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 14

World Map

A flat "World Map" is sought with the capability of zooming (in and out) along with "time zone" and other sort of valuable information. -- 103.230.105.25 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first Google result I get for "zoomable time zone map" - other similar sites are available. If it doesn't contain the information you need, let us know what that information is, and we should be able to find something suitable. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any "flat map" of the world will be badly distorted. The exact type of distortions depends on the map projection used. One of the biggest advantages to a map on a computer is that it can be truly spherical, eliminating all distortion, and yet zoomable, unlike a physical globe. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computer screens are flat. How does this affect the resolution? 2A02:C7F:A14:AA00:B9C1:49D7:605B:A265 (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your meaning is a little unclear. Computer screens are flat (or flat-ish), but it's the projection of the map itself that is the issue. When you load up, say, Google Earth it presents you with a globe, not a projected map, so the material is not distorted apart from glitches and the areas of incomplete data. But when you load up Google Maps in your browser and zoom out you will see it is a variant of the Mercator projection and it is very much distorted, particularly at the poles - you'll see that Iceland (~100,000 km²) is about the size of Texas (~700,000 km²). Same computer screen, but different projections make for different distortions. In this context, your use of resolution is unclear; resolution would only affect the amount of detail presented on the screen and wouldn't directly change the distortion either way (although seeing more of a projection at once would make it easier to see the distortion). See display resolution and optical resolution for details. Matt Deres (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a globe viewed through a flat screen. How is that different from a stereographic projection? 86.147.209.235 (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An image on a screen is not 'projected' in the sense used by map makers. A stereographic projection is just another kind of map projection, one that (from the lead of that article) preserves angles, but not distances or areas. You'll note that an image of the earth made using stereographic projection looks nothing like a globe. Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that viewing the entire world at once on a flat screen would necessarily mean it is badly distorted. However, flat maps of small areas are only slightly distorted, whether on paper of a flat computer screen. The difference between a single flat map and a computer screen is that a computer can automatically "reproject" it as you zoom in, to give a projection more appropriate for that location and zoom level (perhaps even asking which projection you want). You can get a similar effect with flat maps, but only if you have an entire book of world maps, such as with polar projections at the poles, and you still can't zoom in very far, except perhaps in a few special points of interest, or the number of paper maps would quickly exceed what would fit in a book.

Also note that there are curved computer screens. However, they are generally only curved in one direction (cylindrical) instead of two (spherical) and being unable to change the curvature means it doesn't adjust as you zoom in and out, but flexible screens can fix that. One interesting note is that the curvature of the screen means you are looking at the map as if you are inside the Earth looking out, but that works out just fine. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

List of oldest companies

Hi. I AM new to this, little confused, where and how to ask question or comment. Didn't find what I was looking for - missing entry - company called Sporrong, still existing and still kicking, estd. 1666, Sweden. Field should be probably misc., You find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.62.130 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on this company in the Swedish Wikipedia: sv:Sporrong. WP:CORP is the relevant guideline for us to have an article about it in the English Wikipedia. The oldest Swedish (and probably the oldest European) company is Stora Enso (1288), so AB Sporrong's age isn't really enough to make it notable without other evidence. Tevildo (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably about List of oldest companies which doesn't have Sporrong (Stora Enso is listed as Finnish). Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did people bury pottery in the 1960s?

I live in England. I dug a hole in my garden to bury my dog and I found a load of pottery about 5 foot down. I cleaned it up and some of it was dated year of manufacture 1960. The house was build in 1930. I assume that refuse collection was a thing in 1960. So could you explain to me why someone who owned my house in 1960 or thereafter would have buried so much pottery 5 foot deep in the garden? Answer My Question, Or Else (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 July 23#Why is there so much broken pottery buried in every garden in Great Britain?. It's not clear what percentage of your pottery is dated 1960 or if it's the same type or from the same time. (If it is, then the link is perhaps not of much relevance.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some possibilities:

1) Somebody came into possession of the pottery (perhaps by inheritance) that didn't care for it, and it didn't have much value, so they buried it all at once. If it's largely intact, that would support this theory, but they might also have smashed them in the process.

2) They kept an open pit there, and tossed in the pottery as it broke. It should all be broken if this is the case.

3) They buried it to hide it, say from somebody else that they didn't want to have it (like after a divorce). For whatever reason, they never retrieved it (maybe they didn't want it either, they just wanted to keep it from the other person). Could be broken or intact in this case, too. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose there's any chance you live in the London Borough of Hillingdon, is there? My grandparents bought a house there in the late 1950s and lived there until the early part of this century. My grandmother was... somewhat clumsy, and regularly broke plates, teacups, serving dishes, bowls, you name it. Then, for whatever reason, she would have them buried at the bottom of the garden. I don't remember them being five feet down, but I'm sure the ones broken in the 60s could quite easily have reached that depth by now, with a bit of garden remodelling in the meantime. Even if you're not living in my Grandparents' old house, Occam's razor suggests that 'getting rid of broken stuff' might be a reason for someone burying broken pottery in their garden. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An off-the-wall thought, but given that pottery got broken and the pieces were available, might some gardeners have then chosen to bury them in order to improve the soil drainage (as is still a common practice with plant pots, though apparently this doesn't actually work)? Originally the pieces would not have been as deep as five feet, but worm action and soil build-up over the subsequent decades would have increased their depth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this sad moment please accept our condolences on the loss of your dog. AllBestFaith (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondering if this was an attempt to dig a soak away which was abandoned. As you have gathered, digging a 5 ft deep excavation takes a lot of effort and not something someone would normally do to simply bury rubbish. As the link (above) shows, in some places one has to dig deep to get through an impervious clay layer. Otherwise one just ends up with a hole full of water. (and even I would give up after 5ft and hire an auger). Your excavation that deep must have taken a good hour, so if you did it over more than one day you will have noticed the walls looking wet (if even if dug in summer) – due to the surface water on top of the impervious clay draining down. If there was any rubble mixed with the crocks that would add weight to the possibility. If it was close to the house or some hard-standing, and if the subsoil is heavy clay, then more so. Therefore, the original excavator may have realised that he had just a water filled hole that was of not going to serve its purpose and gave up.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My garden has a cache of laser printer chassis, buried about 4-5 feet down. Yes, it's a rain gutter soakaway. The printers were all the same model, from the same office, and were stripped to recover stepper motors or anything useful, then to separate the steel and plastic to different waste streams The chassis for these was a moulded plastic open box, two side panels and a frame between them. Wrapped in geotextile they make a decent rain interceptor. Milk crates have been used for similar purposes and just behind the house the new school has a vast stack of these things under its carpark as a SUDS system. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: Many people in the UK don't realise that their water company (having been privatized) are now automatically charging their customers to take their rain water away, even though they have a soak-away. They not only charge for water delivered but water taken away – including rain water - read the small print. One has to point this out to them and ask for a rebate for all the past years (or rather demand, since the first Jobsworths one gets to speak to at the water company, try to fob you off and stone-wall you), (remember, one has the right to the return of your capital paid, plus interest). That all added together, over a few years, can often amount to a tidy sum Paying for sewerage. Therefore, check your water bill very closely for what they are charging you for!--Aspro (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Trying to find a song by The Beatles.

It was something like:

It's difficult to say everything you want to say. It's difficult to see everything you want to see.

We are/It's all one world/word? (kind of more intense, almost shouting)

I suppose the text is not right, since I'm having trouble to google the lyrics.

--Llaanngg (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All You Need Is Love? Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Without the right words, this will be difficult :-), but some to try might be And Your Bird Can Sing, All You Need Is Love, and Good Morning Good Morning. Some of their passages are broadly similar to what you've got. I've a feeling I'm missing something obvious, though. Matt Deres (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I was conflating two songs. The first one is All you need is love, mentioned by Tevildo. The second is a different song. Llaanngg (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second one could be We Are The World, but it's not by The Beatles and rather later than their existence (1985). I can easily imagine someone mistaking it for a Beatles track, though. For a genuine Beatles suggestion - It's All Too Much? Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the second one is "Instant Karma!" by John Lennon, youtube. --Viennese Waltz 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Viennese Waltz, I had already lost faith that I would get an answer. Yes, that's right, thank you.Llaanngg (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

tire width

I am trying to find out why some 2335/85/16 etc tires are only 4 wide in tred and others are 5 wide does it matter on a 3/4 ton truck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.112.62 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could matter from an insurance point of view if you have the wrong tires and get involved in an accident which wasn’t even your own fault. Is this an older 'classic' truck inherited from perhaps an older uncle?--Aspro (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links that may help are Tire code and Tire size charts. Since many factors in tread design for a given code are controlled by the manufacturer, look to reputable tire comparison tests to inform your choice. AllBestFaith (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torquay King´s Garden

Does this garden stil exist? I estimated pre WW I. Am I correct?Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can you help us out by giving the location ? StuRat (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the title! What part of Torquay did you not understand? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. Believe it or not, Torquay is not a household name worldwide. I've now provided a link so everyone else knows where it is. It wasn't even clear to me that it's a place, rather than the name of a King on some Pacific island. And even knowing that it's a place doesn't tell me where in Torquay the garden was located. All this info would have been useful up front. (Yes, I could find it by research, but shouldn't the OP give us all the info they have so we can skip this step ?) StuRat (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought: if you didn't understand the question and couldn't be bothered to research it yourself, why didn't you just ignore it and go and do something else? --Viennese Waltz 14:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that there are many parts of the world unfamiliar with Fawlty Towers :-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought: if you yourself haven't bothered to research the question, why don't you stop attacking other editors in front of the OP, and go do something else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to research a Q to find the answer, it's quite another to be asked to research it because the OP hasn't asked the Q clearly. In that case, it's quite reasonable to ask them for a clarification. We often get Qs like "How far is Main Street from Maple Street ?", and we could, in theory, find every distance between every pair of streets so named, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask which city they mean ? StuRat (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The garden still exists. Warofdreams talk 23:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent photo from the same spot:[1] 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:45F2:2A:B116:86A4 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the backside of the post card. I cant read the date stamp, only that it was posted in the afternoon. It looks like King George V.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link for the backside pic you uploaded? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clothing, especially the length of the girl's skirt, seems to me to be consistent with a date immediately prior to the Great War, so George V (from 1910) would be right. "The gardens were opened in 1905, by the Mayor of Torquay". [2] You may be able to narrow down the date by the stamp, although postcards could remain on sale for several years. The first stamps issued in time for the 1911 coronation are known as "Downey Head" stamps after the man who took the photograph. They were replaced in 1912 by the "Mackennal Profile" stamps which remained in circulation until 1933. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've just found your "Backside Torquay postcard" image - the stamp is a "Downey Head" and was issued between June 1911 and late 1912. See also Stamps on Postcards - a guide to dating cards. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading that postcard correctly, it was franked on 14 September 1912. Smurrayinchester 09:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Dialing digits and calling cost

What could costs less? Dialing “0” or “+” first/before a whole phone number, when dialing in the same country or another? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on what country you are phoning from, and whether you are using a landline or mobile phone. It might be simplest for you to contact your network provider directly. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even make a difference? Sjö (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me get my head around the concept of dialing "+" —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See International call prefix which explains the technicalities of dialing "+" --Jayron 32 20:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's years, if not decades, since this made any difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? International calls are still quite often expensive and billed differently from domestic calls. Or were you being cheeky and making a point that many people don't make international calls anymore because they use the Internet instead? --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding the OP's question. When dialling an international nasumber, you can either prefix it with an international call prefix or, on a mobile phone at least, you can type '+'. The OP is asking which of these prefixes will make the call cheaper. --Viennese Waltz 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is he asking that? In many countries "0" is the required first digit of most or all domestic calls (see trunk prefix). The IP of the original question geolocates to Bangladesh which is a country that uses "0" for domestic calls. For example, in my country, to dial me locally you call 079 xxx xx xx, but internationally it is either +41 79 xxx xx xx (or from Europe 0041 79 xxx xx xx, or from US 011 41 79 xxx xx xx). My initial impression of the question was asking whether it costs more to call a local number by dialing the local prefix ("0") or to dial the same number by using the international prefix ("+"); however, on reading the responses, I'm not at all sure what is being asked. Dragons flight (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The telephone system of the past often had explicit end results according to how you controlled it from the phone, even where this wasn't useful to the network. By dialling particular sequences, the caller could control not only where a call went, but how it got there. This could be used to force a transatlantic cable rather than a satellite link (avoiding the delay of a satellite). It could even be used to make a long distance call by bouncing between local exchanges rather than through the trunk system, saving charges at the cost of poorer quality.

From the 1950s, control systems became more sophisticated, replacing human trunk operators, and allowing the development of STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling) in the UK. Each destination phone was identified by a number, a single consistent number by which it was called from anywhere in the network. Before this, a local dialling code was needed - the code to call one exchange from its neighbours, and a code which might be different according to from where it was being called. In physical street address terms, this was the difference between an address of "23 Sesame Street" or a routing instruction of "Turn right, then second left". Books of these codes were distributed to phone users, or a large poster of them was inside each public phonebox.

The Director telephone system was at the core of replacing this - the network still needed to use the routing instructions, but the customers were given a single consistent number to dial. Each local exchange (actually a trunk exchange at the large town scale) had a "Register Translator" set (a pair of them, for hot backups) which were a lookup table of the public numbers to the routing number from that exchange. The first of these were valve computers with magnetic drum memory - the RT5 set was still in use into the 1980s.

Later in the '80s, stored program (i.e. computer controlled) exchanges became widespread and these were far more sophisticated. The caller and the numbers they dial became further and further distanced from the physical route used. Exchanges might even route calls differently, according to network load. In the 1990s we saw the shift from switched circuits to packet switching, and the voice network starting to be carried by the data network. Previously these had either been separate, or ad hoc data connections by modem ran over the voice network.

There are now a few ways to dial "the same" number. "+" (usable internationally) has the same effect as "00" (the UK's international dialling access code). If they're in the same country as the destination, a caller also has the choice to dial "0203 1234567", "+44 203 1234567", or "0044 203 1234567". These will all reach the same London number - but two of them are "international" numbers. In the past this would give an expensive international call, or a warning message ("You don't need to dial this internationally, please try again without the code") or (later, and as now) the network is smart enough to recognise that it's a same-country call and so doesn't need to be routed or billed internationally. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that UK London's dialing code is 020 and the phone numbers have 8 digits, many starting 3, 7 or 8. So I guess your numbers above should be "020 31234567", "+44 20 31234567", or "0044 20 31234567". -- SGBailey (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So don't dial the space. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. If you live in London and you want to call your first example number, you would dial 3123 4567, not 123 4567. The spacing is crucial. See UK telephone code misconceptions#Misquoting. --Viennese Waltz 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But no-one does dial that. Not even Londoners. If you're in London, "31234567" might work, but who uses that, rather than "02031234567"? Younger phone phreeks? Old ones (like myself) still think of Inner and Outer London as distinct, even though we know they aren't any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who knows what people dial. All I can say is that if someone living in London dials 02031234567 when they only need to dial 31234567, they're an idiot. --Viennese Waltz 15:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a general issue, even outside London, fewer of us are dialling anything numerically, we now use pre-programmed phonebooks in our mobiles, or we click web links, or we simply use what's written on the billboard / plumber's van / business card. All of these use the full code, or even the international version. Certainly my phone has everything in with +44 at the start, even the house number. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your house number starts +44? -- SGBailey (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The copy in my mobile's contact list does. Otherwise it wouldn't work if I'm abroad. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SGB interpreted house number the same way I would, as per the link. What you called your "house number", I'd call your "home number" or "home phone number". --69.159.61.230 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formalities envelope colour

When/For what purpose should you use a white, brown, yellow (and so on) colour envelope? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on red and green ones, but not the colours you mention. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, brown envelopes have tended to be used for official correspondence from governments, city councils, utilities and the like, whereas white envelopes were more for personal correspondence. See [3]. --Viennese Waltz 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught at secretarial college many moons ago that brown envelopes were used because they are cheaper than any other colour! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brown are cheaper, stronger, and used to be considerably cheaper as the paper is unbleached and an be made from wood pulp rather than rag. So were favoured for "official" correspondence, i.e. things that needed to be read, whether one wanted to or not. White's greater expense was justified if the sender wanted to encourage the recipient to read it. So a job applicant would write in a white envelope, be refused with a brown one, and accepted with either white or brown depending on whether it was a commercial or government role.

Buff envelopes were also used, especially in the USA, for strength. In the UK they were generally restricted to padded or extra-strong envelopes. One example is a multi-use internal post envelope, used within large businesses. As these were frequently opened and re-tied, and repeatedly labelled (they usually have a printed grid to addresses which were crossed out and re-written in the next space), these needed to survive a lot of handling. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about formalities, but brown envelopes are connected to bribery, see e.g. Brown envelope journalism and Urban Dictionary. Sjö (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formalities; paper folding

How/In what way should you fold an A4 (or any other kind) of paper when handing it to another? Beside, how should/could you possibly hand it to another? In what way(s)...? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A trifold is often used, as it allows one side to be hidden, ensuring a degree of privacy, if the writing is on one side only. It also fits into a common envelope size that way, for even more privacy. See [4]. Note that the folds should be parallel to the lines of text, and between the lines, if possible, to ensure legibility (ink right at the fold can be lost, over time). StuRat (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You ask how the piece of paper should be handed to another. Are you thinking of whether to use one or two hands? According to Etiquette in Japan, both hands are always used in that country, to show respect. Or are you thinking of something else? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a convention in the UK that if handing a communication in an envelope to someone to pass on to the intended recipient, one left the envelope unsealed* to demonstrate trust in the intermediary. The intermediary might then seal the envelope in front of the recipient before handing it to him/her to show that this trust had been extended.

(* referring to the glued flap – use of sealing wax for routine business documents predates even my office training and practice.)

Since StuRat's trifold is a red link, I'll clarify that this refers to folding the paper into three sections, using two folds.

The OP's question falls into the category of Business etiquette, for which we have only a section under the article Etiquette, but this may point to other more detailed treatments appropriate to the particular cultural milieux involved. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-fold redirects to Brochure, but seems to have information on the folding mentioned. 220 of ^Borg 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided (pointing outside of Wikipedia) has a diagram. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formalities; pen colours

What colour pen should you use for what purpose? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black and blue are used for most formal correspondence. In accounting, black may be used to indicate positive amounts and red for negatives (see debits and credits). In proofreading, red is often used to indicate corrections, although other colors, like green, may be used by auto spellcheckers to indicate grammar problems. When using software with revision tracking, it may be helpful to use a range of colors to indicate change levels. However, due to the large portion of the population who are partially colorblind, it may be unwise to rely solely on color to convey critical info. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate what sort of revision-tracking software produces its output using colored pens! --69.159.61.230 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see Google: here. 2600:8806:4800:5100:DD6A:D0FE:F6C9:448C (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how to compare two version of an MS Word document using black for text and blue for changes: [5]. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the IP's point. The question was about pens, not computer software. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've often heard the ink color called the pen color, perhaps left over from the use of plotters, which do use pens. StuRat (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many composers have used ink of different colours when writing their scores. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green ink is the accepted colour for writing sprawling incomprehensible conspiracy-mongering letters to your local newspaper. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green ink is commonly used by auditors in the UK. I wonder if there is a correlation? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an ex-editor, I'll expand on StuRat's proofreading references. Manuscripts are preferably submitted to the publishers written/printed in black. (Yes, I have had to deal with actual handwritten pages of MSS before now.) The publishers give a black typewritten copy with corrections and amendments (and mark-up instructions) written in blue to the compositors/printers. The printers return the printed proofs to the publisher with any of their own errors they have already spotted marked in green.

After proofreading, the publisher returns the proofs with unspotted printers' errors corrected in red, and further amendments in blue. The authors will also be included in some or all of these stages, may spot errors and will make further amendments, and hopefully follow all these conventions.

The significance of the different colours is

(1) that all corrections and amendments should differ from black so as to be better visible and legible, and

(2) to calculate cost allocation: the printers will be responsible for the cost of correcting their self-spotted mistakes marked in green and publisher-spotted printing errors in red, while the publishers will pay for the costs of the blue amendments. If the latter are particularly numerous,

(a) the printers might make an additional surcharge, and

(b) if the authors are responsible for more than a contractually defined amount of proof amendments (such as more than 10% of the text) the publisher may pass on some charge for them (which in practice will usually be deducted from royalties when payable).

All this refers to traditional pre-computing publishing procedures using paper MSS etc., which is what I worked under. Doubtless the use of computer files, author and publisher compositing (misnamed "Desktop publishing") and so forth has introduced new or different conventions, but the OP was asking specifically about using pens, implying paper. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Pakistan I was severely scolded for using green ink which I was told could only by used by the president. But they couldn't explain why green ink pens were sold in shops, or whether the president tended to buy quite a lot of pens from every stationary shop I ever visited.Hayttom (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the unstationary ones were moving too fast for him to visit? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

October 18

Polls

What's with the yuuuge spread among the various political polls this year? Even this close to the election, some show Clinton leading by double digits, while others show a statistical tie or even Trump slightly ahead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ If they're scientific polls, you'd expect them to be within about 5-6 points of one another, no? So what's the reason for this spread? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8085:B0C0:23E8:D579 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently yuuuge is a strange pronunciation of "huge".

There are a number of factors at play:

1) Third party candidates may make a difference in this election. So, whether the poll is just between Hillary and Trump or includes the third party candidates may affect the outcome.

2) This election may change who votes and who doesn't vote. So, whether you poll all people, only registered voters, or only likely voters, you may get a different result, and figuring out who the likely voters are is no easy task.

3) As always, whether you look at popular vote or electoral votes, you may get different numbers.

4) Some of the so-called "scientific polls" may be cherry-picking results to favor their candidate. I'd look at real news orgs that have called elections correctly in the past, versus fake news orgs who tend to favor one party. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But how can you tell which news orgs are reliable and which are not? Especially after such a (formerly) respected news org as Reuters got caught blatantly cooking the poll numbers! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8085:B0C0:23E8:D579 (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look at their record. Have they reliably predicted the winning candidate in the past ? Of course, this automatically excludes any new polling organizations, as we probably should, until they establish a record. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FiveThirtyEight has a reputation as a good site for meta-analysis of polling results, knowing which polls are good and which aren't, and compiling data from the good ones. --Jayron 32 01:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the spread is any bigger this year than previously. In 2012, even one week before the election Ipsos (well-respected) gave Obama a 12 point lead while Gallup (also well respected) gave Romney +5. Smurrayinchester 09:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polls, part 2

A follow-up on my previous question: Just how does one deliberately skew a scientific poll? (I know precisely one method for doing this -- reclassify one category of respondents and lump it in with the one you want to artificially enlarge, which is what Reuters/Ipsos had done (they lumped in all the "None of the above"s with Clinton supporters) -- but are there others?) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion_poll#Potential_for_inaccuracy has some ideas. --Jayron 32 11:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weighting methods are mentioned there as a remedy, but they can also in concept be intentionally altered to mislead. AAPOR has additional info on poll weighting here [6]. Here's a recent story [7] about how the weighting proceedure of one poll has influenced its results. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Stu, Fox News has consistently been publishing polls with Hillary ahead, 5 pts today, and the LA Times has Trump up by two. But the only appropriate answer is that polls are not scientific, since they, (1) are not replicable, (2) are not peer-reviewed, (3) have "weighting" that is hidden (similar to climate science, where data is manipulated by a model to fit a prediction) and don't represent any actual entity. What matters is the results in the Electoral College and the House if it gets that far. All else is pretense. Dewey Defeats Truman. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that climate science is manipulated to fit a prediction? The prediction is common sense too: raise Earth's CO₂ levels from 280 to 400 and temperatures will rise. Now the onus is on you to tell by what mechanism more greenhouse gases don't cause more greenhouse effect. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said like climate science where the data is manipulated to fit a model, not simply "like climate science", of which I have read plenty which is purely empirical. And Fox now has Hillary up by six, not five. How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat? μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either show evidence of data manipulation in climate science or retract that rather serious accusation. Fgf10 (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thus spake The Nanny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have something useful to add? If not, don't post. Fgf10 (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice. Just below is the right way to challenge someone's statement. Yours is the wrong way. If you can't do it the right way, then you have nothing useful to add, and should not post. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fgf10's claims are not extraordinary. It's and is never necessary to provide sources to challenge unsourced claims on the RD, whatever StuRat may and his ilk may like to claim. In fact, in a number of cases it may not even be possible to provide reliable sources to challenge a claim simply because there isn't a wikipedia fact checker where everyone random statement by some random person here is challenged. (Although it's likely reliable sources could be found for this case.) This is actually the way world normally works, again whatever StuRat and his ilk may like to claim. If you're going to make extraordinary claims you should at least be willing to provide evidence when challenged. Yes I know a certain presidential candidate seems to think if you keep repeating stuff it becomes true even if everyone says it's not, often with good evidence, but that doesn't mean we should follow them. Of course μηδείς is the one always moaning about how this is supposed to be an RD, wanting to delete everything because it wasn't sufficiently on topic for them etc, but this is hardly the first time this has happened. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Points 1 and 3 are not correct. Opinion polls are replicable - multiple companies can perform a poll using similar methods and compare results - and reputable polling companies will release the raw data and their weighting methods (this is how people like Nate Silver can build polls of polls). In the UK, this is overseen by the British Polling Council - I'm sure there's a similar entity in the US. You can see, for example, Fox News's latest poll, with all the raw data. Smurrayinchester 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(The LA Times data is here, and you can read about their methodology and why it differs here - long story short, their system boosts candidates with very enthusiastic support, which helped Trump through much of the cycle). Smurrayinchester 12:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The US equivalent to BPC is the National Council on Public Polls [8], though "overseen" is rather strong language. Both BPC and NCPP set standards and expectations for polling but they have no power to enforce them. At best all they can do is certify whether or not a pollster is compliant with their recommendations. Many pollsters, including some high profile ones, are not compliant though. Dragons flight (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few ways to bias a poll:

1) Ask questions in a form other than what they will see on the ballot. So, instead of asking if they will vote for "Hillary Clinton" or "Donald Trump", you ask if they support the "Democrat" or "Republican", the "liberal" or the "conservative", or, if you want to get really blatant about it, the "Washington insider" versus the "successful businessman".

2) Choose a biased sample. So, ask the question at an National Rifle Association rally in Montana or at a black church in an inner city.

3) Cherry-picking: Do a large number of small polls, ensuring a large margin of error, then toss out the ones that don't give the desired result, and keep the rest. This can be done indirectly, by hiring companies to do you polling. Those that provide the numbers you want, you hire again, the rest you fire. Pretty soon the survivors find ways to give you whatever results you want.

4) Toss out individual polling results that run counter to your desired result. So, if they vote the "wrong way", you disqualify them if they listed a middle initial instead of the full name, as requested, while you ignore such trivial mistakes on those who voted the "right way".

5) There can be some subtle mathematical methods. For example, if two equal polling groups give you 40.6 and 41.6 percent, you can round each to 41 and 42, then average the two, to get 41.5, then round that up to 42, or you can average them both first to get 41.1, then round that down to 41. If you do these rounding tricks at the district level, state level, regional level, and national level, you could have several percentage points difference. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is Hume's problem of induction, that you can't say that the future will be like the past. I'll use the US election 2012 as an example: Republicans assumed that polling well among registered-independent voters meant that they would win. What they didn't grasp (or, perhaps, want to admit) was that the Bush administration had made them so toxic that even their own voters didn't want to admit that they were Republicans. So "independents" (actually moderate Republicans) voted Republican - but it didn't matter, those were the voters that would have been registered Republicans ten years earlier. Romney lost by a lot, while winning independent voters.
Similarly, this US election there is no black person on the ballot, while there is a woman on the ballot. It's reasonable to suspect that this will depress black turnout and raise female turnout - but by how much in each direction? The answer could make a lot of difference. More early votes are coming in than last cycle - but are those people who didn't vote last time, or has one party's committed voters disproportionately decided this year to vote by post?
More loosely, there's always some weaker, less scientific indicator you can point to as proxy that you're winning: "So many people turn up to our rallies!" (we have a candidate that the party base loves but nobody else does) "Sure, we're behind right now, but people say in polls that they're unhappy with the direction of the country - we just need a few more weeks to get our message across!" (They may not like where they are now, but they still would rather that than the crazy orange guy.) "The rule of the undecideds says undecideds break 70% for the challenger - with many undecided voters, we should win even though the polls say we're behind!" (But why is that going to be true this time?) Et cetera. Blythwood (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if anyone doubts that anyone could ever be as shameless as some of StuRat's examples, guess again. I've lived in an area where the council launched an online questionnaire which had some insane questions. I'll fictionalise it to preserve anonymity, but imagine something like the question "Do you support the council taking action to find funds to restore these old buildings?" as code for meaning "Do you support the council selling off land to a housing developer?" It then wrote a report discounting replies after local pressure groups found out about the questionnaire and posted details of it on a Facebook page, since all the resulting replies were clearly the result of "misinformation". I want to stress that reputable polling firms do not do this kind of thing, but if you are a private organisation running an "informal" consultation, you can get away with much more. Blythwood (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Councils wanting to sell off land have an unenviable track record. Our council, wishing to sell an estate, instructed a PR organisation to put forward various options for its improvement. The one question they didn't ask was "Are you in favour of this estate being sold?" The tenants said We've made up our minds we don't want the estate sold, let's have our formal ballot now." The council said "Wait till you hear what the developers have to offer before making up your minds". Several years later the ballot took place, the answer was "no", but the estate was sold anyway (and in fact demolished soon after).

While all this was going on the council suspended maintenance. A skylight crashed into a stairwell, narrowly missing a child. Other estates in the scheme got tenants' committees to make development recommendations. There was one recommendation they were not allowed to make - not selling the estate. All these estates were promised that if they voted against there would be no privatisation. The ballots were counted by an arm of the Electoral Reform Society which declared that all estates were in favour but did not reveal the voting figures.

Assuring the tenants they were "not holding a gun to their heads" the council said they were free to vote "no", but if they did no repairs would be done and their homes would fall to pieces around them. Another manipulation was revealed in this post:

My local council are dab hands at this. In a "public consultation" about closure of a road as part of a traffic management scheme they sent a questionnaire to everyone in the area except the people who actually lived on the road. In a "test of opinion" about selling off homes they announced 60 % of tenants were in favour, omitting to mention that only 18% bothered to vote. See Ghmyrtle's comment at the Humanities desk. 92.28.127.75 (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and yet another in this:

We had the straw poll and the consensus was 10-0 against semi - protection. The editors who are flogging the dead horse are employing the strategy of "if you don't like the result of the vote then keep calling votes until you get the result you want". In this part of the country we know all about this. Our local council, once the most corrupt in the country (that mantle seems to have passed to the neighbouring borough) did this to force through parking controls. The now disbanded Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions used to ballot council tenants on whether to sell off their homes. If they voted "no" they were re - ballotted over and over again until the government (and the council) got the answer it wanted. 90.213.129.1 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a website on which these matters are discussed [9]. Looking at it today I was sorry to see that the founder, whom I had the privilege to work with, passed away in 2009. 86.128.234.239 (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What area like this has the highest population?

It's in the developed world, possible to drive to from the biggest city in the nation but if you try in a 2WD sedan you have at most a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

Inspired by a dream: An Australian tour guide drove us to the start of a road at the edge of the suburbs. He said

that's the only way for the town of 1,000 at the other end to reach the national road network

there's not so much as a gas station, ranch, or mine in between

the road quality's so bad a 2WD sedan has only a 50% chance of finishing it

if you try it in a regular sedan you might die

and

the National Coalition kept refusing their requests to make the road easier and this is why 28 million Australians are now run by Labor (implying it was so close that pissing off a village changed the outcome)

We got out and walked, it looked like they just plopped a several inch layer of asphalt on the nature, made the top smooth and left the edge exactly how it plopped on the ground. The smooth asphalt shrunk from 2 lanes to c. 8 feet wide and went from flat to hard for us to walk up. Beyond where we stopped it continued going straight up a 40° slope for what looked like a mile. I asked if it's like this the whole way and he said pretty much. I asked how long it is and he said a tenth of the width of the continent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for references to interpret your dream where there was an 8 foot wide road that was 1/10th the width of the continent of Australia? I'm not even sure where to begin researching such a nonsensical request... --Jayron 32 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking what's the largest population region of the developed world that needs a 4WD/off road vehicle to have a good chance of reaching from the "regular" road network. Where like a Corolla or Civic won't cut it (unless you like being towed out of mud or something every other time). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the page guidelines, and find a web forum. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMW is clearly asking about a location meeting certain criteria, and any interested responder can supply locations that may meet said criteria, along with references. Nothing in our purview says OP cannot be inspired by a dream to look for certain facts about the world. All participation here remains voluntary, and nobody is mandated to respond with anything. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you cut and paste that "anybody who doesn't want to" nonsense from somewhere, SM? Unless you are going to post a link or a ref, then you don't have to unhat this "question", do you? μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at Peninsula Developmental Road, or Cape York Peninsula for some out of the way places in Australia with not-the-best roads. Another road with 800 km of no-fuel is Tanami Road, but there are other ways to go to Halls Creek, Western Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Iquitos, Peru is "widely regarded as the largest inland city that is inaccessible by road". Cities like that in the Amazon Rainforest are probably your best bet for a large city with only dangerous road access. Warzones are probably another - millions of Syrians live in besieged areas only accessible by roads controlled by hostile forces (whether ISIS or Assad). Smurrayinchester 08:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Until 2010, the entire Russian Far East (population 6.6 million) would have fit your definition, incidentally. Now the R297 highway (Russia) is open, it's possible to drive from Moscow to Vladivostok without having to traverse the perilous Zilov Gap.) Smurrayinchester 08:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although you can drive to Vladivostok year round, getting to Yakutsk and beyond is tricky, as you have to cross the Lena River, either by driving across the frozen water in winter, or getting a ferry in summer - in between, it's not accessible in a regular vehicle, so it might be the best answer to the question. If not, perhaps Norilsk, which isn't on the Russian road network, but has various accounts of people reaching it overland, presumably by driving up the Yenisei River when it is frozen over. Warofdreams talk 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list here has a mix of remote island cities and mainland cities. From that list, it looks like La Rinconada is particularly difficult to get to. There are also several settlements in Northern Canada that are treacherous to reach by road; it's actually easier to reach them in the winter where ice roads can be made; during the summer thaw it's basically a roadless swamp. Tuktoyaktuk is perhaps one of the more famous such settlements. I think the entire mainland portion of Nunavut is also basically unreachable from the rest of Canada excepting a few ice roads and minor paths over which many vehicles may find difficult to traverse. Following that thread, I did find the Capital of Nunavit, Iqaluit, states "... like the rest of Nunavut, has no road, rail, or even ship connections for part of the year to the rest of Canada." Of course, Iqaluit is on an island, so that doesn't meet the requirements. The largest settlement on Mainland Nunavut is Rankin Inlet. The largest inland city (thus requires road or rail access) is Baker Lake, Nunavut, which MAY be a good call for the most remote inland settlement of 1000 people in the world; looking at Google Maps, it is at LEAST 700 miles from Flin Flon to Baker Lake, and 600 miles to Yellowknife, the two nearest cities "as the crow flies" which are connected by improved road to Canada's national road network. I suspect there are many similarly sized settlements in Russia equally as far from improved roads, but that's the most remote one I could find in North America. And Baker Lake is about 1800 people. --Jayron 32 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When considering Canada, it's a good idea to look at which areas are served by the Canadian National Railway, since it, and it's adjacent service roads, are often the only access by land to northern Canada. They've closed some of their more northern routes (they now extend further south into the US than they do north, into Canada), and those service roads soon fell into disrepair, so that's one way to search for such isolated communities. Look at the route map in that article to get started. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- La Rinconada is easy to get to. La Rinconada, Peru not so much. jnestorius^(talk) 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Flying Alaska

On winter nights when visibility is bad (but not so bad as to be IFR), is it common for VFR traffic into Merrill Strip to land at Anchorage International Airport or Elmendorf AFB by mistake? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the question of what constitutes "common", it seems unlikely that such data is available. This article notes that

The Federal Aviation Administration investigates wrong airport landings and many near-landings, but those reports aren’t publicly available. FAA officials turned down a request by The Associated Press for access to those records, saying some may include information on possible violations of safety regulations by pilots and might be used in an enforcement action.

but goes on to note that commercial aviation in the US experiences about two wrong-airfield landings per year (35 discovered over a period of "over two decades"). The article also notes that the norm is for a larger airfield to be missed in favor of a smaller one; some of this is undoubtedly that commercial aviation tends not to operate out of GA airfields like Merrill in volume, but it may also be the case that pilots are less likely to confuse obviously-elaborate airfield layouts for expected small-field runway layouts. You can also search the NTSB database, filtered on Merrill (code MRI), Anchorage (ANC), etc.; a quick survey finds none for "incidents" (which is the category a non-fatal non-damaging wrong-airport landing would fall under, if investigated). I don't know whether that is the absence of such landings or a lack of formal investigation into them. — Lomn 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, no data one way or the other? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4DD7:6F54:E487:A4D9 (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassini projection

I was looking through the article at List of map projections and came across a piece I don't understand. The second entry is the Cassini projection, which obviously looks a little wonky compared to most maps you see. Our description on the list says that "Transverse of equidistant projection; distances along central meridian are conserved. Distances perpendicular to central meridian are preserved." I guess my first question is: do preserve and conserve mean the same thing in this context - and, if not, where could I read up on the details? If they do mean the same thing, then I'm not sure I'm following. Looking at the map in either location, I agree that the distances along the meridian are conserved (in case I'm not using the term correctly, I mean that it appears that those distances are the same as what you get if you looked at a globe), but it doesn't look to me as if the same could be said of distances perpendicular to it. The Cassini projection shows the west coast of Central America getting closer to the prime meridian the further north you look, when that is the opposite of what you see on a globe. Or am I misunderstanding the term? The article on the projection uses slightly different language, saying that "Areas along the central meridian, and at right angles to it, are not distorted." The use of area here is particularly confusing to me as it would seem to imply that more than mere distances are being conserved (or preserved). Is there a good primer on this? Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the distance from a given point to the prime meridian is not along a circle of latitude (unless it's the equator). —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tap water

There have been ongoing controversies about how bottled water such as Aquafina or Dasani is just re-bottled tap water. Yet I feel like I can taste a difference between bottled water and whatever comes out of my tap at home - which to me, tastes chalky and disgusting. Are there documented differences between popular bottled water brands and municipal water in terms of taste and composition? Or is it just my imagination?--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, "spring water" is a commercial term for "water" whilst "mineral water" is what most of us would be expecting.

There are many sources of commercial spring water which are supplied from the commercial water supply network, then bottled. Usually these are further purified, almost always by RO, and then re-mineralised to give a slightly "mineral water like" taste. Some restaurants even purify with their own RO units to provide table water under their own brand. RO water, in its purest form, has quite a distinct taste, partly due to its pH, partly due to its lack of the usual minerals we do expect. Commercial production for bottling though is likely to be sited somewhere where the water quality is already good (in the UK that would mean a soft water area to avoid any chalkiness) but aspects like a prominent chlorine taste can be dealt with by the purification. So yes, you may well find a taste difference just by drinking tap water from a few miles away, bottling is likely to be done from the best of these, and some tastes would have been removed.

Dasani was a failure in the UK, owing to the presence of some unexpected ingredients: [10], then from contamination by the production of bromates. Bromates aren't an issue in natural mineral water, but do arise from a reaction between natural bromides (harmless) and some of the purification or storage processes, such as UV microbial sterilisation or even just a sunny reservoir. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent answer. Thank you!--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about flavour due to pH. I'm assuming you're referring to the self-ionisation of water? That's only a tiny fraction of the water at any given time, is that going to contribute much to flavour? Or do you mean we're used to water at pH different than 7, due to dissolved minerals etc, and that's why neural water tastes different? Can't say I've noticed that much of a taste difference of RO/DI water myself. Fgf10 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've drunk distilled water a couple of times, and it tastes flat (as near as I can describe it) -- so self-ionization does not contribute to the taste, and any taste other than flat is due to minerals and pH differences. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4DD7:6F54:E487:A4D9 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my experience as well, hence my question. Fgf10 (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here area few additional refs on taste and processing of bottled water that you may find useful [11] [12] [13]. N.b., not all tap water is created equal. There are places I've lived where I'd have been happy to have a source of water bottled at the tap of my prior residence :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I have noticed is that in some cities the water coming from the tap tastes decidedly better than in neighboring cities, in some cases even better than the bottled water equivalent, though ultimately the water may originate from the same reservoir or water resource. I had in the past attributed it to poor piping.--WaltCip (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In San Diego the tap water is particularly bad -- I think this could be due to brackish water contamination of the source, rather than the piping (if it was the piping, you'd expect it to taste rusty, but it tastes stale instead). Here in San Jose, though, the tap water is chalky but refreshing. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4DD7:6F54:E487:A4D9 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It depends on where the bottling plant is located, and what its water supply is. For example, there is a local Pepsi bottling plant located about 2 miles from my house, and it is supplied by the same municipal water supply as my own house is, so I wouldn't expect to taste much of a difference in said bottled water. The difference between the taste of YOUR water supply at YOUR house and that of the bottled water sold in local shops can be explained if YOUR water supply is different from that of the bottling plant that supplies those stores. If you want some additional reading on taste tests between tap and bottled water in general, I did find this article from 2011 (only 1 in 3 correctly identified tap water as different from bottled), here is another one with more results in a similar vein. If you want to know why YOUR tap water tastes bad, This article provides a good synopsis. --Jayron 32 18:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a whiskey drinker, I think the 'disgusting taste' which the OP refers to is almost certainly down to chlorophenols and not the piping. A single water utility company may be getting its water from many sources, such us underground aquifers, reservoir and even sewerage plants. The more organic matter (that is too small to be filtered out), gets transform into phenols by the chlorine which is added. Human taste-buds can detect this down to just a few parts in the million and thus leave the water tasting tainted. However, even with my delicate & refined taste-buds I don't have to resort to RO but find that an ordinary inexpensive domestic water purifiers incorporating activated charcoal and ion-exchange resins, makes the stuff coming out the tap acceptable to drink. The actual science ( pH, mineral content and all that stuff) is a little bit more complicated:>http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/research/completed-research/reports/dwi0030.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwid-8y83-fPAhWMJsAKHQl_A0MQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGrE--LiTk8yfzbDEZb9KC3rwIZXg< but I think it is worth trying out a cheap purifier first. Bottling plants also treat their water to provide a standard product regardless of where it is bottled, which normally includes passing it through zeolite filters etc.--Aspro (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One item that I don't think has been touched yet is the presence of air in the water. The water from your tap will have a lot of dissolved air in it (even if you're not intentionally adding it) which will affect both temperature and taste. On the other hand, stowing the water in the fridge may also introduce unwanted flavours as the water picks up the scents of your leftover pickles and olives. Matt Deres (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My sisters and I grew up getting our tap water from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer at the edge of the South Jersey Pine Barrens, which is noted for its purity. I don't consider it "flat" but I won't drink it without at least ice to give it some character. When we visited my grandparents in South Philly, however, the first thing we would do after greeting them was to crack the icetray and get some ice, which tasted mildly of sulfur. This was even before we'd ask for M&M's or Milkbone Dog Biscuits. I was surprised when I moved to NYC to learn that the water tasted no different from that of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, New York City consistently has some of the best rated tap water in the U.S. See New York City water supply system, i.e. here where it is named one of the top 10 municipal water systems in the U.S. --Jayron 32 03:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jayron32, yes; that was sort of my point. Given I was born in NY and lived there since I was 23 it didn't seem appropriate to brag about the quality of NYC water, but it is very good. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add an example of how different tap waters can be, consider the Flint water crisis, where they switched from the excellent Detroit water (relatively unpolluted Lake Huron water, etc., that is properly treated) to polluted and improperly treated Flint River water. The difference was not only in taste, but in many measurable ways.

Also, note that letting tap water sit in the refrigerator (in a sealed container), allows the chlorine taste to dissipate. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Electrical ant"

Does everyone know, how this Yale Electric Industrial Truck was steered? By the foot pedals?--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dim memory of similar trolleys being used at London rail termini in the 1960s. I found this picture of one in use, the driver stands facing forward with his back to the truck and steers with the projecting arm (the one in my picture has two arms - not at all sure how that works). I suspect that the operator had to be standing on both pedals to make it go. All this is a bit conjectural, so I'm hoping someone else knows better. Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've googled every search term I can think of and only found a toy one. Alansplodge (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success! Here's a rather jolly lady driving one in the First World War. No pedals though or maybe one big one. But perhaps yours is completely different, who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A steering device like that is usually called a tiller. --Jayron 32 01:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I knew there was a word for it - thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS execution video.

I saw the video in which two ISIS soldiers drop rock on man's head. The man gushes his blood from his mouth& nose. Why does blood gushes like that? Ram nareshji (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blood pressure Fgf10 (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The heart pumps blood round the body through the arteries, so it will spurt (pulsate) through arterial lesions. Blood returns to the heart through the veins, so will only trickle out through venous lesions. 86.128.234.239 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Holland

Is there a way to help me find Holland's contact information (if it is public, of course)? The IMdB seems to be offering it but I do not have access. 2A02:587:2916:5800:E9F9:29F6:7FD7:D538 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look: If this is a serous request, there are many ways to contact such a person. I normally contact their publisher first and ask them to forward my carefully worded email, stating why I wish contact , purpose, etc., in very clear English. Usually works 100% of the time. So like email:[14], (his current publisher). Yet, if you have serous enquiry you might be better off by emailing his agent:[15] ( click on other if you can't think of anything else). First however, think about any win-win agreement that your purpose of contacting him can provide. He may be a busy man and may not have time for a time waster Don't try this at home folks- these agencies have all sorts of weirdos trying their luck but the agents can be sussed them out early on. Yet, for genuine inquires, one can surprising quickly get the guy your trying to contact, in contact.--Aspro (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list

I signed up to volunteer for several political campaigns, but I don't want to receive email updates from the campaign—only emails related to volunteering. Does clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the email remove my credentials (name, address, phone number, email, etc.) from the volunteer list altogether, remove my email from the mailing list for campaign updates, or something else? When I click on the "unsubscribe" link, there isn't any specification on the webpage that the link links to about which list(s) I was removed from. 147.126.10.21 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shorts

Whats the best method of scraping the solid deposits off your shorts?--213.205.252.244 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]