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.

May 9

Electric Golf Carts

Are all electric golf carts provided with speed governors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:43:4101:327B:2419:65F5:234A:1001 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gas powered golf cart but it has lights so I suppose you could call it electric.Hayabusa golf cart] Goes of tangent at the start but then 7 minutes in it goes back to the cart for a test drive -really fast. Want one and I don't even play golf.--Aspro (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on the subject throws up lots of sites telling owners how to change the settings to over-ride the speed governor - which rather suggests that most carts do have one fitted. Confirming if they all do is rather more difficult - even if every model checked has one, that doesn't prove there isn't a model somewhere without one. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several towns in Texas seem to have regulations concerning golf carts - and of the handful I looked at, most specify a top speed of 20 mph - and several insisted that be enforced by a speed governor. SteveBaker (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golf cart racing involves revamping carts with new engines, suspension systems and tires. See U.S. goes crazy for 90 mph golf carts (a CNN report with a video that doesn't play). Of course sometimes having a speed governor could save embarassment (video). AllBestFaith (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our house backs onto a golf course - one that provides gasoline-powered carts. Having seen the way some of some of the more crazy golfers drive these things, I'm definitely in favor of speed limiters! This is a fairly hilly course - and even at 20mph, it's quite amazing that they don't roll them over as they drive across the steeper parts on wet grass with half a dozen people clinging onto the outside them! SteveBaker (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Earning money

what are the ways to earn money in india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.67.150 (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of India would be a good place to start your research. --Jayron 32 11:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to earn money is by working. Anything you gain by other means is not earned. The verb "to earn" is defined as "obtain (money) in return for labour or services." 81.132.106.10 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is one definition. There are other valid definitions which do not include labor. --Jayron 32 14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only other possible meaning which relates to obtaining money is about interest on investments, including property and pensions. That sort of income is, at least in the UK, usually described as unearned income. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BUNTHORNE. Tell me, girl, do you ever yearn?

PATIENCE. (misunderstanding him) I earn my living.

BUNTHORNE. (impatiently) No, no! Do you know what it is to be heart-hungry? Do you know what it is to yearn for the Indefinable, and yet to be brought face to face, daily, with the Multiplication Table? Do you know what it is to seek oceans and to find puddles? — to long for whirlwinds and yet have to do the best you can with the bellows? That's my case. Oh, I am a cursed thing! Don't go. - from Patience, or "Bunthorne's Bride", a Gilbert & Sullivan comic opera. AllBestFaith (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the giant funnel?

In this photo on today's front-page, I'm reminded of a question I've long meant to ask:

Why does the locomotive on the left have that gigantic funnel for a smoke stack, where the one on the right does not? This seems to be a feature that's unique to steam engines of the Americas. European steam engines always seem to have the cylindrical design of the engine on the right. If the funnel-shaped design has advantages, why don't all locomotives use it? If it doesn't, then why were so many engines made that way? SteveBaker (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Chimney_(locomotive)#Spark_arrestors and Spark arrestor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That is a "bonnet chimney", a type of spark arrestor. Different fuels, especially wood, are more prone to generate sparks. They weren't common in Britain because a) British locos mostly burned coal; b) by the time the railway age began, Britain was mostly deforested and so lumber wasn't as cheap and readily available as in North America; and c) Britain is rarely dry enough for stray chimney embers to spark a serious fire. Presumably the loco in your photo with the conventional chimney is a coal burner. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also mainland Britain has been described as an "island of coal" and was a major exporter in the 19th century. Coal is also much more energy efficient than wood. Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I guess that makes sense since the photo is from the time when the east and west coasts of the USA were first joined by a rail line. It might make sense that the loco from the west coast was wood-fired and the one from the more industrialized east coast used coal. If that's true, then it adds a whole layer of additional "depth" to the image since it implies more than just a physical connection - it adds a layer of "industry meets woodsmen" (of course, knowing my luck, the photographer was standing to the North of the event at the time! :-)

Many thanks for a great answer! SteveBaker (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily to the north; the photo may be reversed. Hard to tell in such a small image with no lettering discernible. Akld guy (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, that was not the only photo taken that day, so we know it's not reversed. You can also confirm this by sunlight and shadows. According to multiple sources the ceremony took place around midday local time, so the sunlight was from the south. So from the shadows and non-shadows of the people in the front rows to the left and right of the men shaking hands, we are looking more or less northwest. And in the particular area where the events took place, the tracks were aligned northeast-southwest, not east-west, so that fits. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talking now about the locomotive with the straight chimney, the Union Pacific Railroad was not, and still is not, an East Coast railroad; it's just that it was connected by other railroads to the East Coast. It originally ran west from Omaha. I had some trouble finding confirmation that Union Pacific No. 119 was coal-burning, but did find it in this 336-page PDF scan of a typewritten original document (from the US National Park Service, which the Golden Spike National Historic Site belongs to). See pages 14–17 (original numbering; pages 17–20 of the PDF). The UPRR's first 25 locomotives burned wood, but subsequently bituminous coal from Wyoming was available and #119 was built to burn that. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What did a piece of string around the wrist mean in the 1970's.

I was watching the film The Diary of a Teenage Girl (set in the 1970's) and noticed that the girl had a piece of string around her wrist in several scenes: first at around 11 minutes in the film when she is in the bath tub; and at about an hour in at the beginning of the acid taking scene; also in a bed scene with the lesbian. This reminded me of the cover of Sex to Sexty magazine #36 - a porn joke magazine also from the 1970's - where the man in front also has string around his wrist. Click here for that cover: http://www.comics.org/issue/524207/cover/4/

So what does this string mean? (Great film btw). Martin. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a form of Friendship bracelet, which started to become popular in the 1970s. --Jayron 32 14:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some have a religious significance. Some are just a sort of good luck charm. Exactly what the meaning might be in each case depends on colour, braiding, country and the context. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there's a direct link, but see Kalava; Hindu mysticism was much in vogue in late 1960s and early 1970s, Guru Maharaj Ji and Hare Krishna for example. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information provided about Kublai Khan under Genghis Khan

Under Genghis Khan it states that Kublai Khan was his brother, this is wrong Kublai Khan was his grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.108.57.165 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the Genghis Khan article to you see this? The only references to their relationship that I can find say "grandson". Favonian (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cube

I bought this Cube, not sure what it's truly called but its a fake made in china one; its smaller than the original one and white in colour rather than black.

Are all the colours situated similar to/exactly as the original?: Yellow opposite White, Green opposite Blue, Orange opposite Red.
What's the secret theory to put them all back to square one?

Apostle (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are asking about a Rubik's Cube, then based on the one I have on my desk, the answer to your first question is yes, that is the colo(u)r layout. There are several articles linked from the main article discussing solutions. --LarryMac | Talk 19:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And based on the article you linked, the color layout varied from one cube to another before they settled on yellow-opposite-white etc. I remember seeing Rubik's Cubes with other color layouts back in 1981–82 when they were first widely sold in North America. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that only specifying which colors are on opposite sides gets you down to two possible layouts. For example, for the colors Apostle specified, if you position red as the front and white as the top, then blue could either be on the left or the right. According to Rubik's Cube (emphasis mine): "In currently sold models, white is opposite yellow, blue is opposite green, and orange is opposite red, and the red, white and blue are arranged in that order in a clockwise arrangement." This means if red is positioned as front and white as top, then blue will be on the right. --Bavi H (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For question (2) if you mean how to solve it, see Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Rubik's Cube article, the patents have expired so there is no "real" or "fake" Rubik's Cubes anymore. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the brand name is still owned, I'm sure...it's just that people can make generic versions but name it something else..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I should say, there are no "real" or "fake" cube-shaped puzzle toys of the Rubik's design anymore. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact my understanding is that non Rubik's randed cubes are actually often more popular among the speed solving community see e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. While Rubik's do have their own speed cube [7] [8], it appears to have been fairly late to the game and for that and probably other reasons still isn't the most popular choice [9]. BTW, while your latest comment is AFAIK correct, beyond trademark/branding issues there may also be fake and real 3x3 Rubik Cube style cubes since it's possible some patents cover new speed cube designs. (One of the earlier refs mentioned something about patents although I didn't explore to see if it was correct and they were still valid.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot peeps, including the summaries. Regards -- Apostle (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaver's sweatshirts

It seems nowadays all the kids have those 'leaver's tops' with the year they left made up of the names of everyone in their year-I've seen them around for the last 4 or 5 years-but when was the oldest one that anyone has seen? Lemon martini (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blog posting gets us back to 2007, and the wording suggests that it was already a well-established phenomenon at that date. I've not been able to find anything siginficantly earlier as yet, though. Tevildo (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's much older than that. I graduated HS in 1994, and had a shirt with my graduating class year on the front and the names of everyone on the back. They were very commonplace in the U.S. from at least the 1990s, if not much earlier. Here is one from 1990-1991. --Jayron 32 16:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is WP:OR but I graduated high school in '92 and the previous classes had been getting a shirt with everyone's name on them for years before that. In fact, my grade school did it in '88 though they were white shirts that everyone hand signed with permanent marker. It wasn't a large grade school class.

Also, this is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "leaver top". Dismas|^(talk) 17:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The essential feature of the UK garment is that the names of the leavers are arranged on the back in the shape of the year number. Does this also apply to the US equivalent? Tevildo (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Among other designs. It's quite common, and has been since I can remember, but not universal. --Jayron 32 00:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

Refdesk giving more satisfactory answers

Why does the refdesk seem to give more satisfactory answers than yahoo answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.71.235 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to offer speculation, nor handle opinion-based questions. I mean this as an explanation for why we're not actually supposed to answer the kind of question you just asked, though I admit there might be other ways to take this response. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if you raise this at the Talk Page, you might get longer shrift. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have changes in fasion, hairstyles, and music slowed since the 90s?

I see some women's fashion a bit different now than it was in the 2000's, with more of an emphasis on higher waistlines, closed toe shoes, and a slightly more conservative look.

So it's not like total stasis since 1995 or anything.

But the question remains. Have you noticed that after a period of quite rapid fashion change from the late 1950's to the 1990's, the rate of change in men's and women's fashion (and music) has really slowed down since the late 90's?

Any idea as to why? Zombiesturm (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the rise of digital existence may be something to look into..that is, people exist now more via social-networking, their smart phones etc than they do in the "real world"...fashion being a manifestation of living in "the real world"...studies suggest teens would rather have a smart phone than a car today...another manifestation of tangible/real world things declining...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1995 music and whatever Tamla Motown is was before my time but maybe you're right about pop being better when there were more uninvented songs available. I'm in my 20s and know practically no music theory but I noticed that contemporary songs keep getting less and less novel the older I get. This must be cause much (most?) pop note progressions are very, very simple/predictable and lowest common denominator in an effort to make more money and you can only hear so many of those before getting deja vu. Now to make more money they've even discovered how to make songs that don't even bother with tunes/melody, real rhythm or intellectual simulation and just try to get low IQ peeps as amped up as possible (i.e. Shots - LMFAO, that ~2013 song with that ridiculously long rising drum glissando..) Before ~2008 chart music was light years behind electronic or classical music on some or all those 3 factors. Even something good for modern pop often still sounds like this. Repetitive, redundant, saying the same thing more than once, repeating long stretches over and over slightly transposed each time (or not even that) and just a vehicle for a hook basically. If you're going to build up to something make it good! (like some dubstep breakdowns) The first 9 notes of the hook (CGCGCGCGF with that rhythm and timbre) are awesome but there's much better ways to continue that than what they did here. My thoughtless idle whistling's way better than that hook, they should be paying me to write songs. #1 lyrics often sound retarded when read. Many people aren't open to experience or intellectual though which is why a completely awesome song by a popular artist can peak at #27 on a week that sudden bipolar shuttling ("sweet"/screaming) was #1. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book I found online called Fashion Forecasting : [10], that based on some google searches through it, [11] may have the sort of information that will help you research the answer for your question. --Jayron 32 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the 1990s, when the web was young ad The Onion was funny! It is a humor piece, but I think think you might find some interesting views in this story: U.S. Dept. Of Retro Warns: "We May Be Running Out Of Past". SemanticMantis (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is OR, but median wages have been flat or declining in most of the developed world since the 1990s. There has been a series of economic downturns followed by slow, weak recoveries and little long-term economic growth. In this climate, consumers tend to be conservative. Few can afford any more to buy a new wardrobe each year, so, aside from outlandish designer fashions aimed at the top 1%, mass-market clothing designers aim to produce "classic" and largely familiar designs that consumers can count on wearing for several years. Also, in a context of widespread job insecurity, many people, especially young people, who have set new fashion trends in the past, want to look staid and professional rather than avant-garde. Marco polo (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a few articles also, when looking for the above source, which discuss the role of sustainable fashion is having on the industry as a whole; designing less changes into clothes so trends last longer. I don't know how much this actually happens, but it has been mentioned, see for example [12]. --Jayron 32 18:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, the telescoping effect. Our brains tend to exaggerate how long ago relatively recent changes were, while underestimating how old much less recent things are. The way history is remembered and taught also encourages us to think that there were bright dividing lines that didn't exist in reality – The Beatles didn't just appear, but emerged from the skiffle scene and gradually became psychedelic/prog – and to forget how long "obsolete" styles stayed around (according to our article big band, a style overwhelmingly associated with the 40s, there were actually notable performances right up to the 70s). I think as get into the 2020s people will start seeing how culture has changed (the first few posters for retro 2000s parties have started appearing around my town). I don't think there's much solid evidence that culture is slowing down. Looking at the popularity of different film genres for instance shows some significant changes in the best-selling films since 1990. In pop music, every genre has reinvented itself at least once (gangsta rap has been replaced by alternative hip hop, British soul has exploded into the adult contemporary gap that used to be filled by smooth R&B, Britpop and grunge gave way to pop-punk and indie, bubblegum pop has replaced by the much more earnest Taylor Swift/One Direction kind of pop, and so on). I can't say much about hairstyles or fashion, but certainly beards have made a big comeback. Smurrayinchester 12:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many elements of fashion still mark the early 2000s as distinct from now; chunky highlights, exposed thong underwear on women with ultra-low-rise jeans, tattoo chokers are all marks of the era for women, while certainly some of those styles are coming back around at times, and others are not, I wouldn't call any of those current fashion trends. For men, styles such as the man bun and the undercut with a full beard: [13] didn't really exist in 2002 let's say. There are many aspects of fashion from the early 2000s that would look out of place today, and visa versa. I'm nto sure the supposition of the OP is quantitatively correct, and as you note, may be due to misconceptions rather than anything. --Jayron 32 14:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least everyone's hair doesn't look like they just got electrocuted (1980s). And all the girls don't look like 1970s Farrah Fawcett. And every female doesn't wear very short miniskirts like it's still 1969. And 60s beehives are not ubiquitous. And no one would mistake a 1950s crowd with the wide long dresses for anything after the early 60s. And the 40s had long hair and medium hemlines during the war. And the 30s had long skirts and short finger weaved hair. And the 20s had boyish haircuts and breast binding/figure hiding. And the teens had corsets — like the 1900s but more colorful. And the 1890s another fashion. And there was that figure showing period before that, the 1880s or 1870s. There was an artificial big butt period somewhere around here. And the 60s had skirts so big that they had metal hoops in them to hold shape. And the 1850s and 40s had a distinctive boyish short hairstyle. I think bonnets stopped being hot a bit before here. It seems fashion changed more obviously and frequently in the past. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Things that disappeared post-World War 2: men's hats (totally gone by 1965), buttons on the front of men's pants (the zipper replaced them), men's suspenders (aka braces in some countries - totally gone by 1965). They all disappeared in 20 years. We haven't seen any radical changes for men in the 25 years since 1990. Akld guy (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Totally" is an overstatement. Although I agree they have all become less common, both I and my father sometimes wear hats in cold weather, and at least two of my personal friends wear suspenders/braces (which become necessary when the disappearance of one's waist negates the utility of belts). I wore buttoned-fly trousers in my teens (in the '70s), and bemoan their disappearance, as zip-fasteners are more prone to failure and are more difficult to replace. Much depends on one's particular milieu (mine being semi-rural Southern England). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.142 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button flies are making a comeback, and personally I hate them (probably because I'm not used to them). Hats and suspenders/braces falling out of favour is fairly unique, since these are both a binary decision (both partially affected by techology; the former driven by the rise of cars and shampoo, the later by new fabrics and manufacturing methods that improved the fit of cheap trousers), whereas most fashion changes happen more gradually – although the mainstreaming of tattoos in the last 20 years is definitely very noticeable, and tracksuits seem to have disappeared overnight. Smurrayinchester 09:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button flies went away? Where? I never noticed, I've preferred and worn them since the 90s ;) I'm not certain but I don't think Levi's has every not sold button fly jeans. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of total mens pants sales are Levi's 501s? While it is a non-zero proportion, it is close enough to not make any difference. --Jayron 32 14:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I used to wear 501s back in HS. Very comfortable. Sadly, the fit is designed for someone very different than my current shape. Since they discontinued the Silver Tab line in the early 2000s, I've had to switch to 565/569 to fit my fat ass in. They don't make those in button fly. --Jayron 32 14:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps surprisingly, fashion and trends in the USA are not completely homogenized. I bet you'll see a lot more 501's if you go out into the mountains, or hang out with the tobacco and pig farmers in rural Carolina. When I arrived in TX a few years ago, I noticed the relative share of 501s seemed higher than other places I've lived, probably in part due to influence of cowboy culture, and the various hangers-on and wannabees. Obviously this is far off topic, and yes button flies are no longer have the widely "in" status they once briefly had. I guess I was just pointing out that some of us just wear what we want, even if that's the same jeans for decades :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old enough to remember President Eisenhower talking on the radio one Christmas about peace in the Middle East. It's no exaggeration to say that men's hats and ~~zippers~~ button flies disappeared between 1945 and 1965. Even if a tiny percentage of men clung onto them through the decades or there's been a resurgence in the wearing of hats in recent years, it doesn't alter what happened at the time. Until the mid-1950s, a man was not properly dressed in public without a hat, but by 1965 virtually nobody did. I was there at the time and noticed it at the time. My grandfather at the age of about 64 marked the end of his hat wearing in about 1963-65 (based on the date our family moved house) by kicking his hat to pieces in front of the family after losing a bet. Akld guy (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zippers are not obsolete at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant button flies. Corrected. Akld guy (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

Why is Australia considered a continent and not simply an island?

I know that continents are defined rather arbitrarily but there seems to be strong consensus that it's a no-no to describe Australia as an island. Who decided that? Is there any support for considering The Americas one single continent instead of two? Zombiesturm (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same consensus that tells us what is and isn't a continent also tells us what is and isn't and island: "An island or isle is any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water." - emphasis mine. One problem with that is then "what is the largest island on Earth?" becomes sort of malformed. If that is not satisfying, then please enjoy the world's largest island-in-a-lake-on-an-island-in-a-lake-on-an-island [14] :)SemanticMantis (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

apparently has to do with not sharing this with asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf 68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some combo of being big and having it's own tectonic plate (see Australian Plate), although having a plate alone isn't enough, since Europe and Asia share a plate, so should be considered the single continent of Eurasia. Politics seems to be the reason why Europeans don't want to share the continent there. Also, the North American plate includes eastern ~~western~~ Asia, but people there aren't about to call themselves Americans. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article you linked indicates. the concept of tectonic plates was developed in the mid-20th century. Please provide a citation for your claim that this had any effect on whether Australia was called an island or a continent. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Q as "Is it considered an island or a continent, now ?", based on the words "are defined". Had the OP asked how they "were defined", and given a time period, then I would have attempted to answer the Q in a historical context. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the Americas, well in English it is 2 continents and in many other languages it is one only (French "L'Amerique"). So, yes, the criteria is arbitrary, and not agreed on.--Lgriot (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat: are you sure the North American Plate includes Western Asian? The map in our article doesn't show it as being connected to the Middle East at all - which is shown as part of the Anatolian and Arabian Plates. Or have I misunderstood? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I meant "eastern Asia". Now corrected. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continent#Number_of_continents discusses the fact that the Americas are considered a single continent in some parts of the world. Dragons flight (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the Wikipedia article Continent makes abundantly clear, the demarcations of what qualifies a specific landmass as a continent are abitrary and capricious, based on a convoluted history of the classifications that go back to Ancient times, and which do not necessarily match any reasonable geographically consistent definitions. The scheme is actually based on the concept of the Mediterranean Sea being the center of the world (that's what it means, after all "Medi" = middle "Terra" = world). Attempting to impose symmetry and order into geography, ancient geographers defined 4 landmasses which aligned to the 4 cardinal compass directions: North was Europe, East was Asia, and South was Africa. That there was a giant ocean, and not a landmass, to the west to balance it out led to the notion that there SHOULD be one there, so Atlantis was invented to fill the scheme out. When the scheme was devised, the boundaries between the landmasses were not well known; Asia and Europe were understood to be split by the Black Sea and Asia and Africa by the Red Sea, but beyond that the boundaries were not always very clear. Fast forward some 2000-3000 years, and suddenly new landmasses (the Americas, Australia, Antarctica) start to be found, and the old tripartate "Europe-Asia-Africa" division starts to fall apart. So the new landmasses were kludged into the system, with a "continent" being defined as roughly "A landmass Australia-sized or larger", though there is nothing particularly significant about drawing the boundary between "continent" and "really large island" in that way. The notion that a continent has it's own tectonic plate is basically a retcon; the "seven continents" were well defined well before plate tectonics was an accepted (or even proposed) theory. --Jayron 32 15:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that: the boundaries between Africa, Asia, and Europe have been redefined a number of ways. Herodotus, in his Histories considered the boundaries to be the Nile and (if I remember correctly) the Tanais. The Europe/Asia boundary in particular has been redefined many times, and is essentially arbitrary. Also, using tectonic plates to define continents would probably cause as many problems as it solves. Tectonically, most of Europe and Asia (including half of Iceland) are one plate. But the other half of Iceland would be American (as would parts of the Russian Far East), Turkey, Arabia, and possibly parts of Greece would all be a separate continents, and India would either be a separate continent or part of Australia. The boundary between Europe and Africa may also become a bit screwy, as according to at least some studies, the plate boundary actually gives parts of Morocco to Europe and parts of Italy to Africa. Iapetus (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not so much plates per se, I think, but continental shelves. If you take away all the water and political boundaries, a six-continent model (with Europe and Asia combined into a single continent) is fairly natural, not trying to come up with any rigorous definitions, just eyeballing it.

Of course no geologically-based definition is ever going to separate Europe from Asia. That one is pretty much nonsense. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer scientists use is that Australia and New Guinea rest on the same continental shelf, but that Australia is the largest body--the "mainland" and is hence not called an island (noun) anymore than North and South America together would be called an island. You do hear "island continent", where the first word is used adjectivally. Note, there is a huge history of poltics in the name of those articles, which can be seen at the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I contributed to Talk:Australia (continent) a while back, until giving up in frustration. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because geography is largely political: How a culture (and the academic elite of that culture) get to define various terminology has a profound effect on the perception of that place. --Jayron 32 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubt about the premise. I distinctly remember learning in school that Australia was both an island and a continent — the largest island, and also the smallest continent. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. But at some undefined later time, that changed. I was also taught that Ayers Rock (as it was then known) is the world's largest monolith, but that claim is no longer made; and that the Sydney Harbour Bridge is (or was at the time) the world's longest arch bridge - always wrong, the Bayonne Bridge is longer and was completed a year earlier. Teachers are not infallible. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers are infallible. That's the first thing my teachers taught me. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Australia is about half the area of Antarctica, which together made up a single continent somewhere around 95 million years ago. I've often heard it as "the island continent", but it's all got to do with the fallibility of words. Australia is what it is, and whether we call it an island, a continent, or an island continent, it's still the same entity. The term "continent" has been around for close to 500 years, and it means "continuous land".[15] That shifts the question to what does "continuous" mean? The answer is that it means whatever we decide it means at any given time. Like with Pluto, which went from a planet to a dwarf planet, just because somebody decided to redefine what the term planet means. Pluto itself did not change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^THIS^^^^ --Jayron 32 12:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be terribly pedantic, the IAU didn't re-define the definition of 'planet', it defined it, as there had not previously been an official scientific definition. (FWIW, I didn't agree with the definition created.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not pedantic at all. I think it stunned millions of people, lay and scientific alike, to learn there never had been a formal definition of such a basic piece of terminology. One can disagree with the definition they came up with, and definitions are not set in stone (such basic units as the metre and the second have both been redefined since they were first officially defined) - but surely it was an important and necessary step to actually create a definition. I detest the wording "dwarf planet", because it misleadingly suggests Pluto is still a type of planet, when the whole point of the exercise was to create a proper basis on which to distinguish between planets and Ceres-like objects. Nobody has thought of Ceres as any type of planet for a long time now, although it was originally included in the pantheon of planets. But the outcome of the definition exercise was to actually upgrade (at least semantically) Ceres to a "dwarf planet", while downgrading Pluto. The precise terminology they created has muddied the waters terribly, but I don't for a moment object to the creation of a definition of "planet". It was long, long overdue. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Planet" already had a definition.[16] Some scientists decided to fix something that wasn't broken. They do stuff like that. Like insisting that Brontosaurus had to be renamed Apatosuarus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary entry is not a definition. Do you think scientists look up a dictionary to see what they mean by "kilogram" or "ohm" or "parsec". No, of course not. Science uses very precise, internationally agreed upon definitions of the things they deal with. There was no such definition of "planet" until they decided to create one. There really was a problem that needed fixing, if you read IAU definition of planet#Reasons for the debate. If you think you know better than the world's most eminent astrophysicists, please free to contact them with your views. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common for different workers to use different terminology. There is generally nothing wrong with that, as long as they make themselves clear. The usual way (the correct way) for scientific language to evolve is organically, not by diktat of some governing body.

In this particular case, they chose a particularly terrible definition, "clearing the neighborhood", one that depends more on where a body is than what it is, completely contrary to what is intuitive in natural language. --Trovatore (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz_Jennings

What ethnic background is Jazz's descent of? Italian? Hispanic? Native? 50.68.120.49 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any reliable sources that indicate what ethnicity her ancestors may have been. --Jayron 32 01:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Google Books URL parameters

Check: User:User000name#Google Books URLs

What are these for: &source=, &ots=, &sig=, &sa=, &ei=, &ved=, #v=, &oi=, &ct=, &resnum=.

If the above parameters do nothing then I will add to "my" script (a fork of someone else's) to get them removed; the hl parameter is currently removed at line 213 here: User:User000name/common.js. —User 0 0 0 name 02:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those parameters contain detailed referrer information from users coming from a Google search results page.[17] For example, ved is a coded string that gives information such as whether the link that was clicked was a normal search result link, an AdWords link, image results link, news result link, etc.; what page number of results was the user looking at when the link was clicked; and what position was the link on that page (eg. the first one, in the middle, or at the bottom).[18] They are primary used for tracking purposes such as to facilitate Google Analytics functionality. Therefore, if you are going to use the Google Books API for your own application or web site, and those parameters are not specifically listed in the API guide, you should leave them out. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if Northern Territory, Australia, is not really a "state"...

why does the "Gouverneur" Adam Giles has enough force to quit himself the Arafura Games? Why does the Arafura Games don't attend in any other City?--Ip80.123 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The States of Australia all have Premiers. From what I glean from Arafura Games, it seems that they relied strongly on government funding, and that ceased to be made available from 2013 because it was judged unaffordable. Why hasn't it been moved to some other city? You'd have to ask the organisers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell reading our articles and my limited understanding of how the NT government is organised, I think the OP's premise is flawed anyway. It wasn't the Chief Minister who cancelled the funding, it was the government. The Chief Minister obviously had some part in that, but it's not a unilateral decision he made without anyone else being involved.

BTW, without getting into the specific of how things are organised in Australia, it's worth remembering, that being a state (or whatever it's called in local terminology) in a federation normally mostly relates to having some degree of shared sovereignity. It means that the state's powers whatever they are, can't be changed or overridden at the whims of the federal government (although the precise circumstances required for change can vary). The internal organisation of the state will vary and in some jurisdictions, particularly those following a Westminster derived system, the executive power of the head of government of the state (or head of state of the state) are actually somewhat limited.

Likewise in federations, just as in unitary states, while the federal or central government may normally have ultimate say, it doesn't mean non-state local governments have no powers. It just means that these powers can theoretically be overriden and that any local governments were set up by initial decision of the federal or central government. Just as with a state, the local government could be organised in various ways (including selection or election) there may or may not be someone with much executive power.

And all these boundaries and distinctions aren't always clear cut, a variety of local circumstances (including laws such as constitutions) may dictate what happens and what's likely.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except, the Northern Territory does not yet have statehood, and the decisions of its territorial legislature can be - and have indeed been, most notably re the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 - overridden by the Federal Parliament. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that precisely what I said? A territory in a federation is like one in a unitary state. And the biggest difference between a state and something other than a state in a federation is that a state shares sovereignty so their powers cannot simply be overridden by the federal government, but the territories powers can be (whether in a unitary state or a federation). In all of these cases, it doesn't mean that subnational entity doesn't have a government which normally makes decisions which aren't overriden by the federal government. I mentioned all this because the OP seems to me to be under the impression (amongst other things) that a non-state entity has no powers or at least no powers to make decisions about their budget which isn't always the case. Nil Einne (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piccy added.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the size of the picture to improve the appearance of the text. Tevildo (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

Concentration camps

In German concentration camps in WW2, did all women get their heads shaved upon arrival, or only when they were to be sent to the gas chambers? 2601:646:8E01:515D:7CCA:927E:A4BD:BA87 (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are photos from Theresienstadt concentration camp showing women who had not had their heads shaved - which is enough to show that not ALL women in concentration camps had their heads shaved. Admittedly, that was a special camp used for publicity purposes, so is not typical of most camps. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Theresienstadt was primarily a transit camp? 2601:646:8E01:515D:1C57:236D:EEEA:1910 (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were no gas chambers at Theresienstadt. This place was in Germany, not in the east, out of the way of the J----- communities who were sent there for "work resettlement", although many guessed the truth, and when one person escaped and came back to warn them of what was happening many didn't believe him. They had them at Auschwitz, and possibly Belsen and some other places. 5.150.93.133 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the kitchen

Why are can openers still a kitchen necessity, one store I shop in a lot stocks cans with rings on the top so you can open the can without a tin openers, yet the other one does not. Considering the shop that sells cans with the pull ring is a thrift store, surely price isn't an issue?, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, soft drink cans have ring pulls because typically you don't open them in the kitchen but maybe in the street where you wouldn't have access to a can opener. Ordinary food cans you keep in the kitchen don't have ring pulls - I don't know the economics of it, i.e. whether it's cheaper to manufacture a can without a ring pull. I would guess it is. 5.150.93.133 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some people can't open those pull-top cans without a device, either. If you have short fingernails or find using them painful, you need a knife blade to slide under it. Another downside from the pull-tops is that a bit of food on the lid is often flung across the room. That can be a potential stain issue with something like beets or tomato sauce. (There is a technique to avoid this, where instead of pulling the top clear off, you pull it most of the way, then bend it back and forth several times until it breaks off with little force.) Another thing I wonder about is if pull-top cans last as long. That is, does the thinner metal, required for a pull-top, corrode sooner ? StuRat (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be right that if the can were properly stored (e.g. in a watertight kitchen cabinet) it would not corrode at all. 5.150.93.133 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contents are often corrosive, such as acidic tomato sauce. The inside of the can does have a coating to prevent this, but in my experience it sometimes has imperfections. Not sure if pull-top cans are more or less likely to have such imperfections. And you might well argue that it would take years to corrode, so it's not a problem, but I've had old cans in the back of the cabinet corrode through and leak, creating a real mess. This is particularly a problem for "emergency supplies", which need to be rotated frequently to avoid such problems. StuRat (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle with a Stopper

Some beer makers use a bottle with a stopper hold in place by a steel wire leverage mechanism. The IKEA version of it is called "KORKEN, Bottle with stopper" on their catalog.

In the article beer bottle, it is said,

Some beers (for example Grolsch) are sold in "beugel" style bottles, known as "flip-top" or "swing top" in some English speaking countries.

Are there other names for this kind of bottle? Is there an article for it? -- Toytoy (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]