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.

October 8

Deleted wiki page?

I noticed that the following page has been deleted from Wikipedia: http://web.archive.org/web/20150324140835/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_McGuinn And was wondering why? Can it be restored? 2605:E000:6195:FF00:40DB:35C8:9FF9:3CA0 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, this should have gone to Wikipedia:Help desk. That aside, this article was deleted based on a consensus at an articles for deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick McGuinn. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! 2605:E000:6195:FF00:40DB:35C8:9FF9:3CA0 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Model no: LG-C395

Video files

I can’t watch video files (.mp4, .flv, .mkv, .avi) in the entitled model mobile phone. What should I do in order to start viewing the aforementioned files plus more file types?

Synchronising with MS Office Outlook

What do I do in order to sync datas of Calender, Tasks, Notes and Contacts from MS Office Outlook to the Phone, and datas of Calender, Tasks, Notes and Contacts from phone to PC?

103.230.104.5 (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the LG C395 User Manual on line. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

Voltage in Japan

Hi, I will travel to Tokyo for a week. The voltage there is 100V. My Panasonic Lumix DE A66 battery charger can take an input of 110v through 240V. Do I really need a voltage converter or can I go without it?79.32.245.131 (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This forum thread reports successful results with a Panasonic battery charger in Tokyo. Note that you may still need an adaptor to use an American plug with a Japanese socket - see AC power plugs and sockets#JIS C 8303, Class II unearthed. Tevildo (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer!79.32.245.131 (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it will take longer to charge (only a little bit longer if you normally use 110V, but far longer if you normally use 240V). StuRat (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't. See battery charger. The output will be regulated to give the designed charge rate, and will not depend on the input voltage as long as it's within the operating range of the device. A modern battery charger isn't just a simple step-down transformer. Tevildo (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fin on firefighter's helmets

Why do many firefighter's helmets, old or modern, have a fin on top that goes from back to front? – b_jonas 12: 56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Think you will find it is called a Comb. It is like a 'web' used in engineering to add strength and resist flexibility.--Aspro (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could also add protection if a board with nails sticking out falls on their head during a building collapse, by keeping the board far enough away from the skull that the nails, even if they penetrate the helmet, will not penetrate the skull. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The City of London police have this on their helmets. I thought it was for ceremonial reasons, to distinguish them from the Metropolitan Police (in whose area they form an enclave) and indeed the British Transport Police, who operate in that area but don't wear helmets. 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:A89E:AAC0:EA7:6596 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a strengthening rib can be traced back to 350-300 BC in a Greek helmet made in South Italy. The head of London's Metropolitan Fire Brigade who adopted a similar helmet found himself the unexpected center of attention on 25 November 1882 in the audience at the Savoy Theatre when the Fairy Queen addressed him from the stage in song: "Oh, Captain Shaw / Type of true love kept under / Could thy brigade with cold cascade / Quench my great love, I wonder?". This fame bestowed by a fictional queen played by Alice Barnett in the comic opera Iolanthe may have contributed to the good Captain Shaw subsequently being knighted by the real Queen Victoria. The lyric from the event has remained for 133 years in performances of the opera, see this video at 2:00, which mystifies audiences that don't know the background. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those curious chains of events:-

1) In 1762, the French Army were looking for a way to make their dragoon cavalry stand out from the crowd and came up with the dragoon helmet, loosely based on Ancient Greek and Roman designs as they were understood by 18th century antiquarians. It had a high crest and was adorned with a feather plume, a long horsehair mane and a "turban" of cloth or fur.

2) Napoleon's guard engineers, looking for a way of making their job of digging trenches and so on appear more glamorous, adopted the dragoon helmet.

3) In 1810, Napoleon reorganised the Paris Fire Brigade, making them a branch of the military engineers. This gave them a chance to strut about wearing dragoon helmets too, complete with feathers and horsehair (presumably since nobody had yet invented the risk assessment).

4) By the 1860s the French were wearing a slightly more practical version of their helmet when they were visited by Eyre Massey Shaw, who had been given the job of reforming the London Fire Brigade and realised that the French were doing it rather better than we were. He was rather taken with their headgear and ordered a similar version to be used in London called the Merryweather helmet which continued to be worn until the 1930s. This helmet was copied throughout the Empire. I'm not sure if the Americans took their inspiration from the French or British but they used leather instead, which was probably sensible.

5) Whenever anybody designed a new helmet, they tended to retain the crest, since everybody knew that firemen had crested helmets. As stated above, it adds strength, but plenty of effective helmets don't have them. Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting history, thank you. – b_jonas 19:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the US used leather helmets, maybe that's why they had up to 64 combs (as I called them above) for strengthening. See photos: [1] . The eagle on-top of some of them may represent the Phoenix (mythology) but the text does not say, yet it was a common fire insurance motif, both in the US and Europe.--Aspro (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Time zone coding

In the final sentence of Effects of time zones on North American broadcasting#Broadcast networks, we encounter the following piece of text: 20h00 HE/21h00 HA/21h30 HT. The context makes it obvious that this is talking about 8PM in the Eastern Time Zone, 9PM in the Atlantic Time Zone, and 9:30PM in Newfoundland. But I've never seen this kind of abbreviation. Is it standard in some contexts? And if so, in what contexts are these abbreviations and the use of ##h## standard? Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be French-language abbreviations, commonly used in Canada, but not much elsewhere. HE is heure de l'est, HA is heure de l'Atlantique and HT heure de Terre-Neuve. The writing of 8 pm as 20h00 is another clue that the original language is French (in English, in the cases the 24-hour clock is used, it would be 20:00; the h stands for "heure"). --Xuxl (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Portugal the currency was the escudo divided into 100 centavos, although the small - denomination coins were no longer minted at the end. A price was written with a dollar sign between the escudos and the centavos - thus ten escudos and fifty centavos would be written 10$50. Does any other country write prices like that? The word "dollar" comes from the old thaler coin and the dollar sign most likely from the Pillars of Hercules pictured on the old Spanish real. The derivation given in the Wikipedia article, that it is an abbreviation of "Spanish pesos", is implausible. 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:7C97:E589:C523:7D74 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The old predecimal British system used to use ##/## where the first number was shillings and the second pence. See £sd--Jayron 32 01:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glass floats

The article on glass floats states that, having been first used in the 1840s, "by the 1940s" they "had replaced wood or cork throughout much of Europe, Russia, North America, and Japan". My question is why? Were they cheaper to manufacture, more durable as floats, easier to employ, did they have greater buoyancy, or what is the reason they beat wood and cork? Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts: unlike cork, glass won't decompose in seawater, nor will it slowly gain density/lose buoyancy. Cork is not exactly cheap, and requires large orchards full of old trees. Glass can be made from sand, but it seems the floats were usually made from recycled glass bottles. There is some discussion of relative merits in this [2] thread, but nothing too conclusive. Fishing_float#History_of_floats mentions some of the variety of designs and materials. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That thread did have some useful links leading to yet further links. From what I've gathered so far, it's pretty much what you wrote. (longer-lasting, no loss of buoyancy, and thus a superior product, yet not that expensive to make). Thanks for helping this landlubber! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Floats of wood or cork when worn resemble common Driftwood leading to uncertain ownership and possible theft as fuel to burn. Glass floats are distinctive and have a single practical use. AllBestFaith (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ABF. That hadn't occurred to me, and I even read about the sailors stealing "floatwood" in the same text I read about the glass floats which had spiked my curiosity in the first place. Thanks for connecting yet more dots for me ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a gay song

Does anyone know what band does the song It Okay To Be Gay in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4t185wl-0 and what album its on? I would like to put it on my ipod. 50.68.118.24 (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"OK2BGay" by Tomboy on their 2006 album Ok2bgay released by Universal Music Group. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ

I think the utility of this conversation has run out and is now generating more heat than light.--WaltCip (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whats the Q stand for?--178.101.53.88 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queer or questioning. See also LGBT for a history of usage and other variants. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unhelpful
Maybe we should include an F for furries and then just toss in the rest of the alphabet to cover every other possible sexual attraction. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

'LGBT' Transforming into Alphabet Soup? Not WP:RS, but expands LGBTQIAAP and discusses the expanding acronym. -- ToE 02:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article LGBT#Other variants gives LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM as the longest cited form. Realistically, LGBTQ or LGBT+ is used in most contexts where inclusiveness is important, although of course not everyone is happy with it. Smurrayinchester 07:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

further metadiscussion on conduct

Completely inappropriate, and mildly offensive. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Moreover, not all furries are kink furries, and it's a fetish, not a sexual orientation. That said, MOGAI is my preferred alphabet soup. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably MOGAI = "Marginalized Orientations, Gender Identities, And Intersex"[3]. AllBestFaith (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 earlier replies to mine confirm that trying to include every possible group in the acronym is indeed becoming problematic. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just shows that your comment was inappropriate and ill-informed.--WaltCip (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also shows that the ref desk is not a good place for "jokes". I'll try to explain why so many of us found this offensive for the benefit of Stu and anyone else who's confused: when you, a member of the dominant group (straight white males), makes light of a marginalized group (LGBT+ people) by mocking the initialism and suggesting to "toss in the rest of the alphabet", it serves to further disenfranchise those people, and creates an unwelcoming atmosphere. WP is already largely a straight white men's club - have the class to not revel in it. If you don't like typing up LGBTQ, or fear such a label is too limiting, you can simply use 'queer' as a catch-all term, which is consistent with the current academic usage. Most universities in the USA have departments of Queer studies, and most of them will also have faculty working in the field of queer theory, though perhaps housed in a different department. If you're ever in doubt how you should refer to people, it's best to ask some people in that group what they prefer. And if you can't ask, or get contradictory answers, then you should probably just describe what group you you mean. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "queer" is often taken to be offensive, especially when used by anyone outside the group, like "nigger". I also never said I was straight, and the Wikipedia Ref Desk community seems to have a large proportion of all orientations, so you need not worry about LGBT individuals being marginalized here. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you behave offensively here in public, it reflects badly on all of us, including me. So I will not let you hide the fact that at least some of us are willing to call you out on it. If you behave poorly in public, it will be redressed in public. If you insist on hiding our dissent again, you should follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page. Ordinarily I can ignore your bullshit, but this is actively harming our reputation. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one actively harming our reputation, by placing this constant bickering here, where it does not belong, then attempting to box up my reply to your accusation, while leaving your accusation in plain sight. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>"When you behave offensively here in public, it reflects badly on all of us, including me."
Speak for yourself. For what I know, yours trying to turn RD into tumblr reflects bad on WP. WP's anti-Russia, pro-NATO bias reflects bad on it. Networks of East European editors conspiring off-WP in adding anti-Russian, nationalist bias, reflects bad on it. Purging a telenovela star's article of all mentions of scandal the next day she becomes a mascot for a candidate's campaign, reflects bad on it. Stu's comment? Couldn't care less.
Everyone note the cultmarx-liberal sleight of hand: insofar as StuRat's comment can be constructed as being political at all, somehow it has become a moral issue while your liberal bias isn't. A Martian would consider both views political. Everyone note the Orwellianism: all Stu did was an innocuous joke and not treating the LGBT thing as the solemn, dead-serious issue you think it is, but the way you hysterick one could think he said "gas the f***" or something.
This comment won't change anything, WP is thoroghly POZzed beyond repair due to all SJW entryism. But the zeitgeist keeps shifting as more and more people become aware of your little Cultmarx tricks. Asmrulz (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 12

Trump vs Clinton, Julian Assange

Does Assange prefer that Donald Trump wins the usa presidential election over Hillary Clinton?144.35.45.79 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. Here [4] is a news piece saying

“

An election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is like being asked to choose between "cholera or gonorrhea," Julian Assange said in an interview aired Wednesday.

"Personally, I would prefer neither," the WikiLeaks founder and frontman told Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now."

”

Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic

It should be noted that as an Australian, whether or not he has a preference doesn't have much bearing on the matter, as his preference is not taken into account in the election itself. See Voting rights in the United States, or more specifically Right of foreigners to vote in the United States, which notes that "Since 1996, a federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections," This status has actually existed (as noted in that article) since 1926, as effectively all 50 states individually had by then banned non-citizens from voting in the U.S. --Jayron 32 22:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An individual vote has got to be the least powerful way to influence a US Presidential election. Assange seems to be trying to influence the election in Trumps favor, as our article on him states: 'On 22 July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails and files sent from or received by Democratic National Committee (DNC). The New York Times reported that "Assange accused Mrs. Clinton of having been among those pushing to indict him..." and that he had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention.' StuRat (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in one sentence, you've just captured the entirety of what is wrong with the U.S. election system. The stark reality of your first statement, and the implications of it for U.S. democracy, has left me in an existential crisis that will require at least 3 beers to dig out of... --Jayron 32 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The degree to which US elections are influenced by other factors, such as Gerrymandering, voter suppression, campaign donations, and now, foreign interference, may be higher than elsewhere, but the vote of an individual isn't very likely to influence the results of an election anywhere. Even if it did come down to one vote deciding the election, there's enough gray area for it to end up in the courts when it's that close, due to hanging chads, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be completely fair on that point, it isn't "now, foreign influence" which has been a major concern, unless by "now" you mean "since before the U.S. even had their first presidential election". Foreign influence over U.S. electoral process is extensively covered as a MAJOR concern among the writers of the U.S. constitution, and is a major topic of discourse in The Federalist Papers. SO much so it was basically the entire subject of the first four non-introductory Federalist Papers (Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5), as well as forming a significant discourse in other papers, i.e. the repeated references to the Partitions of Poland as being an undesirous effect of foreign influence on the security of a nation-state (Nos. 14, 19, 22, 39). --Jayron 32 23:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was always a concern, yes, but hackers now have a tool which could quite possible change the outcome of an election (at least if Trump was a serious candidate and the race was close). StuRat (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, people have always had the tools to swing U.S. elections. Those tools tended to be green and have pictures of dead politicians on them. See United States presidential election, 1960#Controversies for a famous recent example. Also see Corrupt Bargain for no less than 3 other examples. --Jayron 32 23:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are those examples of foreign influence deciding an election ? And 1960 = recent ? :-) StuRat (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concerned that the various hacks the Russians are doing are merely tests before they hack into the vote-counting machines in battleground states and change the results in order to elect whatever sap they want in whatever office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One theory I heard on talk radio is that Assange thinks he might get a better deal if Trump wins. Why Assange would think that way, was not clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The theory would be that Hillary would continue the policies of Obama, while with Trump he would get a new "roll of the dice". StuRat (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argument

I see very few substantive and relevant references here, and a few users with multiple comments and no references. I'd remind us all this is WP:NOTAFORUM. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get back to us after you've provided a citation for your claim about wet roads vs. dry roads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I did. Now stop being so pointy and defensive, and try to make a single well-referenced and helpful post in the remainder of this week. I have made several just today, you might want to review them and learn from those who have experience in providing scholarly references. While you're at it, you might consider following your own advice about bickering in front of OP. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following your lead. You don't want to talk about it on your talk page, and you claim it's perfectly OK to bicker in from of the OP, so there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. You provided 4 refs that don't support your claim, wasting everyone's time. Instead of criticizing everyone else, try to avoid making bad contributions yourself, such as the one at Science#Purported_car_that_runs_on_sea_water. StuRat (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Question on "Fire Department"

The paragraph that I will post on this e-mail is verbatim and I was trying to find out what agency of the Government is for the Fire Department: The paragraph posted here is rather blatantly obvious but there is no reference to any Government Agency. If the funds provided for the Fire Department are municipal, and if the Federal Government is responsible for funding the Fire Department through the State Legislature, what branch or department of the Federal Government is responsible for the Fire Department? Surely it's not the Olive Branch.

Here is the paragraph taken from Wikipedia ("Fire Department"): A fire department's jurisdiction is organized by the governmental body that controls the department, although there are private fire services as well. This comes from a municipality, county, prefecture, state, province, or nation type of government. The most common type of government control is at the municipality level. The jurisdiction size and organisation would be set up by a department or the government in charge of these duties. This deals with the placement of fire stations, equipment, and personnel within the area of control. Fire departments periodically survey their jurisdiction areas and use the data for redeploying proper coverage. This data comes from travel time, range from station, and/or a population survey. This brings equal service to the entire community and gives the department efficient places to launch operations.

Thanks for any clarification on this issue that the reference desk may provide me with. "Es31fish2fish (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

Why would the Federal (US) government have any jurisdiction over the fire departments of local cities? Do they also have jurisdiction over the sanitation departments? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FG is pretty relevant in getting them out of the sh*t, so I'd say so! ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no federal-level agency in the United States responsible for fire departments, though FEMA may step in to assist local fire departments in emergency situations. The U.S. Fire Administration is a division of FEMA that, among other things, offers grants to fire departments that apply for funding, but USFA doesn't appear to have any direct control over local departments and serves more in an advisory capacity. It's also not necessarily true that funding for fire departments comes from the federal government through the state, as local governments (cities, towns, and counties) may raise the money themselves via local taxes or donations (especially in the case of volunteer fire departments). Of course, everything I've said is only true in the United States and I can't speak for the situation in other countries. clpo13_(talk) 17:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire department is written generally, it does not only apply to USA. In the USA, an example of a federally controlled fire department would be the agencies controlled by the national park service. Here they say [5] "Currently 22 NPS sites maintain 49 fire stations, which are equipped with 68 apparatus (including 3 fire boats), and are staffed and supported by approximately 200–250 employees and partners." Many of those employees are employees of the federal government of the USA. Another example would be the interagency "Hotshot crews" [6], and that page lists specific govt employee statuses.

But when most USians think of "the fire department", they think of things like the San Francisco Fire department [7]. They are run and managed by the city, but municpal departments will often get special grants and funding support from higher level government initiatives. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of Texas

To the GOP. If it never voted republican again, could they still win an election without it? All things being equal, and they don't gain anything in its place. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? In relatively modern times, the Republicans Reagan, Nixon, and George H. W. Bush all won elections by sufficiently large margins that if Texas had voted against them it wouldn't have mattered to the outcome. Texas's 38 electoral votes are important to the Republicans, but no single state is definitive. The last few elections have been relatively close, and so the loss of Texas might be determinative in that case, but historically we've also had elections that were total blow-outs, and there is no reason that can't happen in the future. Also, it is very unlikely that the GOP just loses Texas. By the time Texas is voting against them, it is likely that many other things have changed on the electoral map. It is easy to forget that the voting blocs and coalitions of today are not permanent. From 1872 to 1968, Texas sided with the Democrats in all but 3 presidential elections. Dragons flight (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at Swing state and Red states and blue states, you could work this out pretty easily. Just calculate the number of electoral college votes for all of the solid blue states; then add Texas to it. If that number is over 270, then if we permanently colored Texas blue, it would be highly unlikely for a Republican to win again. If the number is under 270, the Republicans could still take the White House by capturing enough of the "swing states". --Jayron 32 15:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the kind of thing I was wondering: if there were sufficient states with far less votes to outweigh the likes of Texas. I also wondered about California as vice versa ;) ...and as for doing it myself... American politics = higher mathematics to the RoW :) Cheers @Dragons flight and Jayron32: for the info. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1984 election, Reagan picked up every state against Walter Mondale except for Minnesota, and Washington D.C.. That means Democratic strongholds such as California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington state fell Reagan's way, which would be considered a bipartisan referendum. No candidate in U.S. history has ever achieved electoral success along the level that Reagan has. So conversely, as outlined above, if Texas fell for the Republicans, that usually means the candidate likely has no fundamental support in any of the other significant GOP stronghold states either, and we'd be looking at something similar to what Reagan achieved in 1984.--WaltCip (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, WaltCip- I thought Nixon had the greatest win in 197X? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, let me clarify by quoting the article - "Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate."--WaltCip (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, in the 1972 election, McGovern won in DC and Massachusetts (giving him 17 votes as against Mondale's 13), and one elector voted for John Hospers, so Nixon's total was only 520 as against Reagan's 525. Tevildo (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California was often considered a swing state until the '90s. Remember that both Nixon and Reagan had California as their home state, and Reagan served two terms as Governor. Bush won California in 1988. Many commentators credit California Proposition 187 with sparking a backlash against the Republican Party among Hispanics and Latinos in the state, helping shift the state to the Democrats. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has an interactive electoral map here, where you can turn states different colours and it computes the electoral outcome. You can use that to game out various scenarios yourself. If we use that to turn TX blue, for the Republican candidate to win, he would have to take just about all of the "tipping point" states (as shown in Fivethirtyeight's map with black outlines). Fivethirtyeight's map also shows the changes either candidate has in each state (as calculated by their own model, which aggregates polling and other data). Right now (it changes several times per day) that gives Mrs. Clinton a 14.5% chance of winning TX, which is higher than Mr. Trump's chance in each of CO, MN, WI, MI, PN, and VA. Fivethirtyeight's little snakey infographic (about half way down the page) shows how relatively exposed TX is when compared to the Democrats' bulwarks of MI, NY, and especially CA. Texas' voting pattern is a lot more complex than its simply being a "red state" ([8]) and its is in a state of demographic flux - so the possibility of TX being in play, perhaps in 8 years, is not the psephological nebbishness it probably is today. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]