Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:52, 2 February 2020

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

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.

January 26

poems

Most pages in the category Category:Poems don't insert the whole poem in the article. If you create an article on a poem, can you include the entire poem if its a long poem? 92.0.200.60 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's permissible, providing it is not in copyright; high profile poems such as The Raven and Kubla Khan include the full text. If you're considering writing an article about a poem or adding a poem to an existing article, though, I would point out that we have a project specifically designed to be a repository of non-copyright works called Wikisource. Matt Deres (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some poems are just very long; The Eve of St. Agnes, for example, has 42 verses, each of nine lines, but is easily beaten by The Song of Hiawatha which runs to 22 chapters. Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, "Ten Little Indians" has 1.5 words per titular folk hero. Only 1.3 if lumping plural and singular. Wikipedia even throws in a previously unheard bonus bridge, just to pad it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may also ask why 'most' of pages about novels do not contain full text of books, why pages about films do not contain full movies or why pages about sculptures do not contain holographic copies of those. The reason is the same in all cases (apart from technical limitations) — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an anthology of arts; it contains articles about pieces of art, not those pieces themselves or their copies. (The more because many of those pieces are protected by copyright.) --CiaPan (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, our article about the Mona Lisa should not contain a picture. You haven't convinced me, but feel free to improve the article as you see fit. In fact, I'm pretty sure the reverse of your assertion is true; if we had the technical ability to include holographs of sculptures, we absolutely would include them - for the same reason we include copies of other artwork: it makes the article better. A picture is worth a thousand words. And we have short films and animations in all kinds of articles, though I'll agree in many cases the films themselves are linked rather than imbedded. But see The Great Train Robbery for an example of the movie itself being imbedded. Matt Deres (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Sevens

How are the 5th to 8th placed teams determined in Rugby Sevens?

Scotland came in 8th place in South Africa last December, with Argentina in 5th, Ireland in 6th, and Kenya in 7th places. May I be reassured that Wikipedia hasn’t lost the ability to properly record the results of Rugby Sevens Tournaments?

What I mean is that Scotland technically did better than Argentina if you look at the results closely of the Pool statue, as we had 8 points as opposed to their 7. Also, why isn’t Wikipedia recording the results of the 9th place thingy?

I can’t see how it is possible for Argentina to be above Scotland when the two teams hadn’t met at any point in this tournament? What in the name of goodness is going on here?

I look forward to your replies, I hope to hear from you soon. Pablothepenguin (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to specifically ask the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, who should be maintaining the rugby sevens articles. If you are referring to 2019–20 World Rugby Sevens Series and 2019 South Africa Sevens articles, my guess would be that it is because the official web site is also not clear on how 5th to 8th is determined either. Looking at the results of South Africa, apparently they got rid of the "fifth place bracket" (as seen on last season's article 2018 South Africa Sevens#Fifth place), but I am having trouble finding the current 2019–20 rules. The bottom of information page still links to the old 2018 rules! So it looks like we are left with just that little information there is on the standings page. Wikipedia cannot report what is not documented elsewhere. But again, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever the OP asks, it would help a great deal if they provide links so we can know WTF they're talking about. According to our article which has not been edited since December [1] Scotland made 7 points (from 2 wins and one loss) in the group stage (not 8) with a zero net points scored difference. Argentina was also on 7 with a net 52 points scored difference. Ireland did have 8 points (finishing top of their group due to their better net points scored difference) as did Kenya (finishing second to Ireland), so you might debate their position but not so much Scotland. Our results are consistent with the official ones too [2] Scotland where not even in the 2019 South Africa Women's Sevens so I guess the OP isn't referring to that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see that Scotland did lose to New Zealand the tournament winners, while Argentina lost to France who were in third place, so I guess by that token you could say they were better. But OTOH, Scotland ended up with a -16 points scored differential after the quarterfinals compared to Argentina's +43, Ireland's 0, and Kenya's -2. (If I had to guess, this was probably how the placings were decided.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

Barbie princess pauper

I understand that classic is a word that's thrown around a lot and opinionated. I asked a lot of questions on here not realising the term isn't what I thought it would be. I thought it was certain things old still popular and valuable. However I gave up on the word because it's pointless living your life believing this word could help you get better with people. But anyway one day I was on here looking at barbie princess pauper its considered to be best barbie film but does that mean its a classic?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_as_the_Princess_and_the_Pauper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7427:6B00:2D82:A885:55F2:C5D2 (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone, like a reputable movie critic or other well-known and well-respected source, called it a classic? That's generally how you would know. Look for what others have already decided about it. The term is not quantitatively defined, and depends on a combination of collective opinion of many people, and on the published opinions of respected critics and the like. --Jayron 32 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From where would anyone derive that "classic" is strictly defined? Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a "classic" within the Barbie series, relatively speaking. (Though my favorite was Barbie Meets Godzilla.) Like which film within the Police Academy series would be the classic, relative to the series as a whole? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'd rather sit through Mission to Moscow than the average movie today 89.172.78.189 (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, every episode of every iteration of Degrassi aged horribly, relative to the original and authentic Canadian coming-of-age masterpiece, Rebel High. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being the best in a series doesn't necessarily mean it's a classic (unless it's plans from outer space) . The best model Trabant isn't one. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A contemporary work may be hailed as an instant classic, but the criteria for classic status tends to include the test of time. What does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7427:6B00:705C:4591:4BCD:3EB2 (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty close to something in the archives from a few months back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper uses the term "classic" in reference to its source material, The Prince and the Pauper, rather than trying to claim that the Barbie movie itself is a "classic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bugs is right about that, The Prince and the Pauper is an old, popular Mark Twain story, so it is what is being described as "classic". --Jayron 32 13:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a mistake to think that there is absolute certainty in categorizing anything as being "classic" and it would be a mistake to think that there is absolute certainty in categorizing anything as being "iconic". Bus stop (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten to the point where I'm wondering if classics are important or not. Should you waste your time on this? It's like figuring out test of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7427:6B00:9819:E5B:4CAB:553 (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

Direct flights between antipodes

Musing in bed last night, as one does, I got to wondering whether there are pairs of places, with international airports, that are so positioned on the Earth's surface that there would be virtually no difference (in distance, time, and cost) whether one flew in one direction or the opposite direction to get from one to the other.

This question supposes there are direct flights between such places. If so, are flights always in the one direction, and why would this be so?

I guess such places would be antipodes, but not all would qualify if (a) there aren't direct flights to the other place, and (b) they don't have an international airport to begin with. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.geodatos.net/en/antipodes/ is a fun site for such musings. Best I could do with a quick search is Málaga, Spain and Auckland, NZ. About 70 km off. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, most of the Earth's surface is water, and most of the Earth's land is in the Northern Hemisphere, so it's actually uncommon to have sizable settlements that are antipodal. This goes against our anthropocentric bias, where a lot of people seem to assume humans are about evenly distributed all over the planet's surface. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are cities that are exactly antipodal and are large enough to have airports: one pair I know about is Neiva and Palembang. (Their airports are just a few kilometers off being antipodal.) But I can't imagine that there are any antipodal pairs with direct air services from one to the other. If there were, the direction of travel would be chosen for commercial reasons such as:

Prevailing winds
Distance to airports for emergency diversions
Possible intermediate stops for passengers

The first two are commercially significant because they affect how much fuel must be carried, and carrying more fuel requires burning more fuel (or taking fewer passengers). --142.112.159.101 (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Longest flights is a relevant article for what has actually been done. Some long flights might actually be useful, others look to have been done to break a record, or for a one-off situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Denby recently made a video about this. The most antipodal airports are Tangier Airport in Morocco and Whangarei Airport in New Zealand, but Whangarei is too small to take an international jet (some airliner-capable Colombian airports are nearly antipodal to Indonesian airports too). But there's no antipodal airline route, because planes just... can't do it. If there were planes capable of doing it, he reckons that London-Auckland is one plausible combination (Auckland-Madrid would be even closer, but demand is too low), and Sao Paulo-Shanghai is another. That said, prevailing winds, overflight fees, ETOPS rules, problems with flying over warzones, deserts, Antarctica etc mean that there's probably never going to be an antipodal route where both directions are equally feasible. Smurrayinchester 09:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not between antipodes, but I have found a route which can be flown either east or west: New York to Beijing. It flies near the North Pole either way, but it can either take a route over Greenland and Siberia to the east, or over Nuvanut and the Russian Far East to the west. UA89 took the Greenland route yesterday, which took 13 hours and 16 minutes, and the day before it took the Nuvanut route, which took 13 hours 12 minutes. (Note that if you plot these on a globe, they actually look virtually identical, with just a few miles deviation around the North Pole - they aren't really very different routes, they just look different when plotted on a flat map) Smurrayinchester 09:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Smurrayinchester. That's exactly the sort of answer I love. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a most interesting video. But I wish he spoke just a tad more slowly, and as for anti-//podes// - really??!! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

Judge Jury and executioner

Are there any instances where a decision to box a question (or otherwise stop any further discussion) on the reference desk has been overturned following discussion on the talk page. If so, I would be curious to know the percentage both ways. I ask as it appears to me that Wikipedia has a prevailing tendency to curb the freedom of speech of the questioners. I may be wrong and hope to be proven wrong. Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but you should have posted this question on the ref desk talk page. It would be better if you could delete your question (and this reply) and repost it over there. --Viennese Waltz 10:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that no where on Wikipedia do you have freedom of speech. It is not a concept that exists here. What we have are standards and guidelines for what is an appropriate topic of discussion in this specific forum, and what is not. The idea that you should be able to say anything, anywhere, at any time, and that everyone there has to accept what you say uncritically, and also has to allow you to continue to say anything regardless of what you say; that is not a concept that exists anywhere in the world, less of all at this forum, which as stated at the top, is designed to handle certain types of questions, and not others. If you ask a question which is not of the type this forum is designed to handle, we will direct you to a different place to ask it. That is not censorship, and it is not a violation of any freedom you thought you may be entitled to. Because you aren't. --Jayron 32 12:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have noticed it, but Wikipedia is not a public service. It is a product provided by an individual foundation. The Wikimedia foundation can set its own rules regarding what is accepted here. JIP | Talk 13:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to answer the question? Are there any instances where a decision to box a question (or otherwise stop any further discussion) on the reference desk has been overturned? Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by a "decision". We had a user some time back who would box up things that appeared to be rules violations, and sometimes they would stay boxed up, and other times they would be unboxed, and then sometimes reboxed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes, at least once in history, a discussion which was initially closed was later re-opened. --Jayron 32 17:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the point made by Viennese Waltz that this question would be more appropriate on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, it's certainly happened in both directions. People make mistakes and consensus on the talk page hopefully corrects the mistakes. But I doubt anyone is keeping statistics on it. If you need an exact count, You'll have to go through the archives yourself and count them up.

That'll be a project, but it's entirely doable. Good luck. ApLundell (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

Question about Miami Dade (2000 ballot)

Hi, I am doing several Google searches, YouTube etc, but I have not found any of that, I get to the point. The electoral ballot of Miami County was different from that of Palm Beach and I assume it was similar to other counties, except in the aforementioned PB. I don't know if you can help me to fulfill my request, as well as great curiosity; bad that goes I write to the County. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably already know, one of the major problems with the 2000 election in Florida was that each county designed its own ballot. It's no surprise that some were better designed than others, with the Palm Beach County one being notoriously poorly done. Now there may have been similarities between some ballots, but they were all independently designed and approved at the county level. Xuxl (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would like to make another observation: that year there were ten presidential Tickets, while in this ballot there are six holes. In this drawing there are no candidates for the presidency, but the number of holes were always the same; they do not increase or decrease. Is it plausible to think that "minor" and therefore "irrelevant" candidates have been removed from the ballot, which - I would repeat - would be more plausible? I did not mention the right page, there was no need it is irrelevant, because it is Spanish for native speakers in the state; of course I was referring to the left page. https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/voting-machine-used-in-the-miami-dade-county-elections-that-news-photo/51569393 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Where do you get the "six holes" from? I see twelve columns of potential holes. 2) It's not a case of leaving minor parties off the ballot, it's a question of them failing to get on the ballot. Each party has to get on the ballot of each state (and DC) separately. --Khajidha (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also see 12 columns, but the page on the right shows the candidates for their offices in Spanish, but they are always the same, only written in a different language. You may be wrong about the rest; I don't think Miami County had a design like that of Palm Beach, unfortunately I couldn't find even a rag. But if this were the case, I would have found my answer and then mine would have been only a wrong conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about when you say "you may be wrong about the rest; I don't think Miami County had a design like that of Palm Beach". I never mentioned either of those places. And the fact that two locations within a state have physically different ballots means nothing as far as who is on the ballot. Ballot access (what candidates are on a ballot) is by state, ballot design is often by county. --Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now about "six holes". I think you are a bit confused. These are just example ballots (the clue is that the people listed as running for these local judgeships are all famous US jurists, including former Supreme Court Justices). There are three names listed for each office in this model, but REAL elections could increase the number of candidates by simply adding another line and expanding the "box" for each election. --Khajidha (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A voter would place their unmarked ballot on the surface behind the pages with names listed on them. When the voter turned to the first page, the first column of circles would be exposed between the two facing pages. The candidates in the first race would be arranged in a boxed list with arrows pointing to a particular hole. In the model, there are only 3 per electoral race but any number up to the number of lines of circles on the card could occur. Several races might be listed on the same sheet with blank lines in between. The voter would punch out the circle that matched their choice for that office. When the voter turned the page, a new column of circles would show between the pages. --Khajidha (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you have been very helpful to me. In this case ten candidates, ten holes, to understand each other. Is it possible that they were also written in Spanish? I do not believe, rather I believe that in all probability the names of the candidates were all on the left page and perhaps only in English. Well we cleared up, thank you so much. When you want and if you want to wait for your answer, which confirms or denies the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most people don't use different names in different languages, so I'm not sure what you mean here. The names of the offices (President, Circuit Court Judge, etc) are in English on the left and Spanish on the right. --Khajidha (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You understood perfectly, you were very precious. Thank you so much. Well, see you and sorry for the hassle I caused you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

Omniatlas

Would this source be allowed to be used in a page about Saudi expansion? https://omniatlas.com/maps/southern-asia/19220505/ 79.67.65.129 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean, would it count as a reliable source, then I'm afraid the answer has to be that it would not. The "About" page of the Omniatlas website states: "An atlas such as this would have been impossible to produce without access to wikipedia, ...", so this could lead to circular sourcing. --Lambiam 10:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pianist - German-speaking Nazis in Poland

In the Holocaust film The Pianist, why did the Nazis spoke to Władysław Szpilman and other Polish Jews in German instead of Polish or English? 86.128.175.37 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the characters knew German. Temerarius (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were Germans, not Nazis. Nazi is a social and political ideology, but their nationality and their citizenship was German. Poland was under a German occupation and German authorities talked to citizens in the German state's national and official language. Which was German. That's about facts.

If you ask about depiction of the facts, that is why actors in the movie were speaking in German, then I can only guess it was decided so to emphasis the contrast between the occupiers and occupied. --CiaPan (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hope my English is not that bad to cause some misunderstanding, and you'll not read something I didn't mean to write. CiaPan (talk)

See History of the Jews in Poland#Jewish and Polish culture which says; "according to the 1931 census, 79% of the Jews declared Yiddish as their first language, and only 12% listed Polish". Yiddish is " a High German-based vernacular". I found The Jews of Pinsk, 1881 to 1941 (Pinsk is in Belarus) which says of the German occupation in the First World War that "Yiddish, the first language of the Jewish majority and German were close enough for the occupied and the occupiers to quickly understand each other".

Another factor is that it seems likely that German would have been taught as a foreign language in Polish schools before the war. There was a substantial German minority in Poland and Germany would have been an important trading partner. No luck with a reference for that but I'll have another look later on. Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for why they did so in the film, the definitive answer is: that is how the Director Roman Polanski decided to present them in the cinematic work, which may or may not have been an aspect of how the Screenplay writer Ronald Harwood had chosen to adapt the memoir by Władysław Szpilman on which it is based.

Depicting, for an at-least partially English monoglot audience, events involving people speaking other languages, sometimes with and sometimes without mutual intelligibility, there are several possible approaches. One is to have them all speak English with varying "foreign" accents, but this can often seem comic even if not intended to be. It was successfully deployed with deliberate comic effect in the largely fictional 'Allo 'Allo!, but would surely have risked inappropriateness for the horrific true events of The Pianist.

Since Polanski's own tragic childhood experiences were broadly similar to those of the (older) Szpilman, he no doubt thought very deeply about this as well as other aspects of the film. It may be that he or a colleage have spoken about the decision publicly, but if not no-one can know the answer for sure. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

Units

In this source [3], an amount of 700,000 is mentioned but I can't understand what unit of measurement is being used. Any ideas?--Ykraps (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like shillings but that seems an odd way of describing the amount. Why not £35,000?--Ykraps (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source refers to specie which means cash money, so the unit of measurement is probably a currency. I suspect that those characters that follow the 700,000 amounts to some kind of optical character recognition version of "£" meaning Pound sterling. But I could be wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google books shows "700,000ℓ.", with an italic minuscule letter ℓ rather than a slash. This used to be an abbreviation for pound sterling (see the quote by Joseph Chitty at Wiktionary's page for "l"). --Lambiam 10:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, like this example. Alansplodge (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. As in LSD. It looked like a slash to me, which I thought was shillings. Like 2/6 (two 'n' six). Thanks all.--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system in Miami

It looks like a "hybrid" system, punch card / optical scan; was the ballot inserted into an electronic ballot box and how was the ballots counted? We are talking about many years ago, I wait for your explanations, if you want. Thanks so much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf6_skTdMX8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you writing a book or something (a good idea I guess)? What are the main sources you have looked at? Media reporting of the time had a lot of info, and the NORC survey a few years later had some too. There were a couple of books about the legal and political maneuvering around those vote counts, but I don't think they had much technical info. Internet forums of the era aren't online any more, but some archive snapshots are floating around that a serious researcher could possibly put their hands on. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not writing any books, but I have a visceral passion for these things; the voting machines, so to speak: they drive me crazy, I confess. Go crazy not like a beautiful woman, of course! However, I have already written to whom I owe and I am confident in the matter. Thank you for your answer. Signed the half-serious researcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maps/landmarks

Why does the red dot referencing a specific location (for cities, landmarks, etc.) not show up when I expand a map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.240.92 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any map (just type in any city for an example) has a red dot to show the actual location on the map in the section on the right. When you click on it, the map expands like any other image, but there is no dot to indicate where the actual location is when it is expanded for greater detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.240.92 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Google Maps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is googlemaps (unless that is what Wikipedia uses for it's maps). I'm talking about the map on the main page of an article, generally in a box in the right section (when looking up a city for example). There is a red dot to indicate the location on that map, when you click on it and it expands for greater detail, the map shows in (sort-of) full-screen in the browser but the red dot is not present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.240.92 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a question about Template:Infobox_settlement.

I believe the unsatisfying answer is that the dot is placed with a script and the link just goes to the raw image file, but it's certainly non-intuitive for the user. It has irritated me a few times in the past.

You could ask about it on the talk page. Someone watching that page might be able to give you a more complete answer.

ApLundell (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will post this inquiry there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.240.92 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it really does not have anything directly to do with Template:Infobox settlement. It has to do whether the article is still using the older but very limited Template:Location map system, or has been switched to the newer but superior, interactive Template:Maplink. The Cleveland page uses both systems, with Maplink showing an outline Cleveland's borders. For landmarks, a blue circle pointing at the location can be used, see University of Paris. The interactive Maplink was only implemented around early 2017, while the older Location map (with the dot is placed with a script and the link just goes to the raw image file) having been used since 2006. To my knowledge there has been no significant push to do a massive replacement of all the thousands of pages still using the older map system. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add another vote that this is very irritating, non-intuitive, and unhelpful to readers. --Khajidha (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I complained about it on WP:VP/T some years ago, and as I recall I was basically told "Sorry, that's how it works". I don't remember enough specifics (or what IP address I was using at the time) to be able to look up the actual thread, though. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

Mercury

Why was the name of mercury changed from hydrargyrum? Why not keep hydrargyrum? †dismas†|^(talk) 03:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it would seem that "mercury" preceded "hydrargyrum".[4][5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury (element) states "Mercury.. is commonly known as quicksilver and was formerly named hydrargyrum". An answer at Quora states "Even after the name changed from Hydrargyrum to Mercury the chemical symbol still remained Hg." These quotations suggest that "mercury" was preceded by "hydrargyrum" which is the Latinized form of the Greek word "liquid silver" for mercury. Mercury was a Roman, not a Greek god. DroneB (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but neither the Wikipedia article lead nor the Quora answer give sources. Other sources, like Britannica, just say that the chemical symbol comes from Latin (or Latinized Greek). As far as I can tell, "hydrargyrum" was never a widely used name for the element in English. Surachit (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it, I can't say--people just liked it better that way. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 197: / Line 197: @@
 ::[[Mercury (element)]] states "Mercury.. is commonly known as quicksilver and was formerly named hydrargyrum". An [https://www.quora.com/Hg-is-the-chemical-symbol-of-which-element answer at Quora] states "Even after the name changed from Hydrargyrum to Mercury the chemical symbol still remained Hg." These quotations suggest that "mercury" was preceded by "hydrargyrum" which is the Latinized form of the Greek word "liquid silver" for mercury. [[Mercury (mythology)|Mercury]] was a Roman, not a Greek god. [[User:DroneB|DroneB]] ([[User talk:DroneB|talk]]) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 :::Yes, but neither the Wikipedia article lead nor the Quora answer give sources. Other sources, like [https://www.britannica.com/science/mercury-chemical-element Britannica], just say that the chemical symbol comes from Latin (or Latinized Greek). As far as I can tell, "hydrargyrum" was never a widely used name for the element in English. [[User:Surachit|Surachit]] ([[User talk:Surachit|talk]]) 17:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
+Even old New York was once New Amsterdam.  Why they changed it, I can't say--people just liked it better that way. [[Special:Contributions/2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118|2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118]] ([[User talk:2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118|talk]]) 18:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)