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.

June 24

x linked ichthyosis

if x linked ichthyosis is a skin condition does that mean it applies to anywhere where there is skin or only certain parts of the body where theres skin?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_ichthyosis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.127.156 (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What parts don't have skin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The interior, eyeballs, etc. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "particularly on the neck, trunk, and lower extremities"; so, less, but not necessarily none, elsewhere. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer research

I have been told that there is an urban legend which says that institutions which are supposedly seeking a cure to Cancer, Aids and the like don's actually want to find a cure as this would stop their funding. While it sounds reasonable, as the scientists have mortgages to pay and don't want to lose their jobs, my thin faith in humanity urges me to not believe this. Is there any truth to this and if so, what is the evidence used to support this claim? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The team who finds the cure would have enormous fame in their own field and could either stay on to help their employer make the cure cheaper to produce, or they would easily find an other job thanks to their newly acquired fame. Also if they are not making any progress at all, the company that hired them would cancel their contract and instead hire someone who can show they are making some sort of progress in their understanding of where the problem is and how to fix it. I think there are enough incentives to find cures, and no incentives to hide good results. --Lgriot (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the ides of "the cure" for cancer is flawed. Cancer is not "a" disease, it is a category. What works for one type of cancer may not work for others. Even the same type of cancer in different patients will respond differently. --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the OP calls an urban legend is more like a conspiracy theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course there's an urban legend which claims this. Bertrand Russell also had one about a teapot. These are easy to invent - maybe the Illuminati cancelled Firefly too - and there are an infinite supply of them. As unfalsifiable claims, the onus is on the person claiming these things to supply their proof. Otherwise they may be discarded out of hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they actually had a cure for something ready to go, then no, they wouldn't hide it, but they might need to charge a huge amount for the cure, as they only get to sell it to each patient for one course of treatment, and need to recover all their costs and make a profit from that. Look at the costs for the cure for hepatitis C: [1]. Where it gets uglier is when the pharma company has to allocate funds for study. They of course look at potential return on investment, and a one-time cure has less ROI than a lifetime treatment, so, unless they have reason to believe it will cost far less to find a cure, then the money goes toward the treatment, not the cure, as that's the more profitable option. This is a limitation on capitalism, and a reason why government (taxpayer) funded university studies make sense, as they don't have the same profit motive, unless they have been co-opted by big pharma. A university makes money primarily from enrollment and endowments and government grants, all of which may well increase if they find a cure for a major disease (and a Nobel Prize for Medicine sure wouldn't hurt). SinisterLefty (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The urban legend reminds me of the Board of Longitude, which was created in 1714 to offer prizes up to £20,000, and other financial support, to people who developed better methods for navigators to determine their longitude at sea (which at the time was a most serious problem). Some members of the board worked on solutions themselves (I forget the specifics), and there were accusations that they never paid out the £20,000 prize because then the board would have no reason to exist. The fact that the board was abolished in 1828 because the problem had been solved, and yet the £20,000 prize was never paid, seems to suggest that the accusations were true. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

industrial design

is it hard or easy to tell what makes something industrial design? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.16.135 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very easy. If it is designed first and then put into mass production, it is industrial design. The complication comes in when someone misuses the term. As an example, I saw a bit of one of those house design shows and they had exposed aluminum beams in the house. The lady commented on the "industrial design." Metal is not automatically industrial design. What she probably meant was, "It looks like something you would see on in an industrial factory." 12.207.168.3 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is though an overlap from "put into mass production" to "made using the techniques of mass production". There have been notable examples of one-offs, made by these techniques and having all the appearance of being one of a multitude, except that the true "mass" production never happened. There was a lot of this in the 1930s, from major designers such as Raymond Loewy and Buckminster Fuller.

This led (as you're rightly opposing to industrial design), through the 1960s and '70s, through beatnik and boho chic and beyond Brutalism into "the design of industry" becoming fashionable, from its association with post-war artists in cities living and working in abandoned industrial spaces, rather than the traditional Parisian garret. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual road feature

On the M1 motorway in Northamptonshire, UK, just south of the village of Hartwell, there is an unusual junction featuring a tunnel under the road that allows for emergency vehicles to change from the northbound to the southbound carriageway, or vice-versa. It can be clearly seen using the satellite picture on Google maps.

I'm guessing it is there because it's near the middle of an 11-mile stretch of road with no other junctions, and would allow emergency vehicles from Northampton or Milton Keynes to reach incidents more quickly.

I drive down this section of road most days on my commute and it took me a while to notice it, but now I have, I have a couple of questions I can't find the answers to: Firstly, is there a name for this feature? And secondly, does anyone know of any others anywhere else in the UK?

Thanks! Turner Street (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the same (not entirely isolated), but it's fairly common for a bridge across the motorway, even an accommodation bridge to be used as emergency access to both sides, or as a U-turn point. There's no public access to the slip roads, but they're there for service use. The old toll plaza on the new Severn Bridge [2] has a large one. Nearby the A449 has a very large intersection which is of unclear and intermittent public access, but likewise acts as a U turn point when there isn't a junction otherwise for some distance. [3]. Up on the M6 in Lancashire there's another using a public road for the tunnel, but with isolated slip roads.[4]

One of the best known secret motorway slips would be the one on the M4 at Greenham Common, with the circular quadrant countdown markers to it, back in the 1980s. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the feature can be found here https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26480 and for a wider discussion about "secret" slip roads see https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7225 --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to the name for it, Wikipedia calls this a type of turnaround. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turnaround! I knew there would be a name for it. Thanks all. Turner Street (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that our article on Hartwell, Northamptonshire says that it lies close to the border with Bedfordshire. These two counties have entirely separate emergency services, so there might be the need to avoid vehicles going too far out of their area. Alansplodge (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that! Actually, it's just on the Northants side of the county border with Buckinghamshire, but Beds isn't far away either. Turner Street (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beds uses East of England Ambulance Service, Bucks uses South Central Ambulance Service and Northants uses East Midlands Ambulance Service. Fire and police services still seem to be separate for each county. Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Unknown Plant

Is anyone able to identify this plant: [5] [6] [7] It is in the United Kingdom and I believe it is a flowering plant. Thanks, Willbb234 (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A weed perhaps? Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one of the asteraceae - but that's not exactly tying it down very well. Mikenorton (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton - weeds are defined by where they grow - they are "a plant in the wrong place" per the very first sentence of the article you linked. So "weed" is both unhelpful and (unless this was taken in a garden or other situation where the flora is controlled) incorrect. Matt Deres (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Deres please see humour Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My trusty Observer's Book of Plants suggests a similarity to shepherd's purse. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plants are not my specialty, but I'm not seeing the eponymous "purses". Are there varieties missing them? Matt Deres (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the purses are the seed pods which grow after flowering, but not my speciality. A clearer look at the leaves would help. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I will remove them if they are, in fact, a weed. But for now, I will just let them grow up and see what the are. Thanks, Willbb234 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to take some more pictures when the flowers are more open. I agree with Mike, it does look like an Asteracaea, but as he said that doesn't tie it down much! They do look familiar to me, and I haven't been able to find them in any of my wild flower books, so I suspect some sort of cultivated variety. I think they're rather attractive. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is possibly Filago vulgaris, commonly called Cudweed. I have a probability of 80%. Richard Avery (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

culture

is culture basically anything or only certain things? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.57.97 (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the concept from reading the article to which you yourself have linked, it's unlikely that anyone can explain it to you. Moreover, as in your previous query, your wording verges on being too vague to be satisfactorily answerable.

Perhaps in future you should think longer about formulating your queries more clearly: we have so far assumed your good faith, but we are all volunteers and none of us is obligated to answer what might (perhaps wrongly) be perceived as time wasting.

Please also remember in future to sign off your queries (and any other non-article edits) with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) to add your IP address (or Username if you choose to create an Account here) and Time/Date stamp – it helps everyone to keep the conversations straight from the outset. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean are any values culturally independent, sure. For example, a person randomly killing people in their community is wrong in every culture. On the other hand, what, if anything, justifies non-random killings will vary widely with culture. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word culture has several uses as noted at Culture_(disambiguation). DroneB (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge Magnum Windshield Size

I found something that I can't Google. I want to know what the size (width and height) of a Dodge Magnum windshield is. It looks overly large, but I think that is because it is tilted. Everything I try in Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo... returns thousands of results for buying sun visors, buying windshield replacements, buying windshield wipers, etc... Now, I want to know two things. First, what is the width/height of a Dodge Magnum windshield? Second, what phrase can I type into Google to get that information? 199.15.144.250 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that increasing the tilt should increase the height of the piece of glass, unless the roof is lowered and/or the hood/cowl is raised. I did the following Google search:

"Dodge Magnum" "windshield" "dimensions"

One of the returns was:

Dodge Magnum Sun Shades & Windshield Snow Covers — CARiD.com
https://www.carid.com › All Products › Interior Accessories › Sun Shades › Dodge
Products 1 - 30 of 188 - Dimensions: 58" L x 27.5" W. For Full Windshield.

Those dimensions are for the sun shade, not the windshield, but it does say "for full windshield", and the pics look like they fit pretty close, so those dimensions should be close. It's also possible that the dimensions vary with year or even package (for example, if it has a convertible option). Also note that windshields aren't exactly rectangular. They are rounded at the corners, and may have a bit of an inverted keystone shape. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone.

To explain a bit why I did the Google search the way I did, "Dodge Magnum" should all be in quotes together, or I would risk finding returns like "Watch Magnum dodge bullets on tonight's show". The other terms are also in quotes, showing that they are absolutely required, but not in quotes together, as the specific order is not important there. I chose the word "dimensions" as opposed to "width" and "length", as they might well be abbreviated W and L (or W/H, or L/H), and single letters aren't good for search terms, since there are way too many results. If "dimensions" didn't work, I might try "size". SinisterLefty (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I checked Glass Masters and it looks like 27.5" is a smaller windshield. I'm not sure why it looks larger on the car. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Beach County computers in the 2000 Presidential Election

Hi, to this end I will be speedy. The computers of all the counties that used Votomatic perforated ballots were programmed in the same way. But since in Palm Beach the names of the candidates were printed on both sides of the ballot, did the respective computers in that county undergo changes in this regard? I mean, the lights that revealed the hole were in a different order, why were these machines programmed differently? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

45 degree view

Is any maps site still offering something like Google Maps's old 45 degree bird's eye view? 93.136.35.170 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps on Android 8.0.0 (Oreo) seems to display that way. Google Maps on Android 7.1.1 (Nougat) does not; it's the standard top (map) view. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't specify, I mean 45 degree satellite view on the website, they probably filmed it from a helicopter or something, it was a feature from before drones were a thing. It was accessible in classic view or whatever it was called on the website until a couple years ago but now I can't find it. Please don't suggest commercial apps, only websites. 93.136.35.170 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For locations where the imagery is available, Google Maps now provides overhead views at almost any angle, not only 45 degrees. You just don't access it through a separate menu item or whatever it used to be. Using Firefox on Linux (I don't know about other environments), after selecting Satellite you hold down the Control key and click-and-drag with the mouse to find the angle you want. If the angled-view imagery is not available for the area you're looking at, you will still see the angle of the ground change, but buildings and things on the ground will look as though they are flat. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 29