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.

April 11

Prepaid SIM cards and other UK travel questions

I need some advice on traveling to the UK. If I want to get a prepaid SIM card for a short trip lasting a few days, how much does it cost? What would be a good place to get one from? If I want both voice and data services, what would be some good prepaid SIM card brands? Can you use US credit cards (no chip and PIN) to pay for public transportation (the Tube, taxi, buses)? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.242.92.2 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

a) Not very much (a few pounds, perhaps up to £10? Been a long time since I bought one.) Mobile phone shops are pretty widespread in shopping centres/high streets; not sure offhand if newsagents still sell them. (There's at least one SIM vending machine at T4 arrivals in Heathrow, too, and so no doubt elsewhere)

b) Any of the major firms should be good, though I'd try googling around for recommendations from other travellers - there are some carriers which target the visitor market specifically.

c) No. (Taxis possibly, but probably not - no idea for London taxis, never taken one!). Your best bet for tube/buses in London is an Oyster card and a smallish deposit which you top-up from the card as needed (though remember that the card will hit you with fees each time, so you may want to estimate your use and make one large topup). Outside London, systems vary, but in almost all cases it's pay beforehand (for trains) or onboard with cash (for buses). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.visitlondon.com/traveller-information/getting-around-london/taxis - Most 'black cabs' ie what people think of a London Taxi, will accept card payments, abiet with a premium. Not sure in respect of Minicabs (which have to be pre-booked).Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will they still have the capacity to accept cards that need their magnetic strips swiped, though? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)... just to add to Andrew's answer above, SIM cards are often given away free or sold for 50p, but you will then need to "top up" (typically £10) to be able to make calls. Some major supermarkets offer lower rates per call. Some schemes offer cheaper international calls (e.g. see an independent best-buy site). There are so many different variations that the "best-buy" depends very much on your exact pattern of usage. Here is another comparison. Some cab drivers who accept British credit cards might not be happy with non-chip&pin cards because of the difficulty of verification. Dbfirs 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

Fraction of Canadian land that remains undeveloped

I'm trying to find out what percentage of Canada's land remains undeveloped. Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding the relevant statistics online. Does anyone have any idea where I should look? 74.15.136.155 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody provided a map of Canada by land type here a few months ago, and that might be relevant. I will see if I can find it in the archives. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was 18 months ago, and the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_November_8#Is_global_warming_necessarily_bad_for_us.3F. However, some of those maps are now inaccessible, and others are huge, so be prepared to wait on a slow PC. I had argued that the reason most of Canada was undeveloped was that the cold, and particularly the permafrost, made in unprofitable to develop. Others argued that the soil quality was too poor, in any case. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two big reasons. Many also argue that our land animals simply work better in vegetation than mines, and our fish prefer water to pretty much everything. Some other reasoning in Northern Ontario Ring of Fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak to the provenance of the information contained but, this says Canada's urban land is about 0.27%. Plus our article says that agricultural land is 5.22%. Not counting industrial uses like mining and oil works, which wouldn't be a very big number either, we are talking somewhere about 94% unused or undeveloped land. Mingmingla (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see the map of Alberta at the top of Athabasca oil sands. Pretty big number, even percentage-wise. Also consider roads and railways (not sure if they're counted as "urban"). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, "urban" isn't even an official Statistics Canada term anymore. Now it's split into three kinds of Population Centres. "Rural" is still rural, which still involves houses, roads and other development. So that's a big chunk off the 94%, if that source was using "urban" in the old StatsCan sense. Judging from the copyright date, it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Rural could still be counted under agrictulural. I don't imagine it would take a whole lot of a percentage overall even if it didn't.

And, to be fair to the oilsands, that map area is the whole deposit, not active mines. Still forest on top of most, and much is legally protected from development or unprofitably stuck. But it's in a constant state of pre-development prodding and measuring, so hard to call it "untouched". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Untouched isn't the same as undeveloped. Clear cuts are allowed to regrow, but I don't many people who would consider that developed. And Canada is freakin' huge. Mingmingla (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

Narrow English country roads

How does one pass other vehicles on little roads like this one? I'm talking the guy going the other direction, not overtaking a slower driver. Street View is present at the nearest intersections in both directions; I saw no signs prohibiting entry in either direction, and the signs basically saying "X this way" appear at both ends — it's not a one-lane road. I've been on similarly narrow roads here in the USA, but those ones had grassy areas on either side, so you could go off the edge if necessary — quite different from this English road, with the trees on the left and the posts in the ground on the right. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That example looks relatively easy to negotiate. Those wooden posts are not common but there is an obvious pull-over place on the right, opposite which you would wait until the approaching vehicle reaches you. Good straight road also offers a long view. It requires cooperation with the vehicle approaching you and the distance between the two vehicles when they first sight each other. It is very likely that there will be a point in the road where one of you can pull over and allow the other through. Having spent 5 decades driving on roads like this (but not exclusively on roads like this) difficulties in passing are rare. I did once meet an agricultural tractor on a similar road with banks on each side which required me to reverse about a quarter of a mile to a passing point, but only once. Essentially it is about judging who is closest to a pass point, a subtlety that I would find hard to explain here but it works. Sometimes the cooperation goes overboard and you may find yourselves both flashing your lights inviting the other driver through. Of course one does occasionally meet with pigheads who insist on pushing through and forcing a back-up, but into every life a little rain must fall and it is forever comforting to know you are not a pighead. It is a very minor issue that does not normally detract from countryside driving. Richard Avery (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Richard says, this stretch presents no problem - no-one would object if you pulled in to the property entrance on the left to let someone pass from the opposite direction. Most country roads in many parts of Britain - especially in places like Devon (random example here) - have much less visibility than the road you indicate, by having much tighter bends and much higher hedge banks (and deeper ditches) at the side. The advice is to drive under the working assumption that there is someone coming in the opposite direction who you can't yet see (and who can't see you), and be prepared to reverse to allow them to pass. Night driving is often easier on these roads, because you can see the light of a vehicle coming towards you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above. Occasionally, you get a rude bastard (nearly always driving a Mercedes or BMW for some reason) who wants to try to force their way through, but most drivers approach the problem with the ethic that you let the other driver through unless it's clearly a lot easier for him/her to let you pass. A quick flash of the headlights indicates that you are giving way to the other vehicle - it's not in the Highway Code but it works and everybody knows what it means. Sometimes we can be TOO polite and you get a "You first" / "No, you first" situation until somebody backs down and accepts the right of way. It's not just country roads either, you get the same situation in town where Victorian terraced housing has no off-road parking facility - everybody parks outside their house leaving room for only a single track in the middle of the road. This is my old street in east London. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those cars would be ticketed for parking against the flow of traffic where I live. Rmhermen (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically an offence in the UK to park in the wrong direction, but I've never heard of anybody being prosecuted for it and nobody gives it much thought, in London anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How very interesting and how very much I agree with Gmyrtle above especially with his link to the road in Devon. My wife and I recently drove from Buckfastleigh Abbey to Chelston along such a road and it was bloody terrifying. We did all the right things such as driving slowly, keeping as far to the left as possible, sounding our horn on blind bends etc., etc. And still we encountered road hogs approaching us at speed, in the centre of the road, having taken no precautions as had we, and yes, they insisted on having us reverse to a wide enough passing point, and yes, they were usually driving BMW's and Mercedes. 94.174.140.161 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a reference for that: The Daily Telegraph, 12 Oct 2010 - BMW drivers were yesterday named and shamed as Britain's angriest motorists. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the really narrow roads in Cumbria, we seldom have the problem of drivers with posh cars, because they avoid the narrowest lanes, not wishing to scratch their shiny paintwork on the encroaching hedges. People who know the road are often willing to reverse the odd hundred yards to a passing place because they realise that this will be quicker than waiting for an inexperienced reverser to reach a nearer passing-place. Dbfirs 11:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've experienced this in Wales. On a road with passing places with a drop one side and a cliff the other I had gone about 20 metres past a passing place when a land rover came round a bend. I thought "right, take it easy, sub walking pace and keep an eye on the wheels". Before I had started to move the other driver reversed back round the bend, then he went at about 10 mph. and another 80 metres or so to a passing place - all with a terrifying drop on one side! -- Q Chris (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you are too much of a soft touch. In the past I have stood my ground and insisted they back up the 15 metres to the nearest passing place, rather than me backing up 200 metres. Yes, there are passing places; but they can be a couple of hundred metres apart. Like others have said, it takes some cooperation, some thinking ahead and predicting of behavoir. Astronaut (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a real delight to deal with. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One point which hs not been mentioned is that when a road is both narrow and steep, the advice is that the car coming downhill should reverse rather than expect the one coming up hill to do so. This is because it is much easier to lose control of a vehicle reversing down a steep slope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.37.240 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Highway Code says otherwise for hills, Rule 155 says "Single-track roads. These are only wide enough for one vehicle. They may have special passing places. If you see a vehicle coming towards you, or the driver behind wants to overtake, pull into a passing place on your left, or wait opposite a passing place on your right. Give way to vehicles coming uphill whenever you can. If necessary, reverse until you reach a passing place to let the other vehicle pass. Slow down when passing pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders." DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misread the Highway Code there, Duncan: "Give way to vehicles coming uphill whenever you can" is equivalent to "the car coming downhill should reverse rather than expect the one coming uphill to do so". 86.146.28.229 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Highway Code correctly, but mis-read your original comment! My apologies. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Highway Code is addressed to inexperienced drivers in a country where manual gearchanging is the norm, so Rule 155 may be intended to reduce the need for uphill starts, which are more difficult for learners than downhill starts. The Code offers other advice for new drivers, such as "It’s most dangerous driving at night - don’t drive between midnight and 6am unless it’s really necessary." Right-of-way on narrow roads is never a problem when driving my vehicle. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because you can't get onto the narrow road in the first place... MChesterMC (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The UK Highway code makes good sense for all drivers because the car coming downhill often has a better view of passing places and can simply pull into one to allow the uphill car to pass. This conserves fuel and reduces total CO₂ emissions. Dbfirs 21:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Everything about a game

I fancy a bit of a challenge, so I'm looking at the possibility of developing my own simple video game from scratch, including learning every part of the skills I'd need for it, providing the artwork, programming, design and other elements, and of course maintain a blog of my progress. It's something I've wanted to do for a while, but never been able to because I lack the formal training in these fields. However, I'm thinking, why should that hold me back, if I want to go out and just research all of this, sure it might be difficult and take a long time, but it'll be worth it in the end. But as I say, I don't have any formal training in this, I don't even know all the things I'd need to learn in order to do this, never mind where I'd find out how to do them myself. So that's where I'm relying on you, if anyone can provide me with the complete list of everything I'd have to find a way of doing? (and perhaps a few helpful links to places around the internet where I can study) I'd need to know not only each part of any program I'd have to write, but also everything else that comes with the package, art work, music, and so on, and on, (hence why I thought this might be better here rather than the computer section)

Thank you,

213.104.128.16 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than try to do it all at once, you might start with a text-only game first, then maybe add in some basic graphics, like with Flash video, and then add to that. The idea is to feel a sense of accomplishment at each stage, and that will help you to move on to the next level rather than give up. Also, a full feature video game may take many man-years to complete, even for people who already have all the needed skills, and I don't know if you want to commit that much time. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kongregate has a game making walkthrough. Rmhermen (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GameMaker: Studio can be a useful place to start. There's a free version available, and masses of good tutorial material available on the web. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting simple and building up seems like a good idea, a text based game would be a lot easier to start and to build on piece by piece (assuming I can come up with an idea that would work in that format). I even have previous experience learning C, though I wonder if that is still the appropriate programming language for this. I'd rather avoid using pre-made game making software, I get the impression that would effectively take a generic program and allow me to customise it, though I imagine they've developed a little more in complexity in recent years. Either way, I'd still prefer to learn the underlying skills, things that could be useful elsewhere, and give more of a sense of achievement. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]