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.

August 18

Railway children

I am familiar with the foibles of King's Cross Station (a platform zero, Queen Boadicea not being interred under platform 9, and platform 9 3/4 where Harry Potter fans can buy merchandise), but when I went there this evening platform 11 seems to have disappeared. Platform 9 is in it's usual place, but alongside it is a carpet of ballast and platform 10 is against the western wall. Has the track been lifted, and if so, why? 2A00:23A8:0:3D01:E856:801C:1D5B:E61D (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answer is in the article. 2A00:23A8:0:3D01:E856:801C:1D5B:E61D (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it's in the last sentence of the lead section, but it doesn't say why. --142.112.221.64 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The project also involved reducing the overall number of platforms from 12 to 11, with platform 10 now replacing the location of platform 11. The simplified alignment will help to boost operational flexibility, with trains now capable of getting in and out of the station quicker." [1] --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Din-i Ilahi

1. The article says "Dīn-i Ilāhī appears to have survived Akbar according to the Dabestān-e Mazāheb of Mohsin Fani. However, the movement was suppressed by penalty and force after his death and was totally eradicated by Aurangzeb, a task made easier by the fact that the religion never had more than 19 adherents.[8][4]" - In the source number 8 there is no about the destruction of the sect by Aurangazeb, the source number 4 is without pages and its volume is too large to view.
2. The article card says "Defunct Likely 1606", but the article says "In the 17th century, an attempt to re-establish the Dīn-i-Ilāhī was made by Shah Jahan's eldest son, Dara Shikoh,[9] but any prospects of an official revival were halted by his brother, Aurangzeb, who executed him[10]", Judging by the article Dara Shikoh he was executed in 1659, but source 10 has no pages to check.
3. In source 8 it is written that there were no more than 19 people in the sect, and in the preamble of the article "Members 21; also there were several influenced followers".

Vyacheslav84 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The place to suggest your improvements to the article is Talk:Din-i_Ilahi. Philvoids (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are so many photographers switching to Sony?

Within the past three weeks, I've seen photographers, who normally shoot using Canon or Nikon, move to the Sony α7R V (ILCE-7RM5). What explains this sudden shift? Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very likely to be because of the specific people you have seen. It is almost impossible to generalize on this subject from one person's recent observations.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a form of Confirmation bias? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or Information bubble? -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC) . . . However, searching your question suggests that it is a common, but not very recent phenomenon: [2] (which might in itself be an information bubble/confirmation bias).[reply]

I've seen multiple, different photographers that I follow online in altogether different areas of professional photography suddenly switch to the Sony ILCE-7RM5. I don't think it's confirmation bias. Since I didn't know the answer to the question, I recently spent some time searching for an answer. I discovered two things that I didn't know: 1) the Sony ILCE-7RM5 is considered one of the best professional cameras currently available for pros who need to generate and deliver quickly, and 2) its new technological features, particularly the use of AI, makes it easier for working pros to get the best shots. I think this perfectly explains why I'm seeing seasoned wedding photographers and photojournalists suddenly make the switch. I wasn't aware that this camera even existed until now, but I always look at the exif metadata of my favorite photographers to see what they are using. Until last week, it was all Canon and Nikon. Now it's all Sony. Looking at the results, it is interesting. It's almost like these photographers are getting the best of what they got from Canon and Nikon, now combined into one platform. My understanding, based on what I've read, is that fine art photographers are probably not going to use it. It's designed for commercial photography workflows. As far as I understand it, the AI and other features allow the quickest turnaround for their clients, which means more clients and less work in post (I think). This could go a long way towards explaining why so many people are going in this direction, if it means making more money in less time to support your career. I don't know much about the camera, but I'm curious if the AI really does save time for pros. Reviews say it's not designed for pros who mainly capture sports or action, just stills and video. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Curiosity about a goal on a penalty kick (soccer)

Hello. Why is a goal on a penalty kick considered as such, even when the ball before entering the goal beats on a wood, be it post or crossbar? Because maybe it is a continuous action? Thank you. 151.57.184.231 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it crosses the line, it's a goal, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.57.179.180 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I solved it, thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.57.179.180 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, what was the issue? Generally, in games with a goal at each end, such as soccer or hockey, it's a goal if it ends up in the goal, regardless of what obstacles it hits first, such as the crossbar, an upright, or some part of the goalie's body. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Aussie rules. But you did say "generally". HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that sport qualifies as "soccer". It's more in the family of Rugby and gridiron football. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it does have goals at each end of the field. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have said "goals with nets that the offense tries to put the object into". I might compare it with basketball as well, where a shot can bounce around on the rim and backboard, and if it falls into the net, it's a score. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the oddness of not counting it as a goal when the ball enters the goal, it would add unnecessary controversies when players object to a call by the referee, or disagree with eachother in low-level amateur matches with no referee. Most sports have enough sources of disagreements. No reason to add one which is trivial to avoid. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~On the other hand that rule would have prevented the long-standing controversy about the Wembley goal of 1966... --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, strike that, that wasn't even a penalty. I blame the heat. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's how it works in normal play. The same applies in penalty kicks because no-one saw a need to make a different rule that only applies in that situation. Iapetus (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading the original post, I suspect the IP meant why it's counted as a penalty kick goal in official statistics instead of an open play goal like if the ball had bounced back and been kicked in by the same player (not allowed in penalty shootouts). If the goalkeeper touches the ball before it goes in then it it's also counted as a penalty kick goal. I see no good reason to not count it as a penalty kick but the controversy issue would almost vanish if it's still a goal and the only difference is penalty statistics. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

How to cleanup Google-digitized image artifacts

There's an amazing archive of old Google-digitized images held by groups like HathiTrust. But as you can see from this example, many of them have some kind scanning artifact. What is the best way to remove these artifacts? I would like to upload these wonderful images to Commons. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Editors skilled at improving images are active there. Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ~~I will remove this post.~~ Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the graphics lab takes requests for specific images, they don't help you answer these types of questions. My guess is that this question has come up dozens of times before since it's an error unique to Google-digitized images, so maybe someone knows something. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, perhaps you can submit a small sample, say three to five images, and if another editor succeeds in improving the image quality, discuss their techniques and tools with them. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. Now I know why they pay you the big bucks. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I get paid in crappy virtual T-shirts. Cullen328 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can retire (for a second time) and rest on your laurels. You've finally made it. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer Trump Bucks? You could become a Trumpillionaire! Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

The latest WP:Signpost has a relevant article -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 11:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 348, 350, 353, 355 and 357 of the given reference show very interesting full-tone images marred by an Aliasing pattern probably generated by mismatch of the Photogravure printing screen and the Google scanner grid. In principle the undesired pattern can be reduced by processing each digital image file with a two-dimensional bandstop filter. However this is difficult to apply because 1) a lack of existing tools so that new programming is called for, 2) the pattern frequency and orientation must be found for each image and 3) the degree of filtering must be adjusted by eye to minimise degradation (blurring) of the remaining image. Fast Design of 2-D Narrow Bandstop FIR Filters for Image Enhancement [3] offers a mathematical treatment but I have not yet seen a convincing demonstration of this kind of image restoration. Philvoids (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Philvoids: when I used to use a scanner back in the early 2000s, the scanner software had a filter to remove moiré pattern artifacts. They looked very much like this. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Software that controls the image scan process can reduce moiré artifacts by a strategy such as scan at 2X the desired resolution, apply a blur filter and finally resample to half size to get the desired image size. It's much more difficult to remove pattern artifacts after they have been added to an image. I doubt that Google would be inclined to redo their scan work but there is moiré avoiding advice here. Philvoids (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much. Thank you for the education! Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

Map number of supporters in Manchester

Hello. Of course, there is no history neither at the national level nor at the international level; Manchester United has a more important tradition. But at the city level, are United supporters more in the majority, or Manchester City supporters? Thanks a lot. 151.37.107.115 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your title, it seems like a mistake to me. Anyway, Sport in Manchester#Football suggests that it's pretty much 50-50. --Viennese Waltz 10:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the title

'Hierarchical' question, thanks

Hi Guys. Could someone take away a curiosity for me? I've been wondering for years. Is the figure of the Chief Justice (currently it is John G. Roberts, Jr.), more important or that of the President of the United States? My question arises from the fact that the swearing in of the POTUS, is usually always administered by the Chief Justice himself. Thank you so much. 151.37.107.115 (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, see Oath_of_office_of_the_president_of_the_United_States#Administration. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. has co-equal branches of government. The legislative, judicial, and executive branches are supposed to share power, and none is statutorily more important than the others. See Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. (Politics is messy, so at any one given moment in time, or in one or more domains, some of those branches may exert a practical supremacy over U.S. policy, but that's a different matter than which branch is "hierarchically" more important. Officially, none is). --Jayron 32 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a game of "rock, paper, scissors": the Supreme Court swears in the President, but it's the President who nominates the judges and Congress who confirms them. Congress can impeach the President, but the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial, and so on and so forth. No one branch is superior to the others. --Xuxl (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of effort was put into making the three branches equal to create a well functioning government. The fault that appeared over time was the "power of the purse." Congress can force itself into areas it has no legal control over by restricting or granting funding. Simple example, the President (head of the military) can order military to go somewhere, but Congress can override it by simply refusing to pay for it. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter, the President can can order military to go attack somewhere, but it's Congress who can declare war on them. Not that anyone bothers to do that any more. --142.112.221.64 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody so far is giving references except to separation of powers, which is importantly not referenced directly in the US Constitution, but an essential part of the US paradigm and national psyche. However, many scholars argue that the balance of the three branches of US government have shifted decidedly in favor of the Executive: Brand 1987 argues this happened most significantly since Nixon, citing key areas in which the Executive can trump the Judicial, such as when the Attorney General declines to defend a Federal law (that the President does not favor) before the Federal courts, or since Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council (1984) among others that effectively sanctioned the ability of federal agencies under the Executive branch to engage in "interpretative lawmaking" (per Martin v. OSHRC, cited ibid.). You might also check out Goldgeiger & Saunders (2018) "The Unconstrained Presidency" essay. Something else I found (and haven't read through) with a Google Scholar search are Macey & Richardson 2022 who look at US separation of powers doctrine since its founding. Plenty more in the literature proposes how to fix the current broken state of affairs. One other thing from an international and systems perspective is how voters, in many conditions, tend to dismantle the separation of powers in favor of a stronger executive, per Acemoglu et al 2011. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I, nobody? --Jayron 32 12:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Chopped liver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'll note that until the mid-20th century the US Executive's power was extremely limited, and with Marbury v. Madison (1803) (judicial review) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (federal supremacy) it could perhaps be argued that the nine SCOTUS justices became the most powerful single individuals in the US government (the Chief Justice doesn't have quite that much more power than the rest, unlike the leadership positions in the Legislature), although the Legislative branch by design is supposed to have, arguably, the most effective power as a whole in government. But I can't give an educated opinion, so here's a 2022 article on the history of SOTUS power from the League of Women Voters. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one area where the trilateral checks break down is succession. The Speaker of the House of Representatives becomes president if the vice president can't do the job, but there is no succession role for Supreme Court justices. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another way how this can break down is by the existence of political parties. Two branches of government controlled by the same party no longer keep each other in check. The US election system favours a two party state, so it's almost guaranteed that at least two branches are controlled by the same party. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three branches of government are the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature. All democracies use the party system because nothing else works. The majority party in parliament forms the government (the Executive). If it didn't the government would fall on a vote of no confidence. As human beings have limitless capacity to misbehave the judiciary is there to hold the executive to account. Judges are not (in this country) appointed because of their political views but because they are good lawyers, and it is virtually impossible to intimidate them. 2A00:23C3:FB81:A501:C4EB:4DFF:2821:2F15 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, even in countries with no two dominant parties, they quickly align into two broad coalitions that end up functionally working as two parties. --Jayron 32 12:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

firefighting with salt water

[4] Link is an article about a Hawaii state water official being criticized for not releasing water for firefighting until it was too late. I can understand fresh water being a scarce resource in Hawaii that has to be allocated carefully. But, Hawaii is surrounded by ocean so there is no shortage of salt water. Can't salt water put out fires? I can understand if it messes up pumps and stuff, but in a big enough emergency maybe that doesn't matter? And is this situation not common enough (coastal commnunities etc.) to justify developing firefighting equipment specially designed to deal with salt water? The whole thing seems a bit odd to me. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you google on "saltwater" and "firefighting" you will find many sources like these [5][6][7] which say that, yes, it "messes up pumps and stuff", and also, adding salt to the environment is hazardous to plants. But other than that, it works, so if seawater is available then there's a decision of whether to use it. And in situations like firefighting on board a ship it may indeed be preferred. --142.112.221.64 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: would using seawater be more "hazardous to plants" than the fire or less? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it will probably be more hazardous to the future plants that grow on that spot than the ashes of burnt plants.

Seawater is not generally widely distributed in pipes, and even if it were, those pipes would have to have valves that fire engines could connect to. Salt water will therefore, even on an island, probably only be available less than (say) a hundred metres/yards from the shore, assuming the fire engines are equipped to suck up water from any open source. [Disclaimer: I know nothing about Hawaiian firefighting equipment or water distribution infrastructure, so anyone who does is welcome to correct me.]

It's a dilemma in many first world countries that the Public water supply usually provides only water that has been extensively treated to make it potable, which costs. As a consequence, this valuable source is also used for flushing toilets and other purposes which could use less purified water. However, few people have the resources to recycle their own 'grey' water, and duplicating the public water-supply infrastructure with a parallel system of salt- or otherwise non-potable water would be ruinously expensive. What to do? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many plants require fire as part of their life cycle. The structure of eucalyptus plants encourages fires that deestroy competing plants. Wildfires are a necessary part of many ecosystems and trying to prevent them often leads to more destruuctive fires when they do occur.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but in the context of Hawaii, it doesn't really apply for various reasons. It's strange, for example, that pre-European contact Hawaii didn't have a history of wildfires, according to historians. I say it's strange because they get a lot of lightning, and you would think that would have started plenty of wildfires. Plus, you have the active volcanoes. But my guess as to what they are really getting at, is there wasn't enough time for plants to evolve in relation to fire, as we see so often on the mainland. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawai’i is pretty rainy. I'm not surprised their history of wildfires is sparse. Folly Mox (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, and while there is some rain on the leeward, western sides, most of the rain falls on the windward side due to the trade winds. Closer to sea level, Lahaina is in the dry, rain shadow. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the general topic, the BBC have reported today that a Welsh regional Fire & Rescue Service are trialling the use of sewage water taken in tankers from sewage works, treated by UV but not to public water supply standards, to fight countryside fires. This is to avoid depleting the general drinking-water supply by using the usual fire hydrants, which can leave local communities with temporary low pressure, particularly in periods of drought which Wales (Wales!) is beginning to experience due to climate change. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 24