venezia", the name of a local Basketball Team: [2]. I find it hard to believe they have any kind of facility on said island. --Jayron32 16:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

In Google Street View it seems to be nothing more than a sand bank [3]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That might explain why it doesn't have a name. As a low-lying, likely ephemeral sandbank, it may not have a formal name. --Jayron32 16:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it seems likely that the island doesn't have a formal name; a large portion of the islands in the Venetian lagoon have no name, and even when islands do have names, there is no consistent scheme for naming (for example, plenty of "islands", like Burano, are actually multiple islands grouped together.) The main reason why I'm interested in this island, however, is that judging by the solid, static outline, it seems that the island was explicitly constructed and not merely ephemeral. Without an explicit reason given for its construction, and with very little development after its initial appearance between 2007 and 2010, however, I'm still baffled as to what it could be, although I am pursuing Lambiam's speculatory angle further. 151.198.1.205 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If it were constructed, it could be a Breakwater of some sort, perhaps as a form of erosion control. After all, Venice is particularly susceptible to such problems, given its unique geography. --Jayron32 17:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a fairly protected area of the lagoon, though, and an unlikely place for a breakwater. I just noticed that the street view images are from 2013, whereas the satellite images are from 2023 and show quite a bit of vegetation on the northeastern portion. Anyway, I have a few vacation days left, so if you pay for a trip to Venice I'll ask around. No? Okay... --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the vegetation, I wonder if the island might have at least some use for wildlife, particularly the flamingos that often winter in the lagoon? 151.198.1.205 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If you look at arial views of Venice circa 1990, you will see that the island was barely visible. At that time, they were experimenting with dredging. In 1995, they went into a large-scale multi-year dredging project. You can look at arial views in 1995, 1996, 1997, etc... and see the island grow dramatically. Therefore, I feel that it is likely the result of dredge dumping. This is not abnormal. When a waterway is dredged, the material has to be dumped somewhere. In Charleston, SC, there is an island often called "Drum Island" that is not actually an island at all. It is a dredge dumping location that was built up over time. It has the same appearance which is created by going over the island with bulldozers to evenly distribute new dredge that is dumped. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Dredging does sound like a very likely explanation. Would you happen to have a place where I might be able to see the aerial photos? Google Earth unfortunately has a large gap in satellite imagery between 1985 and 2003. Thanks! 151.198.1.205 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's a comparison between images from 2000 and 2013 [4]. The appearance of all those islands east of Murano is astonishing, are those also new? --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I've never noticed that before. It definitely appears that those islands are also all new, with their appearance on Google Earth satellite being in the same 2007-2010 gap. Given those islands' distance from MOSE, I'm inclined now to believe that the dredging theory is likely, and that proximity to MOSE might either be a coincidental byproduct, or an intentional commandeering of dredged materials for some as-yet-unknown purpose. 151.198.1.205 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This archived project page details a 2009-11 dredging project, where apparently the dredged soil was to be evaluated for contamination and disposed of accordingly. Three disposal locations are listed: Isola delle Tresse, Molo Sali, and the Moranzani Plants. Based on satellite imagery, it does seem that Isola delle Tresse underwent an expansion, just like the islands mentioned earlier, between 2007 and 2010. I'm not entirely sure where Molo Sali is, other than "along the western bank of the North Industrial Canal." Meanwhile, while Moranzani can be easily found, the eponymous plants are not identified. If there was excess sediment from this dredging project, it's possible, given the timeline, that the new islands were a product of these. 151.198.1.205 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Molo Sali appears to be in the modern port area. An unused part of a canal appears to have been dammed off between 2004 and 2006 (according to Google's aerial images) and some material has been dumped there, but it isn't anywhere near full. South of Moranzani some wetlands have been dammed off around the same time, but it doesn't look like anything has been dumped there. Isola delle Tresse has been greatly expanded and appears to be well above sea level. That makes sense. This dredge material is often contaminated so you don't want it to be washed away. And even if not contaminated, you don't want it to be washed back to where it came from.

The new, artificial islands near the centre of Venezia are very low. On some of Google's images they are flooded. It might be nature redevelopment. Or it could be to manage the flow of water in the laguna, improving water quality. By making the new islands very low, this can be done without increasing water level during storm surges. Or both at the same time. Somebody locally familiar might know more. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Big thank you to everyone who's commented here for their help, I think I've figured it out, and the answer was apparently right under my nose this whole time. In addition to their work on anti-flood systems, MOSE also works on habitat protection and reconstruction. In photo 36, you can see the island, and the caption indicates that it was constructed for that project. Based on the other photos, it was likely made with dredged sediment, although I'm not sure exactly from where the sediment was dredged. 151.198.1.205 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Linking to Spotify

I’m reviewing an article that uses a link to a Spotify discography as a reference. The person who added the link is in the UK, while I’m in the US. The link doesn’t work for me. Is there a way to share links to Spotify discographies that are region neutral so everyone can access them? Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Depending on how it was generated (on which I have no idea), a Spotify discography may not be a reliable source. --Viennese Waltz 06:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m glad you brought that up. What about for basic WP:BLUESKY information? I would like to think that a Spotify discography page would be reliable for this kind of basic data. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If this is about the piri discography, it works for me from both US-based and EU-based IP addresses, but the archived links do not work.  --Lambiam 08:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the live link works great on desktop, but doesn’t work on mobile (iPhone). This is odd to me, as I’ve never had this problem before. Can you run a mobile emulator? Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

On mobile Spotify sends me to the home page and wants me to get the app; it does not open up the discography page.  --Lambiam 11:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the app and it just gives me an error message. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

September 6

Skateboard-like riding toy

Back in my childhood children sometimes made rectangular or square wooden low-raised platforms on wheels to ride. One guy was usually riding in sitting position, while another powered it by pushing from behind. Those looked like something between skateboard and luge, kind of a summer variant of sleds. Was it a thing elsewhere and does it have a name, if any? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Milk crate scooter? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If they're what we destroyed our fingers with by rolling over them in gym class...I thought they were just called floor scooters. --Onorem (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Soap-box cart.-gadfium 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Go-cart? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

They were not powered and basically just a square board on four (roller-skate? shopping-cart?) wheels. I think they could also be pulled rather than pushed. Usually there was no way to steer them, although I have a dim memory of having seen steerable ones (perhaps in Belgium) of a downhill race with steering with a rope attached to a front axle rotating on a central pivot. If they had a name, I either did not hear it used or forgot it. Compare also the pull cart that is the preferred mode of transportation of Calvin and Hobbes  --Lambiam 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd go with children's pushcart. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In Britain a go-cart does not need to be powered. OED Noun 5: "Originally and chiefly British. A light cart, designed esp. to be ridden by children, typically built at home from recycled objects such as wooden crates, pram or bicycle wheels, etc., and usually propelled by the action of gravity." DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a picture of a go-cart. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Like a flexy racer or like a furniture dolly? For some reason if it's got swivel wheels i call it a coaster but don't know why. fiveby(zero) 00:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A post for Jenkem Magazine says "coaster toy", and points to a New York Times article from 1893 which calls for prompt confiscation to avert fatalities. fiveby(zero) 03:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What the OP describes – a flat bed on four castored wheels – is the most basic form of the Flatbed trolley, long used in warehousing, delivery and other industries for moving goods. Although more advanced constructions are now more common, I myself have seen, and have used, this basic form in workplaces, and would call it a dolly. Doubtless children copying or independently inventing this device have come up with a variety of their own names for it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe he is talking about the design specifically for children to use, called "scooter boards." If you search any gymnasium supply (or even Amazon) for scooter boards, you will find a wide selection of multicolored plastic boards with casters on bottom. They are often square, but also come in rectangular models for 2 or 3 children to ride. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The OP specifically wrote "Back in my childhood children sometimes made rectangular or square wooden low-raised platforms . . ." [my emphases]. This (a) suggests some period well past, not the present day, and (b) excludes retail products. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like they were custom-made flatbed trolleys or pushcarts, possibly actual ones taken from somewhere. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I remember racing beds while at university. We have no article (!), but a number of search hits. See also Rag (student society)#Fundraising events. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 12:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

World Trade Center elevators

On the World Trade Center (1973-2001) page, there is nothing that mentions the elevators and which floors they went to. Could someone please tell me the elevator banks? I've been searching for a month with no success. Stickmanzero (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

There were 198 elevators, 99 for each tower. This USA Today article states that:

"Passengers took non-stop express elevators from the ground floor to elevator lobbies on the 44th and 78th floors. There, they walked across a hall to smaller local elevators that went to higher floors."

"Each tower had only two passenger elevators that went non-stop from bottom to top — to the Windows on the World restaurant in the north tower and the observation deck in the south tower." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This article has a diagram showing the different types of elevators and what range of floors they served, as well as several paragraphs describing the "completely different system for the huge towers". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has this two-part diagram, which shows not only the range of floors, but what looks like the actual number the arrangement of express vs local elevators per floor. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there are some service elevators, though, that I want to see. Stickmanzero (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The elevator diagram is confusing, though, as this diagram seems not to show all the elevators. I've found these images that confuse me, such as this image showing elevators going from 77-110, an image showing elevators going from 101-107, an image of elevator buttons, from what I can make out, floors 86-105, another image showing an express elevator from floors 78-107, and a image of an express elevator too hard to see, Stickmanzero (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

September 7

What's the furthest possible domestic call?

By great circle distance. Can landlines or cellphones in say France call ~10,000 miles away parts of France with basic plans and no extra charges or minute limits? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What parts of France are 10,000 miles away from France? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

French Polynesia? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

To enlarge; what other countries might call colonies or overseas territories, France deems parts of itself with equal administrative status to regions of Metropolitan France (the part in Europe). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also hardly unique in that regard. The United States grants equal status to Hawaii and Alaska as it does to the lower 48. --Jayron32 13:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The length of the shorter great circle segment from Paris to French Polynesia (which passes through Dublin and Los Angeles) is about 9,770 miles (15,720 km). By definition of "domestic", a call from Paris to Papeete is a domestic call.  --Lambiam 05:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The question was about calls that can be made with basic plans and no extra surcharges. Can such a call be made from Paris to Papeete? DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly expect this to be a special purpose line. As an example, I grew up in farmland. The area served by our school covered three domestic calling zones. So, some students could call home at no charge. Other students were charged long distance. To avoid this, the school had special lines installed that were considered local for the other two calling zones. If you used them, it wasn't long distance. It basically extended the distance you could call without using long distance because the carrier ran one extra very long line to the school. Consider that scenario for, as an example, a call box in the middle of the Mojave at some research shack. That would be an extra long distance to call without a long distance surcharge. The problem is that it isn't in any of our "world record" books that I can find and searching online turns up nothing more than sales sites trying to separate me from my cash. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In France nowadays, most people have a phone plan that comes through their internet provider and includes free calls to a large number of countries around the world. So there's nothing exceptional about calling French Polynesia for free when you can also dial up someone in Australia or Argentina as if it were a local call. Xuxl (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I just read that it is including cell phones. With my plan, I can travel to the northern-most cell tower in Canada and call someone at the southernmost cell tower in Mexico and call at no extra charge. It is unlimited to Canada, U.S., and Mexico. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

When automatic long distance dialling first came in students at Oxford University devised a 10-digit dialling code enabling them to call London numbers at the local rate. When they found out about it the Post Office disabled it. It was always on the cards because instead of dialling one of the national codes you could dial into a nearby exchange which had its own local codes, and from there to another exchange which again had its own local codes and so ad infinitum. 2A00:23D0:C32:2601:998F:A7BF:6379:214 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Does New Zealand count? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It goes "tishhh"

What is the name of the percussion instrument that is essentially a series of chains of varying size and length that makes a nice "tishhh" sound when stroked? I scanned the images in List of percussion instruments -- no luck. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Cabasa? Or do you mean hanging chains? --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hanging chains -- is that what they're called? (Too obvious). -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the closest that I could find: Musical Bead Chains, but is described as an "enabling device" that "increases sensory awareness". -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Mark tree? --Error (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The mark tree should not be confused with two similar instruments:

* Wind chimes are mounted in a circle with a hanging striker strung in the center; they may be solid or hollow and made of many types of material, whereas the mark tree is mounted in a linear fashion and normally has solid metal bars.

* The bell tree is a set of graduated cup-shaped bells mounted vertically along a center post.

--Error (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Aha! A trip down memory lane led me to Eclectic Mouse,^[5] which led me to Steve Forman (percussionist) which led me to this webpage which led me to his instrument inventory -- wherein lies: Chains | Metal Chain | various lengths of misc. chain | USA -- So, it doesn't really have a proper name. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Error, for your erroneous effort (sorry, couldn't help myself); let's mark this thread...

Resolved

 – 136.54.106.120 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

September 8

Live-stream-initiated rescues

According to Natalie Compton, reporting for the Washington Post, a hiker in Katmai National Park and Preserve was rescued this week because live-cam viewers, hoping to get a glimpse of Katmai's brown bears, noted the hiker's distress. What are other examples of rescues that have been initiated by live stream viewers? Georgeliotswims (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Who bears the brunt?

I am reading the Chicago Manual of Style in its entirety to better improve my understanding of editing, as one usually does. In my 16th edition for sub heading 2.53 fact-checking, it states that "... the author is finally responsible for the accuracy of a work" for books. Further, "most book publishers do not perform fact-checking in any systematic way or expect it of their manuscript editors unless specifically agreed upon". It makes sense. I was thinking for Wikipedia, it probably works similar. We have identifiers that let us check who put the information into an article, and if it is factually inaccurate, the editor who included the information bears the brunt of that inaccuracy.

However, if an article made it through one of our set standard reviews (new page review, articles for creation, peer review, good article review, featured article review, etc.) and we expect those articles to be checked by another/other editor(s) for accuracy, do said reviewers also bear the brunt of inaccuracy? Is there a difference in the veracity if the factual inaccuracy missed is intentionally or accidentally placed (of course, not dealing with the occasional grammar mistake, but for complete passages)? Are there any cases in Wikipedia's history that have precedent for such a situation, at least for the higher echelons of article-status? Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Errors such as "Manuel" of Style?) You can probably find some examples on Wikipediocracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It is so called reliable sources that bear the brunt. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The pedantic problem being that "to verify" means "to make true". So the way to verify it or make it true is by using proper sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

To expand on that, to "verify" something in a WP article means to verify that the source says what the article says it does, not that the source is necessarily accurate. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify your expansion, if a source is shown to be inaccurate, then it isn't a reliable source and should not have been cited in the first place. "To verify" means "to be shown to be true", verifying something doesn't make it true, it is merely means that the truthfulness has been checked. If something isn't true in the first place, it can't be verified. Wikipedia doesn't rely on something being true via assertion only, it relies on something being verifiable in the sense that the truthfulness of it can be checked. --Jayron32 16:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That does answer part of the question. Also, I guess part of the question was unclear. Let us say theoretically in the article Iron Gwazi (in a parallel dimension or timeline), there is a false fact in the passage that goes: Gwazi covered fifteen acres (6.07 ha) previously occupied by a merry-go-round. when the true statement is Gwazi covered eight acres (3.2 ha) previously occupied by [a] brewery. Let us also surmise that this is a crucial fact in the article, which is necessary to explain a lot of other facts that are supported accurately by references. The latter is supported by a reference, while the former is an utter falsehood that was either intentionally or accidentally put into the article by a random editor. Obviously, the editor who included that falsehood is to bear the brunt of that inaccuracy when it is found. However, Iron Gwazi (in this timeline also) made it through new page review, articles for creation, peer review, good article review, and featured article review, without anyone spotting that error. Do those reviewers also bear the brunt of that falsehood not being found because the quality/source-to-text/accuracy is then compromised?

Addendum, if there are multiple so-called "authors" to a Wikipedia page and this happens, do your "co-authors" bear that burden like those in the academic field? Essentially this half-question involves the mindset is Wikipedia's review processes the same as the academic community when falsehoods are found in journal articles. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a tool called WikiBlame that can be used to find who's to "blame" for a particular passage in an article. Editors who routinely add copyright violations, false, invalid, or vandalous information (etc.) may be banned from editing. They more often are banned for obvious reasons without needing WikiBlame, however. Wikipedia has a fundamental principle of "assume good faith" for editors who simply make mistakes, but obvious abuse is not tolerated. Keep in mind that WP is an "encyclopedia that anybody can edit" (unless they've been banned) -- not just scholars, academics, or "experts". -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, remember that, unlike published journals, WP articles are never complete; they can be added to, changed, and corrected at will. There are varied extents for locking articles that are contentious or prone to continued vandalism, misinformation, etc. Articles have talk pages where discussions (often heated) are made regarding uncertainties or potentially controversial edits. Ultimately "who bears the brunt" is the Wikimedia Foundation which gets sued on occasion -- which explains why they are very particular regarding copyright violations and biographies of living persons. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Additionally worth mentioning is that WP articles do not have authors, only editors. Of course, articles are originally created by someone, usually in user's draft space, but once it is moved to article mainspace, it's fair game for others to edit. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that "bears the brunt" is an unfortunate phrase to use in this discussion. All good faith editors strive for accuracy in summarizing reliable sources, and collaborative editing has been shown to greatly assist this process. Being human, we all make errors with greater or lesser frequency. When errors are detected, whether it is a source used that ends up being judged as unreliable, or a failure to accurately summarize the source, the correct course of action is to correct the error, learn from what went wrong, and move on. Trying to decide who "bears the brunt" is not an exercise we should engage in when evaluating the work of generally competent editors acting in good faith. Of course, we also need to deal with hoaxers, axe grinders, cranks, POV pushers and those who lack basic competency. Such people are restricted, blocked or banned not to make them "bear the brunt", but to protect the encyclopedia. Here's an example: I wrote most of an article, Harry Yount, which is currently a Good article. I was unaware that there were two Union Army generals during the US Civil War named "John Phelps", namely John W. Phelps and John S. Phelps. I inadvertently linked to the wrong General Phelps, and the article passed a GA review in 2013 without the error being detected. It was not until 2022 that another editor detected the error, which I promptly corrected. So, should I "bear the brunt" and what exactly does "brunt" mean in this context? Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I will agree on the wording. I was characteristically leaning towards an example about an editor caught in the intentional act, with good-standing in the community; though, I was also inquiring on good-faith accidents as well. Maybe bearing "responsibility" is a better word for it, as we have all have some sort of editorial reputation to create and uphold for article creation and moderation, and in the spirit of AGF (if that makes sense; such as a newspaper writer having to create factual reports and uphold that accuracy for their readers, otherwise, misreporting might damage their reputation or status as a writer). I think you got to some of what I was putting down, with those who are needed to be dealt with-part. I, too, have made several mistakes in wording or phrasing at my FAC and GAN reviews before. We are humans after all! As an example of this "bearing", I feel a hit in personal responsibility/editorial status when I overlook or misinterpret something by accident. "Brunt", for this context, I will surmise as "responsibility", or a sense thereof. Whether we assign responsibility I guess is another question in itself (depending on a situation, whether that assignment is personal responsibility or community-implied).

Essentially, at worst for an editor who is good-standing and made intentional factual errors, is there an equivalent of the Schön scandal and what was the outcome for reviewers/editors. At best for an editor who is good-standing and made accidental errors, what are the unintended consequence to our mistakes in the short- or long-term (e.g. how our fellow editors view our work in the future or how we personally feel about a past-mistake or how readers interpret content)? Also for the replies above, I did not know about "WikiBlame" or "Wikipediocracy", those are interesting. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

For the most part, an editor's reputation is whatever others perceive it to be. Editors have talk pages where one can leave questions or comments about their editing (see Wikilove and Wikiquette for example). They also have a userpage where they can expound about how wonderful they are. There are occasions where an editor's edit history is scrutinized (e.g. sockpuppetry), but there is no periodic review or ranking system (that I'm aware of). Applying to become an administrator however, does involve some analysis of the candidate's edit history. There are noticeboards where disruptive or suspicious activity can be reported. There have been some notorious WP hoaxers, but I don't have any examples at hand. e.g. Jar'Edo Wens hoax. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC) . . . See also: WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bicholim conflict -- nominated for featured article status!^[6] 16:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Great find! Looked further at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 14#Problems with criteria and review procedure, which had an interesting outcome at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for GAN's and reviewers. I wish there was a thank you button for IP's. 🖱️ *click* [thanks] :P Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Brunt might be borne by Ichabod Crane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Seat belts for routine vehicle operation

A playground near my home has a half-bucket swingset seat for little children, as if you cut the pictured swing in half: the child sits on the back half, and a little chain fastens in place of the front half to keep the child in.

According to the introduction to Bucket seat, they were employed in many German military vehicles during the Second World War, because the vehicles had no doors, and bucket seats were needed to prevent the occupants flying out of the vehicle during normal operation. Whether in this context, or in others where occupants might be thrown by normal operation, is there any evidence of anyone (manufacturer or aftermarket technicians) ever installing a belt device to restrain occupants, even something as simple as my swing chain example? After discussing a belt in an aircraft, Seat belt#History begins in the 1950s with the history of a retractable belt, whose designer (a neurologist) was seemingly concerned with victims of accidents, not doorless vehicles whose occupants might bounce out. Apparently "he investigated the early seat belts with primitive designs", so I take it that there were others before him, and probably he wasn't aware of the aviator from a century before. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oddly, Edward J. Claghorn redirects to Seat belt, but is mentioned nowhere in the article. Nevertheless, according to ThoughtCo.: The first U.S. patent for automobile seat belts was issued to Edward J. Claghorn of New York, New York on February 10, 1885.^[7] -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That article mentions the patent description which includes that it is designed for securing the person to a fixed object -- which implies it's intended to keep folks from falling out. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking in Newspapers.com (pay site) for "seat belts", I'm seeing references as far back as the 1860s, for seat belts in boats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

In terms of aviation, this article credits Benjamin Foulois with inventing the first aircraft safety belt in 1911. The same source says that the US Air Commerce Act of 1926 required “safety belts or equivalent apparatus for pilots and passengers in open-cockpit airplanes carrying passengers for hire or reward.” This forum thread says that a lap belt was sometimes used in the Blériot XI aircraft in 1911 and had come into general use for "scout" (i.e. fighter) aircraft by 1915 (better source needed). Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Our seat belt article credits Sir George Cayley (1773-1857) with inventing the seat belt for his experimental gliders in the 1840s and 1850s. The first pilots of these contraptions were small boys including his own grandson, so I expect he was rather keen that they didn't fall out. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

September 10

How to understand this term?

Science Fantasy is normally considered a bastard genre blending elements of sf and fantas - bastard genre? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

See wikt:bastard#Adjective, particularly definitions (3) "Of or like a mongrel, bastardized creature/cross" and (4) "Of abnormal, irregular or otherwise inferior qualities (size, shape etc)". It's a common enough idiom to refer to something that is neither one thing nor the other, a mongrel cross. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(To understand this term, see wikt:neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC))

Chrildren getting taller until 16 or 18

Does a child grow until 16 or 18? 81.151.247.95 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't come as a surprise that there is quite a bit of individual variation. Child_development#Physical_growth gives a range of 14 to 17 for girls and 15 to 19 for boys. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the individual child's genetics and environmental factors. Usually girls stop growing at a younger age than boys. You can view the statistical charts compiled by the CDC here for boys and girls. As you can see from the graphs, most girls don't grow significantly after they are 16, for boys it's closer to 18, but again it differs from person to person, and the graphs aren't even completely flat at 20 years old, so some (mostly boys) continue to grow even after their teens. - Lindert (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

September 11

Unknown contraption

What is this thing for?

I'm intrigued by a large machine which has appeared in a field adjacent to the M25 motorway near Kings Langley in Hertfordshire to the northwest of London. The field has been landscaped by a green energy company, Renewable Energy Systems, which also has a middle-sized wind turbine on the site. Apologies for the poor quality images which were taken from a moving car (I wasn't driving!). At a guess, it's about 2 metres tall. Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Complete guess; could it be either a sonic or laser bird scarer? --Ykraps (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

My first guess is that it is a water pump, which can be about any size. The riddle is, what would the energy company use such a huge pump for?  --Lambiam 16:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a part of either an electric motor or a dynamo or alternator of some sort, likely one of the latter two, given that this is on property owned by a windfarm company? My guess is that this is a piece of equipment someone dropped off for future use either to build a new wind turbine, or to replace a faulty part on an existing one. --Jayron32 16:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Support images for my guess: See here for one installed in a wind turbine, and here for a much larger design for likely a very large wind turbine and here (the green thing). It's the generator from the wind turbine, I believe. --Jayron32 16:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)