Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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 10

Crying with mask on

If someone (not a very young child) is crying (for example, at a funeral or because failed major exams) with a mask on, is there higher risk for breathing difficulty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulut Besar (talk • contribs) 11:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does your nose get stuffy when you cry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Crying while wearing a face mask - pros: you can cry in peace - cons: your mask is now wet". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if I get physically exerted wearing a mask, the inside of the mask gets wet, breathing is harder, and I've gotten sick from it (sore throat). Sometimes I have to run errands involving an uphill walk that gets me that way. I carry spare masks when I do that, so I can switch to a dry one when necessary. So far I'm still using those crappy surgical masks but want to switch to some better ones. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

Lemon Tree song

Courtesy link: Lemon Tree (Will Holt song)

Hi, guys! I teach English in Vietnam and I was surprised to hear so many kids from 5 to 12 singing the Lemon Tree song in the last months. I've even heard it a few times in bars. So I asked the kids how they know this song and they told me that it's very popular on TikTok. It's it happening in other countries too? I think that would be worth mentioning in the article about the song, what do you think? 27.72.29.175 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The place to propose/discuss this is that article's talk page. But note that you will need at least one reliable source rather than just go by what the kids say.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

Can you get COVID after getting the vaccine

Did Representative Primala Jayapal and the 2 other Representatives who tested positive for COVID-19 receive the vaccine before they were recently exposed on January 06, 2021? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.78.55 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can still get Covid. For details please see COVID-19_vaccine#Efficacy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the vaccine certainly does not stop you transmitting it to others, so facemasks and distancing still need to be observed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Some representatives are known to have received 1 vaccine shot but I don't know if it's known whether Rep. Jayapal and the other two positive testees received it. 2) With 1 shot it is only 50% effective at preventing Covid illness. With 2 shots and a wait, it's 95% effective. 3) it's not known (from the phase 3 trial at least) whether the vaccine is effective at all at preventing infection. Trial participants apparently didn't get regular testing during the trial, unless they showed symptoms. So it might be possible to get infected just as easily as before, but the vaccine helps your body handle the infection better, so you don't get sick. You would still test positive, just like anyone else with an asymptomatic infection. In that case, though, you can still catch and transmit the virus easily, and unvaccinated people you transmit it to can still get sick. So the whole masks-and-distancing routine really has to be kept up for quite a long time into the vaccination program. I'm pessimistic. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anon, for the above explanations, and for the final warning, too. --CiaPan (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For an infected person to be infectious (able to infect others), they need to be shedding virus particles. If so, this means that the virus is replicating. It is extremely plausible that the protection obtained by vaccination comes from a diminished capability of the virus to replicate. While it is better to err on the side of caution, it will be an unexpected outcome of further studies if this diminished replication does not also extend to diminished transmissibility. --Lambiam 10:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that's likely still contingent on having gotten immunized in time, which is something of an unknown given COVID's long lead time. If you got infected on Monday, it's not clear to me at all that getting the vaccine on Wednesday is going to be of any use. Even if the representatives in the OP were vaccinated, they may have been vaccinated after exposure and/or after symptoms started. Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made it clear that my contribution considered the case of maximally protected (potential) carriers, which most vaccinees would be when we are "quite a long time into the vaccination program", also in the light of a preceding assertion that "the vaccine certainly does not stop you transmitting it to others". It may be unknown whether being vaccinated with two doses followed by an appropriate waiting time offers protection against being infected, but I submit that it is not certain, and in fact, on a priori grounds, unlikely, that this does not decrease transmission drastically. --Lambiam 22:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2], Pramila Jayapal and Bonnie Watson Coleman had received the first round of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine (Tozinameran) and were due to received the second round soon. This article [3] mentions Brad Schneider had received a vaccine (it doesn't seem to mention which one I think), but only two days before January 6 so it probably wasn't particularly effective. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

Tea and coffee

When it says at bottom putting it all together a sample beverage plan when it says About one-third (or about three to four cups) can come from unsweetened coffee or tea a day are they recommending tea or coffee or both a day? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks-full-story/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.250.249 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what it means. It is not a recommendation to drink coffee or tea. If the only thing you drink is plain water, that is perfectly fine. This is part of a recommendation to drink enough fluid (containing water). To remain properly hydrated, you do not have to get all your hydration from plain water. If you like coffee or tea, then you can replace some of the plain water by coffee or tea. But not too much -- preferably not more than about three to four cups -- and also drink only unsweetened drinks. --Lambiam 10:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have explained that perfectly but my question was when they say drink no more than 3 to four cups a day of coffee or tea are they saying one or the other coffee or tea or both coffee and tea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.250.249 (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. A beverage is not limited to tea or coffee and that's it. My beverage plan is a cup of tea in the morning, chicory at lunch time and hot chocolate before bed. It means drink whatever beverage you like. (edit) see beverage. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are saying any mixture of up to 3 or 4 cups, so "no tea and no coffee" is fine if water comes from another source, or "tea, tea, coffee" or "coffee, tea, coffee tea" or ... it is 3 or 4 cups of tea or coffee mixed as you like, it is not 3 or 4 cups of tea AND 3 or 4 cups of coffee. Whether this advice is good is a different question all together. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox templates

Do I need to create userpage subdirectory pages for each and every one of my multitude of recently contrived userboxes?

I refrain from asking how we can speed up the gif in this userbox. I've made animated gifs, and they have a mind of their own, much like the Senate.

This user supports impeachment

Charles Juvon (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can look at the HTML coding behind the template, and construct a bunch of them on a single page, e.g. your user page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did look at the HTML in Google Chrome for my userpage and found it to be highly complex. Then I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sockpuppet . Is it generally a bad idea to be creating a user subpage for each of my userboxes? After looking through many user pages and our articles about userboxes, this is really the only thing I found that I understand. I have authored many websites in HTML, but there is something about converting my simple wiki markup userboxes into an addressable template that I do not understand. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing that putting them on individual pages is that other editors can use them if they so choose. Here's one that I created for myself and figured no one else would lower their dignity enough to want to use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets be darned.

Great Malapropism! Charles Juvon (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

PAC

at the moment I am reading "The Road to Wigan Pier", written by George Orwell.

the abbrevation "PAC" is used in following content:

In chapter 1. page 6: "..an unemployed man on the PAC named Joe..."

In chapter 2. page 44, "..get something from the dole or the PAC."

my question: for what PAC stands for ?

thanks for your answer, U.Heubi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uheubi (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Googling PAC "George Orwell" suggests turning to page 71 of the book and finding "Public Assistance Committee". 85.76.79.55 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Wikipedia article (or, rather, a stub): Public Assistance Committee. --Lambiam 20:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

Please assume food faith

I am not a conspiracy nut, but I happened to do the maths a few days ago while chatting to my wife and it stuck me that there us something amiss. Please help me to find valid rationale. In the UK there have been approximately 3,260,000 cases of covid among a reported population of 66,000,000 with total of about 86000 deaths over about the past year. This equates to 4.92% of the population having had covid and 0.1% have died. This also indicates that if one does get it, there is a 95.2% survival rate. I don't understand, are the reported figures wrong? Why are we all being locked up? A quick Google search shows that 529,613 died of the flu in 2015 in the UK alone. Have I got cabin fever? Have I drank too much Port during lockdown? Is this Ira Levin's This Perfect Day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:6884:6200:7C5C:3B3:3C73:8554 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You actually understate the survival rate; the case fatality rate is currently 2.6%, although it is a little uncertain as there will have been undetected cases, and there are also some people who currently have the virus (and thus are included in the figures for cases) who will ultimately die from it. There are many articles detailing the government's reasoning for the current restrictions; for example, if there were more cases, it is highly likely that healthcare would struggle, and the death rate would increase significantly. If we allowed it to infect the entire population, and assumed the death rate didn't increase, that would mean about 1.7 million deaths, a huge total, and one concentrated in certain vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly. In addition, there are concerns about what might be the medium- and long-term health impacts of the virus. Finally, your figure for flu deaths in 2015 is completely wrong, that is the total number of deaths in the UK in 2015 from all causes. Deaths from flu in the winter of 2014/15, the highest in many years, were only 28,330.[4] Warofdreams talk 01:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current survival rate depends on the capacity of the health system to treat those who need treatment. The problem is that as numbers of infected people increase, the demand on health facilities increases too. The health system does not have unlimited capacity. Once that capacity is reached, sick people won't be able to receive treatment, and the death rate will go up. Percentages such as those you have calculated only apply while numbers are below the health system's capacity. Locking you up (which is an appallingly loaded way of describing what's really happening) keeps numbers low enough for the health system to continue to cope. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And on top of all that, the large amount of care that needs to be given to COVID-19 patients means that people with other health problems may not be able to get adequate care in a reasonable time frame. I know someone who had to delay some medical testing due to such overstressing of the healthcare system. Several weeks later, he was diagnosed with stage 4 colorectal cancer. Luckily, he has responded well to treatment, but in cases like his such a delay could often mean the difference between life and death. Or at least result in a longer, more arduous treatment. Horrific as it is (and I know this sounds callous at first), but the death rate from this virus is not the real problem. --Khajidha (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The British public had to endure all kinds of restrictions during The Blitz in 1940/1941. The total number of Covid-19 deaths is now double the number of deaths in that event (43,000 civilians) [5]. Imagine the number of deaths if there had been no lockdowns. Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A further issue is that the more people who are infected with the virus, the more mutated versions will develop and the wider they will spread before COVID vaccinations become widespread enough to stop the spread. The mutations that have appeared so far already include some that are more easily transmitted; if one turns up that also causes more serious illness and isn't stopped by existing vaccines, the consequences could be very bad. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowly avoided subway disaster

I remember reading 2-3 years ago about a situation where a subway collapse was narrowly avoided. IIRC a commuter, I think it was actually even a journalist, was waiting for a train, spending time by staring at the ceiling and noticed that the tile pattern was different, or that the perspective at the vanishing point didn't look right or something, and it turned out that the ceiling was sagging by several centimeters, and luckily the subway company managed to close the tunnel and repair it before it failed. I kinda think this was a recent event, maybe even in the UK or US. Does anyone remember anything like this? I can't find it on Google. 93.136.206.110 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite as you describe, but this reminds me of the Northern_City_Line#Tunnel_penetration_incident.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm it could be that. It doesn't give me the "that's it!" feeling, but I kind of think it was in London around that time too. I'm not dead sure on the tunnel being repaired before it failed but I'm positive it was identified by a stroke of luck just soon enough to avoid a disaster. 93.136.132.188 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Borough Hall/Court Street station in New York City, where: "In June 2018, part of the Eastern Parkway Line station's ceiling collapsed, injuring a bystander. The collapse necessitated expensive emergency repairs that would set the MTA back $8.3 million. A report found that the staff sent to inspect the station verified the defect existed in 2017, but underestimated its severity due to a lack of expertise in terracotta ceilings, nor was the issue escalated to engineers who were familiar with terracotta". See also MTA incompetence led to Borough Hall subway ceiling collapse. Alansplodge (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a roof collapse at 181st Street station (IND Eighth Avenue Line) in 2009. See MTA Negligence Led to Subway Station Ceiling Collapse, Report Says The same article mentions a section of metal ceiling falling off at Bowling Green station in 2007 (there seems to be a theme emerging here). Alansplodge (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But OP asks about a ceiling that did not actually fall. --CiaPan (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

more information neeeded

The entry on the "complete and utter history of britain" television program does not mention why there are no DVDs available that will play on U.S. players.

Someone should investigate why this is and mention it on your entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.72.170 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to do so, and let us all know the results of your efforts. DOR (HK) (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, it's not available in the UK either, except for the first two episodes. The rest of the show was lost. DVDs, generally, are region-locked because various parties think it's best for current and future profits. My advice would be to immediately pirate and redistribute this and any other TV shows you're interested in, so they won't suffer the same fate. It's cultural preservation, and it's the moral choice. Temerarius (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete and Utter History of Britain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only 6 episodes, and only 2 have survived. Not much DVD material there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough that a Blu-Ray/DVD of the surviving episodes, with edited-out material restored and new material added, was released. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 17