Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.122.177.55 (talk) at 23:15, 17 July 2019 (→‎Clearly Man Made). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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.
See also:

July 10

Strauss Howe generational theory

According to Strauss Howe's theory on generations what exactly is a turning? For example Strauss Howe believe the Millennials ended roughly around 1982-2004. Is it hard to define a turning and does it have anything to do with generations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory#Timing_of_generations_and_turnings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.21.118 (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "generations" are approximations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To make matters worse, because these are now marketing buzzwords, "generations" are now "defined" day-by-day to suit particular needs rather than to reflect actual demographics. The difference between a Millennial and a Gen Z mostly comes down to how advertisers will try to target them. Matt Deres (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you basing this assertion on? Demographers base the definition of generations on the generation time, the time it takes for members of a population to reach maturity and begin having offspring. For humans this is generally 20 to 30 years. Of course in non-academic contexts people may be looser with their definitions. Strauss and Howe were/are not academics. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That idea only works if the entire human population were to reproduce at the same periodic points in time, like seven-year locusts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See main article Strauss Howe generational theory.: "According to the theory, historical events are associated with recurring generational personas (archetypes). Each generational persona unleashes a new era (called a turning) in which a new social, political, and economic climate exists. Turnings tend to last around 20–22 years. They are part of a larger cyclical "saeculum" (a long human life, which usually spans between 80–90 years, although some saecula have lasted longer)."
  • "While writing Generations, Strauss and Howe described a theorized pattern in the historical generations they examined, which they say revolved around generational events which they call turnings. In Generations, and in greater detail in The Fourth Turning, they describe a four-stage cycle of social or mood eras which they call "turnings". The turnings include: "The High", "The Awakening", "The Unraveling" and "The Crisis".[1]
  • "According to Strauss and Howe, the First Turning is a High, which occurs after a Crisis. During The High, institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, though those outside the majoritarian center often feel stifled by the conformity.[2] According to the authors, the most recent First Turning in the US was the post–World War II American High, beginning in 1946 and ending with the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.[3]
  • "According to the theory, the Second Turning is an Awakening. This is an era when institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy. Just when society is reaching its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of social discipline and want to recapture a sense of "self-awareness", "spirituality" and "personal authenticity". Young activists look back at the previous High as an era of cultural and spiritual poverty.[4] Strauss & Howe say the US's most recent Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution,” which spanned from the campus and inner-city revolts of the mid-1960s to the tax revolts of the early 1980s.[5]"
  • "According to Strauss and Howe, the Third Turning is an Unraveling. The mood of this era they say is in many ways the opposite of a High: Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing. The authors say Highs come after Crises, when society wants to coalesce and build and avoid the death and destruction of the previous crisis. Unravelings come after Awakenings, when society wants to atomize and enjoy.[6] They say the most recent Unraveling in the US began in the 1980s and includes the Long Boom and Culture War.[1]"
  • "According to the authors, the Fourth Turning is a Crisis. This is an era of destruction, often involving war or revolution, in which institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation's survival. After the crisis, civic authority revives, cultural expression redirects towards community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group.[7] The authors say the previous Fourth Turning in the US began with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and climaxed with the end of World War II. The G.I. Generation (which they call a Hero archetype, born 1901 to 1924) came of age during this era. They say their confidence, optimism, and collective outlook epitomized the mood of that era.[8] The authors assert the Millennial Generation (which they also describe as a Hero archetype, born 1982 to 2004) show many similar traits to those of the G.I. youth, which they describe as including: rising civic engagement, improving behavior, and collective confidence.[9]" Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Strauss, William (2009). The Fourth Turning. Three Rivers Press. ASIN B001RKFU4I.
  2. ^ Strauss & Howe 1997, p. 101.
  3. ^ Strauss & Howe 1997, pp. 145–152.
  4. ^ Strauss & Howe 1997, p. 102.
  5. ^ Strauss & Howe 1997, pp. 171–179.
  6. ^ Strauss & Howe 1997, pp. 102–103.
  7. ^ Strauss & Howe 1997, pp. 103–104.
  8. ^ Strauss & Howe 1997, pp. 254–260.
  9. ^ Strauss & Howe 2007, pp. 23–24.

Write-in votes in DRE machines

Hello, I have a question. How are write-in votes counted in touch screen systems, that is, in DRE machines? Are they stored on a memory card and read by a computer, as is usual for traditional votes? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They vary somewhat by state, but there seems to be (at least) two general methods.
1) Write-in votes are handled manually (the "old fashioned" way: paper ballots), e.g. Georgia.
2) Write-in candidates must be "declared" (whatever that means), then they appear on the DRE list among the others, e.g. Texas.
Also, there are four types of DRE voting machines. At least one has an on-screen keyboard allowing user to write (type) name. Details here. 2606:A000:1126:28D:84CB:D08E:899F:D254 (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

Wayback Machine trouble

Is anyone else having troubles with the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive recently? For some reason, I can't get the Wayback Machine to work at all over the last couple of days.

Here is the relevant link, for the record: https://archive.org/ Futurist110 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's working for me now, for what that's worth. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps deleting my posts?

Discussion moved to the talk page. Matt Deres (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

How do they measure ski trails?

On Heavenly Mountain Resort's website--and on the article's infobox--it is reported that the resort's longest run, Olympic Downhill, stretches over a distance of 5.5 miles (8.9 km). However, when I measure on Google Earth, roughly following the path from the East Peak summit down to the base, I get a distance of 1.8 miles (2.9 km), which follows the slope and counts the Z-axis, and is therefore the accurate traveled distance. (Even if Google gave a horizontal distance, then it would be maximum 2.5 mi (4 km) at the 100% slope, 45°).

So they say 5.5 miles, I get 1.8 miles. I'm at a loss here. The only simple explanation I have is that they calculate the actual wavy track taken by an average skier including every twist and parallel turn, but it seems off that this would add up to triple the length. — Define Real (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds related to the coastline paradox. Note that if it has up and down hills on the way down, that would increase length over a steady slope. That, combined with side-to-side variation, might get you there. And they might be exaggerating a bit, too. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm thinking it's related to the fractal problem. I hope to get a more definitive answer but is the most likely scenario, and if that's the case then it seems quite arbitrary and misleading, I wonder if all ski runs are calculated this way. Thanks for your help. — Define Real (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe, there is the Verified Length of Runs scheme "ensuring greater transparency and customer-friendliness in the winter sports industry... for the first time ski areas have the chance to have their actual length of runs verified by a credible and independent authority". The same page reports that 21% of ski run measurements in the Alps have a divergence from reality of between 50% and 100%, although none exceeded 100%. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also a report that Resorts Remeasure Piste Lengths (2013) after a German cartographer "measured the lengths down the middle of the pistes, following the twists and turns, using a digital mapping system" and compared this to published guidebook data. He found that "the Four Valleys resort, Switzerland: Schrahe measured 164 kms and the resort claims 412 kms. This is a 151% discrepancy or 248 kilometers of non-existent piste". Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am no more familiar with skiing conventions than any other non-skier who has occasionally watched Winter Olympics broadcasts, I am aware that different marked-out pistes are rated according to relative difficulty, so I wonder if some pistes may have two or more differently marked out 'courses' (not necessarily used concurrently) on the same 'snowscape' that may be legitimately measured multiple times, once for each different course? I also wonder how 'off-piste' areas with no set routes might figure in to the measurements. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating stuff. I understand why they calculate the actual skiing route with the twists and turns (though they should make that clear somehow), but it seems they take the worst case scenario of a skier making the widest, slowest possible turns. Quite misleading as I doubt most skiers would cover 300% of the run's actual length... the reports cited above show a substantial discrepancy. I like the notion of an independent verification scheme. Thanks all for your informative replies. — Define Real (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Blackening of Tefillin straps

I would be grateful if a user could please let me know whether it is permitted to use a fruit which is Orlah as one of the ingredients when making the blackening material for Tefillin straps. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Orlah it states that dyes or dyed products are also included in the prohibition. "it is permitted" depends on whether you follow these rules. If you do then the dyed product is not permitted in Israel. Outside Israel it may or may not be allowed depending on the rules you choose. Anyway, trees under 3 years old will probably not be useful as they are quite small. The scripture about Tefillin indicates that the words of God should be in and on you. It does not mention anything about the material or the colour of the material. So for your purpose you could go by tradition and ask your teacher, or show some imagination and do something different, eg microSD card. For myself I think that we should be sealed by the Holy Spirit, and have the word of God in heart and on hand (which means scripture in the smart phone). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Odd question. "Permitted" implies lchatchila, which at first view it seems cannot be the case. And the chances of anyone doing this bdieved (and realising it) are beyond miniscule. Which only really leaves the option that you already know that this is covered by an obscure aspect of halacha (probably a machloket rishonim anyway) which begs the question of why you'd bother asking such a question on a generalist website in the first place. Whether this question is practical or theoretical, take Graeme's advice and ask your rov. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

Palm Beach County vs Broward County in 2000 Election

Good evening, sorry if I go back there. I need a confirmation rather than an answer. Palm Beach computer software was programmed differently than in Broward County. Suffice it to say that the positions of the Gore / Lieberman ticket are different and therefore the relative holes to be drilled. The hole of the ticket at Broward was number 3, while the one in Palm Beach was number 5, the so-called ballery buffery, so they were the same candidates but the beam of light, recording votes for Gore at position number 3 at Broward and at 5 in Palm Beach, am I right? The rest, it is almost all clear to me - I repeat - I just need a confirmation. Below I attach a link with an image of the ballot used at Broward and next to the Palm Beach ballot, the ballot designed by Mrs. Theresa LePore. Many thanks to those who will have the courtesy and patience to answer me. https://www.google.it/search?q=broward+county+ballot+votomatic&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA1LLEoJHjAhXLTBUIHT7OA9MQ_AUIEigD&biw=1768&bih=887#imgrc=HyhxFv1Rwx1RcM: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Butterfly ballot"
Yes, ballots are prepared differently because different districts have different candidates, different proposals, even different offices being elected. But no person votes in more than one place so it doesn't really matter. Rmhermen (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Filling the "butterfly ballot"

This is in regard to the question immediately above. How does one exactly fill in this "butterfly ballot"? I imagine it has something to do with the holes, but what? JIP | Talk 13:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You slide the punch card in at the top (long side vertical), and each pair of pages aligns with a different line of spots to potentially punch on the card. When you're done, you pull the punch card out and give it to the official. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as I recall, the way you "punch" the card is with a (sharp?) stylus, which is provided. Loraof (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very sharp, and also not very long - kind of like a stubby golf pencil - but it's strong enough to poke through the pre-perforated rectangle without leaving a "hanging chad" (they hope). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So do you punch the card through the holes in the yellow strip in the middle of the picture? And the actual punch card is underneath the lists and holes shown? In my opinion, the Finnish voting ballot is much simpler. There's no holes or punching involved. It's a piece of paper with a circle on it. You write the number of your candidate inside the circle with a pencil (provided), fold the ballot and give it to the official. JIP | Talk 16:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sound problematic to me. Handwriting is subject to interpretation, and depending on the political leanings of whoever reads each ballot, the results may well differ. (You could sequester those people so they don't know which number is for which candidate, but that's a lot of trouble and wouldn't entirely fix the problem or poor handwriting. For example, elderly people with shaky hands may have their votes tossed out as illegible.) SinisterLefty (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where I come from, you get a paper ballot with an oval next to every name, and use one of their pens to fill in the selected ovals. When you're done, you feed it into what's basically an op-scan reader. See Optical scan voting system. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the voter is required (and allowed) to write is a candidate number consisting of one to three digits. This should be done in simple handwriting. There are actually posters in voting booths showing concrete examples of how to write numbers clearly. If the voter makes any kind of markings other than the candidate number on the ballot, the vote is disqualified. JIP | Talk 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say they write a 7, but the top and vertical slanted line don't quite touch. If 7 is the candidate the person reading it supports, that's a valid vote. If it's for any other candidate, it's ruled invalid. All subjectivity should be taken out of the process. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
The concrete examples state clearly that a 7 must have a horizontal line through the slanted line so it can't be mistaken for a 1. And it's required by law that the people who count the votes are from several different political viewpoints, all keeping an eye on each other. You're reading this like the Devil reads the Bible, trying to find faults wherever possible. JIP | Talk 22:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But what would be wrong with making it objective instead of subjective ? Real basic example, they could hit a button labelled 7, that would print a 7 on the ballot, which they could then visually verify, so there would be no confusion. (If the machinery broke, they could go back to writing it by hand.) SinisterLefty (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
The op-scan approach takes such details out of the equation. Most anyone can use a pen to fill in an oval. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can still be half filled in, go outside the oval, or one can be filled in and another partially. Lots of room for error. SinisterLefty (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Australia uses paper ballots. All candidates are entitled to be represented at any stage of the vote counting process by scrutineers, who observe the count and see that fair judgements are made on any potentially unclear votes. There's pretty much always enough of these people, at least for the major parties, to ensure that no changing of votes or biased counting goes on. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Yes. As to this method (which is not unique to Florida), I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Dairy (Vancouver BC)

Does anyone know if this farm is still open? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 16:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (Today: Open now) —107.15.157.44 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the receipt right on that 2nd link, that's CAN$ 2.51/kg for cheddar cheese, not a bad price ! The only time it gets that cheap here is when nearing it's sell-by date. The milk, on the other hand, is pricey at CAN$ 2.70 for a liter (it is organic, at least). SinisterLefty (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, however I was looking for the one on Wales Street. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 16:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That one appears to be permanently closed, and for quite some time, as the last review was from 2012: [1]. Too bad, it had a 4.5 star rating. Just Google "Avalon Dairy, Wales Street, Vancouver" (without the quotes) to find this type of answer yourself. Here's an article on the closing: [2]. At least they continued in the other location. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dang. I wanted to go there. :( --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 17:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

Can someone help with about something I want to mail to my friend who lives near Boston

Hi! I live in Canada and I know this will sound strange but I would like to send a painted egg shell as a craft project. (I know it's not Easter.) How can I send this to US without customs taking it out of the box? 207.81.164.119 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. Look here: "Mail entering the United States from abroad first arrives at a United States Postal Service (USPS) Sorting Facility. The Postal Service then sends packages to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for examination and to assess duties and taxes, if any is owed. CBP processing is required for civilian parcels as well as those sent from overseas military postal facilities (APO/FPO)." Without checking, I'm certain the same rules would apply to courier companies like FedEx. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you correctly declare the contents as an egg, it will almost certainly be examined, as there are restrictions on mailing birds' eggs[3].--Shantavira|feed me 08:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do CBP really open and inspect the contents of every single package entering the US? Don't they have other methods, like X-ray? --Viennese Waltz 12:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's way too much mail for hand inspection of each article, given CBP's level of resources. Articles are selected randomly for hand inspection, and things deemed "suspicious" are flagged for inspection as well. The criteria are unsurprisingly not public, to avoid helping smugglers. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I put a note on the box on saying their is an egg in it, will that make a difference?

207.81.164.119 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would be better describing it as as a decorated egg shell, and stating the species. You could also mention that it is not a food item, and state the source of the shell if it is a protected species. The more open you are about the contents, the less likely it is that customs will open the box, but there is no guarantee. You should also indicate that it is fragile. Dbfirs 15:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than depending on strangers on the internet, you should go to your local post office and ask them for advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's irreplaceable, the best thing really is to retain a courier or couriers that specialize in transporting precious items. They'll likely transport it themselves over the border. This might be expensive, but, well, you get what you pay for. If you have family or friends willing to do so, or can do it yourself, you could hand-carry it through the border and then hand it off to a transport service in the U.S. (But be prepared with any necessary customs paperwork, and expect delays.) Standard postal and courier services (USPS, FedEx, UPS, etc.) tell you extensively that there is no guarantee against breakage or loss of items in transit. You can purchase insurance to insure a shipped item for its monetary value, but of course if something is irreplaceable insurance can't un-destroy it. On the other hand, if you won't be that upset in the off-chance it's destroyed in transit, just pack it securely and ship it normally. It may be opened for inspection, but CBP doesn't go around destroying things just for the fun of it. (As others have noted, there are non-invasive ways, such as X-raying, of inspecting items.) Honestly I'd be more worried about having it wrecked in transit by employees throwing boxes around or whatever. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punched card

Sorry guys if I go back, but someone please take away this doubt. If you look at the ballot and decide to vote for the candidates who have the respective forum, the classical votes are naturally expressed, but in the part of the ballot with the "useless" space that advances for the write-in candidates, what happens? Do voters tear off that part of the ballot, or do poll workers do it before the voters put the card in the ballot box? Or, again, the election workers do it later, I know, in the counting station? Thank you very much, to those who want to take away this curiosity! https://www.google.it/search?biw=1768&bih=887&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=3BgvXbzbIc_XwAL1662YAQ&q=ballot+punch+card+voting+machine&oq=ballot+punch+card+voting+machine&gs_l=img.3...18254.22018..22244...0.0..0.81.1693.25......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i19j0i8i30.k4YoNkAh190#imgrc=CteO-RrXuykk0M: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFAIK, nothing is torn off. The entire ballot is fed through the machine to be read. Procedures for counting write-in candidates vary from state-to-state, but as a VERY general idea, usually individual write-in votes are only counted if it would matter; that is if the "write-in" option actually wins on an automated ballot (like a punch card ballot or a Optical mark recognition ballot with spaces for write-ins) then workers collect the paper ballots and manually count them. If a pre-marked candidate wins outright, it isn't actually necessary to count the write-in candidates, you only need to go back and count the individual write-ins if that spot on the ballot beat out all other candidates. Write-in candidates are not, AFAIK, statistically significant; they have in isolated cases actually won a few elections, but the number that have has been historically EXTREMELY small. This article in WaPo goes into more details on a state-by-state basis. --Jayron32 15:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, a very last question: the part of the ballot of the write-in candidates, then, is folded inside it to hide the tractional vows that is the perforated holes, can it be? I mean: can everything act as a "system" that protects the privacy of the classic vote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they would want you to fold the punch card. If you did, it might not read at all, and would likely be discarded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Man Made

https://www.google.com/maps/@-30.0090582,21.1001285,580m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/@-30.0294716,21.0902475,689m/data=!3m1!1e3

I have reviewed our article relating to The Lost City of the Kalahari as well as our article on Verneukpan and still feel rather underinformed in relation to the “former agricultural contouring” and ask if anyone is able to shed further light on this matter. Regarding, the first link provided especially, it would appear to me to have a very similar pattern to those seen here:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nazca+Lines/@-14.739027,-75.130005,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipPZ7B3GYCvSSJGLETM6-2qTsHN6qTi-D4hdGDQm!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPZ7B3GYCvSSJGLETM6-2qTsHN6qTi-D4hdGDQm%3Dw203-h135-k-no!7i1271!8i847!4m5!3m4!1s0x91141e46ccb532ad:0x1802d2b96697b591!8m2!3d-14.7390267!4d-75.1300049

I also note that both are in regions with a similar climate and while the prior does not share the same obvious animal motifs, both are on flat desert floors with a nearby or perennial water source . I am not by any stretch a conspiracy theorist and merely suggest that if one is agricultural contouring and can be further explained it may go someway to explaining the other. Please be so kind as to provide me with any and all information you have in relation to the first two links which while labelled by Google maps as The lost city of the Kalahari, Google searches do not reveal any valid results other than those linked to our article by the same name. Thank you Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also the vegetation seems to be in very man made lines, almost fingerprint like pattern just to the west on Grootvloor, here: https://www.google.com/maps/search/grootvloor/@-29.930423,20.549568,411m/data=!3m1!1e3 Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/De+Niel,+South+Africa/@-29.9660146,20.4338355,360a,35y,39.09t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x1c28a4ee07eaf951:0xf509d0600895c0d4!8m2!3d-29.9831893!4d21.3498688 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be so kind as to provide me with any and all information you have in relation to this. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've already linked to it. If you have a further question, please say what it is. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think most of us here know only what is given in the articles to which you link, but it's possible that some expert might eventually read your question and be able to direct you to more technical details. Dbfirs 15:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to clarify. I would like to know how the features seen can be used for agricultural purposes, and then based on this, if there could be any correlation to the similar marks seen in South America. Thank you Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This type of terrace (agriculture) is all about the water and there are water-related features near the Nazca lines like puquios as our article points out, noting some theories about the lines relate to water management. Rmhermen (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced answers

The two answers below are clearly aimed at different, previous queries, not that titled 'Clearly Man Made' at whose foot they first appeared. I have created this new 'not query' to mark them off (together with JackofOz's subsequent flag-up), so that their authors can reposition them where they actually intended. Given the experience of both editors, I suspect there has been a glitch in the Matrix (or at least Wikipedia's software) rather than two unusual coinciding errors by them.

What if you mailed a fertile chicken and a paint and brush kit?Hayttom (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absentee ballots are usually made of paper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
?? Are those two posts for the thread above? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&oldid=906746421"