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.

December 11

No winner in the second round

Under two-round system what if still no winner emerges in the second round? Would there be a third round of elections? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under a two-round system, only the top two candidates from the first round go through to the second. Unless there is a dead heat, one must then achieve a majority. Are you perhaps thinking of the exhaustive ballot system when you keep voting with the candidate having the least votes eliminated at each stage? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what if both candidates fail to achieve that majority in the second round? Would there be a third one? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a dead heat, the means of tiebreak may be specified in the rules of the particular election. It could be as simple as Coin flipping. However, for example, the French constitution (found as a reference from 1962 French presidential election referendum) states that the President shall be elected by an absolute majority of votes cast and doesn't say what to do in the event of a tie in the second ballot. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding French Presidentual elections this article quoting a constitutional scholar, explains that: 1) such a case is considered so unlikely that it's not covered in the constitution; 2) but nonetheless were it to happen, the Constitutional Council (the French equivalent of the Supreme Court, but for constitutional matters only) would need to settle the case, likely by deciding that the vote be taken again. And for those who wonder why it's considered so unlikely, a difference of a single vote among some 32 million cast (as was the case in 2022) would be enough to decide in favor of one candidate over the other. Xuxl (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<cynic mode>the simplest thing would be to call for a recount. Manual recounts rarely produce exactly the same result, and just one vote difference would sort it out. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously we're talking about the case where there is a tie after the recount that would have happened in any close case. --142.112.220.31 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while I don't know about the French system in particular, I think most systems have some provision for a recount if the vote is close enough. Sometimes it may even be automatic. But in any case, it's very likely that if the vote was close enough that a tie is possible there is going to be a recount so this would only arise after all that is sorted out. And because as unlikely as an exact tie is, it's even more unlikely you'll get a tie both from the initial full count and the recount, I think we can largely discount the possibility this will happen. I guess theoretically there could be some system which says something like the loser may ask for a recount if the vote is within 0.1% (or whatever) and it isn't automatic in any scenario which means you now have a problem with a tie even before the recount but I wonder if such a system exists. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of close election results lists ~twenty notable election ties and their outcomes. Modocc (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming 32 million voters cast a vote, each flipping a fair coin to decide the choice, the probability of a tie is less than 1 in 10^9632956. It is more likely that a blind monkey in front of a typewriter, assiduously but randomly hitting the keys, hammers out the text of Shakespeare's Hamlet without a single typo. --Lambiam 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that number would be 1 in 2^32,000,000: it's the probability of any one pre-specified sequence occurring if the votes are listed in order. You have to multiply it by the appropriate binominial coefficient. In this case the probability is a tie is obviously ~~(2n choose n)/(n!)²~~ (2n choose n)/2²ⁿ, which is to say ((2n)! / (n!)²) / 2²ⁿ, where n = 16,000,000. Using Stirling's approximation for the factorials and simplifying by hand, I make that to be 1/√(πn): perhaps someone can check that with a symbolic algebra package. It works out to about 1/7,100. Of course, given that the number of voters is only approximate, the practical probability is only half of that, since we also have to consider the probability that the total number of voters is odd. --142.112.220.31 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed made a stupid mistake, computing

1/\textstyle {\binom {2n}{n}}

instead of

\textstyle {\binom {2n}{n}}/2^{2n}.

The formula (2n choose n)/(n!)² you gave is also incorrect, but the next one is correct. Rather than using Stirling's approximation directly, it is easier to use the formula from Central binomial coefficient § Asymptotic growth, which I linked to above, --Lambiam 07:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, stupid editing error on my part. I wrote the second formula first and then decided to show where I got it from, and blew it. And it seemed easier to me to use Stirling's approximation because it was familiar to me and the other formulation was not. Anyway, I believe my 1/7,100 (or in practical terms 1/14,200) is correct. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this pastel pink/blue building in the article Sawgrass Mills?

If you scroll down until you see a photo in the article Sawgrass Mills, there is a photo taken in “The Oasis” section. There is some pastel pink/blue building behind the back. What is it? Is it a movie theater? Is it an amusement center? Or it is just a outlet?(There is also a woman in the photo) —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Cinema https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sawgrass+Mills/@26.1545373,-80.3222978,3a,75y,88.54h,92.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipO3nlRdXB2yL_HlPVsbYOb8kaZ4I1Z-UIsaJW8!2e10!3e11!7i13312!8i6656!4m6!3m5!1s0x88d908feeaeded1f:0x29c1bf6101ce3a42!8m2!3d26.151701!4d-80.320787!16zL20vMDk0a2Qw?entry=tts Nanonic (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

Sources on Tolkien's Lindon and Himring

I wanted to write separate articles about Himring and Lindon Tolkien, but I couldn’t find independent authoritative sources on them - could you tell me if there are such sources? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources used in the article Geography of Middle-earth might contain further information. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Himring and Lindon are mentioned in our Beleriand article, to which Himring redirects (Lindon (Middle-earth) redirects to Geography of Middle-earth). It's probably worth mentioning that we used to have many articles about places and people of Middle-earth (Himring is one; I'm not sure about Lindon) that have subsequently been merged or redirected to more-general articles after discussions. I doubt that a stand-alone article about either would last long today. Deor (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-scientific revolution thinkers

Various historians have covered this topic, but thinking changes over time, so I'm curious what people think today. Out of all of the known pre-scientific and pre-Enlightenment figures, which one came closest to pulling on the thread of scientific knowledge and unraveling deep insights into reality for their time if they had only stuck with their line of inquiry? Obviously, most of these historical people were stuck in their own paradigms of their time and place, just as we all are, but some are able to look a bit farther than others, not just by standing on the shoulders of giants, but by investigating things others wouldn't dream of doing. Which of these people from the distant past saw farther than others, and if they had lived long enough or pursued their studies, might have led to a scientific revolution far earlier than occurred? Assuming of course, people would have believed what they discovered. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientific Revolution came emerged over centuries. Some of the key factors to make it possible were by definition generational. For example, one of the very late developments was the creation of a professionalized institutional structure of science such that students learned from masters, masters corresponded freely and professionally (and didn't simply burn all their notes when they died), and standards of the trade could emerge. The importance of institutionalization alone in making modern science possible should not be understated. (I cannot recall where I read mostly on this point in particular.) Also, as science itself by most technical definitions is tends to be largely about a shared methodology, then the Revolution has to largely consist of people working together such that there are people to share that methodology with (and thus to agree on a common technical code). SamuelRiv (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm aware of that and all the history, as I've studied it (and I alluded to the history you described by quoting Newton). If you read my question again, you'll see that I'm asking a fairly specific kind of question that historians (like Frances Yates and others) have touched upon in their work, but since history changes as we accumulate more knowledge over time, I'm asking about recent evaluations of pre-scientific revolution thinkers, particularly in terms of newer information we've discovered about them. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that before any conversation like this can develop you need to specify dates for "pre-scientific" and "pre-Enlightenment". The latter is probably easier, but even then varies by country. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked if one visionary person living longer and/or achieving more could have effected a Scientific Revolution sooner. I posit no, because of the importance of institutionalization and professionalization to science, and because the phenomenon of modern science is largely/mostly/fundamentally structural and social (notwithstanding the methodology and epistemology of any particular science itself). The closest that one person can do, perhaps, is to professionalize and institutionalize a society in general -- so one could perhaps say that the individuals establishing the Imperial examinations and schools in China (namely the Han emperors and Dong Zhongshu) are individuals who, had they done something similar in Western Europe at the dawn of the 16th century, could have maybe supercharged the incoming Scientific Revolution. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I asked, and it's always interesting to see how people interpret my questions. Thanks for your answer. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forget where I read this, probably either Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea or Change Is The Only Constant by Ben Orlin, but Archimedes came as close as is possible to discovering calculus without doing so. I don't know the implications that would've had, but it seems like a decent starting point. 71.112.180.130 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that you are correct, and the current consensus points to Archimedes. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes's cattle problem, which may or may not be by Archimedes, concerns polynomial equations with integer solutions. A. would not have been able to solve the problem dues to the enormous numbers involved, but he probably knew how to do it using continued fractions. MinorProphet (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When & what is this plane crash?

On this. Not sure if the plane crash was large jet or small aircraft, or a regional jet or even a turboprop? On 0:39. —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean 10:39? They give the name of the guy who crashed or disappeared or whatever, and lo and behold, he has a wikipedia article: Steve Fossett. In that article, there's a section Steve Fossett#Death, which has all the details on his disappearance. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was 0:39. It was in a Chinese place. If you go on 00:39. —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 2:39. --Viennese Waltz 09:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, apologies for the mistake. What was it? When? Would it be this one? —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the video said Heizhu Valley, 1950, didn't it (that segment starts at 2:27)? Googling for that only leads to weird websites on paranormal phenomena or urban myths. Nothing serious jumped out at me. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It mentioned about a “an airplane disappeared under circumstances no one can know” Was the story real or fake? —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respond urgently ASAP because no one replied IN A WHILE! Do you know the plane crash? Let me know! (it might have a Mayday episode) —The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as stated over on ents you need to chill out, that kind of comment is not going to make you any friends around here. --Viennese Waltz 17:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earthman, it is sometimes hard to follow your mode of speech. What are these ents you speak of? --142.112.220.136 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe our Terpsichorian colleague is referring to the Entertainments Reference Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --Viennese Waltz 21:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this isn't Fangorn Forest?!? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

"A while" being less than 24 hours. What's the urgency? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's hardly enough information to go on. A location and a decade (The 50s). What we can say is the 50s were the very start of jet airliners, with only the de Havilland Comet, Tupolev Tu-104 and the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Convair 880 coming into service. Various of those articles list crashes, so you can check if any were in China. You may be looking for a much smaller private or military aeroplane. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is that this was made up for the video. In this article the Heizhu Valley is called "China's Bermuda" with "unsolved mysteries" that include disappearances and deaths, but there is no mention of disappearing aircraft, so if the claim has a basis of truth, the incident was apparently not notable. (The article linked to is by China Daily and has a notice "Copyright © 2003 Ministry of Culture, P.R.China", so it is not just a random web page.) --Lambiam 09:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of hits claiming that an unknown aircraft with an unknown number of people crashed for an unknown reason without a trace at an unknown time in 1950. They all use each other as a resource to support the claim. Therefore, it is highly likely that this is a made up event that is assumed true only because so many websites are repeating it. My personal issue is that in 1950, crashes with less than 20 people are wll known and recorded with detail. This unknown plane has an unknown number of people, claimed to be somewhere more than 100. So, if over 100 people died, it would be notable, not an "unknown" factroid. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Newspapers.com, I find no references at all to "Heizhu Valley" in 1950, nor any other year for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking feasibility. The CAAC took over in 1949, having full control of all flights in China by 1950. No foreign aircraft were allowed to fly over or land in China. So, this could not be a foreign aircraft. It had to be a domestic flight. In the 50s, all domestic aircraft were very small. In 63, they purchased the first planes we consider modern passenger planes. They could carry 70 to 80 passengers. It wasn't until the 70s that a plane with over 100 passengers existed in China. Even then, it really didn't exist because only a few high ranking military and government officials could fly. What we consider passenger flight now didn't take place until the 80s. So, this flight was not only unknown in many ways. It is also an airline that couldn't exist in an aircraft that couldn't exist carrying passengers that couldn't exist. The only proof it existed is a bunch of websites all copying one another. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the story is a hoax, it could be a challenge to figure out when and where it originated. (Let's just hope it wasn't Wikipedia.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Day Million

The article Day Million says that it takes place in the year 2737. But in fact, the year 2737 is actually one year too early. The actual one millionth day of the Common Era (starting from 1 January AD 1 in the Julian calendar) is on 26 November 2738 in the Gregorian calendar.

So, did Frederik Pohl make a mistake with the year that Day Million takes place?

Likewise, the two millionth and three millionth days of the Common Era will occur on 22 October 5476 and 19 September 8214 respectively. If there were to be a story called "Day Two Million" or "Day Three Million", then it would be set in the years 5476 and 8214 respectively. But unfortunately, no such story has ever been written, so that would be pure speculation. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having never heard of the book before just now, I read the article prose the millionth day CE, which falls late in the year 2737, although the author alternately describes it as being about a thousand years in the future as indicating that Frederick Pohl did not calculate the day, and a well-meaning and mathsy Wikipedia editor who did not know about the (stupid) nonexistence of the year 0 added the incorrect year. I could be completely wrong, and Frederick Pohl goes on and on about how it's the year 2737, because I'm allowing although... alternately to do a lot of work in my interpretation, and also have never read the book. Folly Mox (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This diff and this diff and this diff are relevant but not helpful. Folly Mox (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the story, but don't recall this particular detail. Simple enough for me to hotfoot it to the library and check it out in Platinum Pohl. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the average year length to be 365.2425 days, one million days equals 2737.9 years. If the anonymous editor made the same calculation, they possibly overlooked the fact that this should be added to AD 1 to get a date late in AD 2738. --Lambiam 10:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the anonymous editor thought that by then the World will have adopted the Year 0 that astronomers already insert into the Gregorian calendar so that orbital calculations, etc., work out. Realistically, though, it was probably an oversight.

More pertinently, I have just re-skimmed the story (in the collection of which it is the titular lead) and can confirm that Pohl nowhere states the year, only saying ". . . about a thousand years from now" in the first sentence, and "A thousand years from now" towards the end. I will therefore remove the erroneous OR from the article forthwith.

It is possible that in the story's original magazine publication, in Rogue magazine Feb/Mar 1966, Pohl did mention the (wrong) year, or that an editor added it, but I can confirm that it does not appear in the story's second appearance, in sf Impulse magazine October 1966 (copy in hand).

(Note for other pedants: although our article refers to SF Impulse, the actual magazines are styled sf Impulse throughout.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt not His Pohliness. There is no mention of any year in the short story. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The offending date has now been removed from the article, so I think we can mark this

Resolved

. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two footballs in 1974 World Cup

Why were there two official footballs, in the 1974 German World Cup instead of just one? There was a classic one and an all-white one. Thanks. 5.95.197.140 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were three. The Telstar Durlast (Black and White), The Chile Durlast (White) and the Apollo Durlast (Orange/Pink). A number of games were to be played at night so the all white Chile Durlast was used for those. See also https://www.worldcupballs.info/ball/world-cup-balls/1974-germany/made-france-match-ball-fifa-world-cup-1974-germany-adidas-chile-durlast-3/ Nanonic (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Color scheme on diffs

A month or two ago there was a change to the way diffs are displayed. There used to be two columns, a "before" and an "after". Now there's just a single column, with the "before" highlighted in a lightish yellow and the "after" highlighted in a lightish blue. My question is whether the color scheme is a subtle reference to the Ukraine flag, or if it's just a happy coincidence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the old one was also yellow and blue. i would be very surprised if it was a reference. ltb d l (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "diff" here? If this refers to article history "compare two versions", I still get two listings older and newer, and I don't see colour. -- SGBailey (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing this under the side-by-side scheme. And you're not seeing it at all. So maybe it depends on our respective settings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the mobile view? On desktop I've not seen any change - deletions on the left are in yellow and additions on the right are in blue as always. What I have noticed is that the yellow box which reads "This is ... revision of this page, as edited by ..." is four times larger than it was. 2A02:C7B:103:7100:D984:512D:2947:50AE (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know what BB is referring to, you can see inline diffs on the desktop site by turning on the inline slider that shows on all diff pages. Assuming BB is referring to the desktop site they could also switch this slider to turn off inline diffs. You can also view diffs in the visual editor although this can be inline only. This seems to be the same whether logged in or not. But I think the setting may stay the same as what you last used and when logged in it's probably stored in your account. There is also a gadget to "Display diffs with the old yellow-and-green colors and design" which might be what is causing BB's confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, desktop. Under preferences, skin is "Monobook". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

Japanese perspektive of the 1990s

What was the Japanese perspective on the 1990s? What was it like with the Internet, the economy, the culture? 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:D8DA:FD66:4E7E:E6E0 (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See 1990s in Japan for starters. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

Outline Dymaxion Map Net

I'm sure there used to be a really nice version of this Dymaxion Map which was a simple black-and-white outline, suitable for printing, (colouring), cutting out, and assembling into an icosahedral 'globe'. Does anyone know where it went, or know of a suitable replacement?

Many thanks. 78.32.242.170 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]