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.

January 22

Does this type of wall panel fastening and the tool for it exists or was it made up for this movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRfoIyx8KfU&t=2m54s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.36.100 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot going on here!

The wall panels were actually held on with magnets (you can just see one in the middle). Also with grips standing behind, holding some of the ducts in place (there was so much springy duct in there that some of it was popping the panels off)

The tool he's using is a ratchet screwdriver, usually called a Stanley 'Yankee', although Spiralux made better ones. These long ones aren't just a ratchet, they have a long push action too. The idea is that you can hang drywall and similar jobs by pushing down on the handle, which rotates the ratchet, and only a couple of pushes will drive a long screw right in to soft timber. Overkill for this job, but they look cool on camera. Almost vanished these days, in favour of cordless electric screwdrivers.

The fastener (which isn't actually there) is most like a Dzus fastener, but they only need a quarter turn to open them (Unlike some fasteners, turning a Dzus too far just leaves it open though, it doesn't re-lock it).

I was at the UK premiere. Still one of my favourite films, and it was great to hear Gilliam talking about it. This was part of a short-lived film festival in Hull. The same week, Cleese filmed some of Clockwise in the same town, because Hull's station had the right sort of long platforms for filming a frantic chase scene on.

It's just a shame this film was never released in the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article at Yankee screwdriver, noting that the term is somewhat genercized, it appears it is used by many manufacturers to refer to ratcheting mechanical screwdrivers of a variety of specific designs. --Jayron 32 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall seeing Elwood use a similar tool to open an electrical panel in an elevator in The Blues Brothers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://youtube.com/5AZQox85JLI?t=147

Yes, another Yankee. You can tell it's a Yankee because they're cooler. There's a lock ring on the body which allows you to retain the spring plunger, then release it and let it spring out (both films do this). OTOH these days, "you'll have your eye out" etc. A feature which wasn't widely copied.

Elwood then does the other thing you shouldn't do with a Yankee, which is to use it as a prybar or lever. As the spiral shaft is thin enough already, and has notches all along it to act as stress risers, any sort of bending on it will knacker it immediately. (This is one reason why nearly all the Yankee copies are better than the Yankee.) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood had no qualms about doing dangerous things, such as driving the car over an opening drawbridge; and, in the same scene as the screwdriver, using an aerosol can of glue with a cigarette lighter to make a blowtorch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys, interesting stuff. 91.82.36.100 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

Indigenous peoples of Europe

Are Germans considered the indigenous people of Germany, and likewise for other major European ethnicities? I read somewhere that the Saxon and Norman invasions of Emgland had a very minimal on the islands gene pool. If no European ethnicity is considered indigenous except the Sami, what is the justification for this? déhanchements (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is not a genetically determined thing; it is a social and cultural one, so tracking the spread and influence of ethnicity is not really based on studying gene pools. Ethnicity is also neither static nor unchanging, so what constitutes a particular ethnic group (as with any similar cultural grouping system) depend entirely on a specific moment in time and place. For example, while ethnic groupings like "German" or "English" may make sense in 21st Century Europe, they would have been nonsensical in, say, 2nd Century Europe. You may want to read the Wikipedia article titled Ethnic groups in Europe for a starting place for your research. --Jayron 32 13:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"

So basically the Celts inhabitated Germany and modern Germans came from Southern Scandinavia, interesting. déhanchements (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But (in case that was your conclusion) there is no reason to consider the Celts "indigenous" either. The first Celts (who were Indo-Europeans) killed, displaced or absorbed the people who were previously enjoying the same land there. And those pre-Celtic people themselves displaced earlier people, etc. All the way from the arrival of the first modern human, who replaced the neanderthals. --Lgriot (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me wonder why anyone is considered indigenous to any place. déhanchements (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the above arguments against indigenousness depend on reductio ad absurdum and thus are not particularly useful. In general, a group of people would be considered Indigenous peoples if "they maintain traditions or other aspects of an early culture that is associated with a given region" and "they are generally historically associated with a specific territory on which they depend." It is broadly true, but not usefully so, that one could consider that there is no such thing as any indigenous people anywhere because there's basically no where on earth where the very first culture to settle an area still exists. Still, one can set reasonable limits on looking at indigenousness on more reasonable time scales rather than "forever", in that case its quite reasonable to consider the English people to be the indigenous people of the land we call England, the French for the land we call France, even if we can find a time in the distant past where those people groups didn't exist at all. Setting a reasonable limits for the "recent past" helps to develop a more useful definition of indigenousness that allows us to study, understand, and work to correct the problems created by the oppression of indigenous cultures by their colonizers. Fields of study that deal with these issues broadly include things like sociology, anthropology, ethnology, cultural studies, etc. --Jayron 32 16:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood "indigenous" to mean "the first people/ethnic group to inhabit a place", and I think all dictionaries I've checked use that definition. But the UN and certain other groups use a different definition of indigenous based I think on the principle of "whoever was there before the current colonisers / dominant ethnic group took over", and its under that definition that the Sami are considered one of the only indigenous peoples in Europe. (Personally, I think both definitions are problematic. The dictionary definition because its pretty much impossible to determine who the absolutely first people to live anywhere is, and whether any extant group are "the same people". The UN definition because it would seem to be imply that a people are only indigenous if they have been colonised, and would cease to be indigenous if they ever became and independent nation). Also, I would have thought that the Welsh and Irish would count as indigenous under the UN definition. Iapetus (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all definitions depend on context. For what reason are you defining a word in a certain way will determine which definition is useful. The particular way that the UN defines an ethnic group is useful for the UN mission of protecting oppressed people from the colonizers that are oppressing them. It may or may not be useful in other contexts, for example for an anthropologist or a sociologist or another scientists studying a particular people group. Different usages will have different definitions in different contexts. The word "indigenous" is not particularly unique in that regard, many English words have slightly different definitions and limits to those definitions depending on the context in which they are used. --Jayron 32 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we say that words have ranges of meaning and that a likely-applicable definition is context-dependent and that this is would be the case not only for terms such as "indigenous" but also for terms such as "classic"? Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

Belgian bus

Today I heard a Dutch person allude to a seemingly well-known joke, "the Belgian bus with many drivers and one passenger." Is there any more to the joke than that? —Tamfang (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's an English language idiom about excessive bureaucracy "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians" if was to take a wild guess at the meaning of the Dutch idiom you note, it may mean something similar. But after a good faith search, I can't find anything resembling your idiom.--Jayron 32 02:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds like a shot at their neighbors, like the way the English make fun of the French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone writes: "Background for those not from The Netherlands or Belgium: good-humored rivalry between the two countries has produced many jokes with the Dutch calling the Belgians stupid, and Belgians calling the Dutch cheapskates".[1] I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the "joke" in question. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not just from Belgium, as with expressions like "Dutch treat". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dutch treat. Bus stop (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the particular joke, but Belgium is quite famous for having a very complicated system of government, see Communities and regions. Apart from that, they don't have a major-minor party and have a quite splintered political environment with the Flemish nationalistic party on one side and the Wallonian version(s) on the other side, so forming a government without any big party to take control has taken ages in the past (541 days is the record). Quite interesting, having an ex-office government without mandate to implement changes resulted in better economic growth than having a "working" government. Rmvandijk (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some jokes Dutch people make about Belgians. You can draw your own conclusions. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Belgian revenge:

– Why do the Dutch love Belgian jokes?

– They are cheap.

--Lambiam 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

Convenience food

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet#Harvard_School_of_Public_Health
Exactly why is convenience food bad for you? Just a question for health education purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7427:6B00:E96B:2EBD:D7F0:150E (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better link locally: Healthy diet#Harvard School of Public Health. --CiaPan (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at our article on the topic, or (even better) check with the textbook for the health class you've clearly gotten homework for. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or Google "why is convenience food bad for you?". Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a better question how is it possible to determine if certain foods are processed or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7427:6B00:7DB7:C0B2:35A8:58A6 (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list of ingredients usually gives this away. A sure sign is a long list of terms you do not recognize as standard ingredients for the kind of food, such as high-fructose corn syrup, xanthan gum, carrageenan, maltodextrin and soy lecithin. Not all ingredients that are allowed are generally recognized as safe, including trans fats (often presented as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils). And being "generally recognized" as safe is not the same as being actually safe. A problem with most highly processed foods and other convenience food is the low nutrient density, that is, the low ratio between on one hand soluble fiber and many of the micronutrients needed for remaining healthy, and on the other hand the caloric content (called, for that reason, empty calories). Eating primarily such foods leads to malnutrition because of vitamin or other nutrient deficiencies, or obesity, or both. --Lambiam 15:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just have a question on article saturated fat that relates to this when they say this "Many prepared foods are high in saturated fat content, such as pizza, dairy desserts, and sausage." Do they mean convenience/processed food? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat.

Yes. In this context, "processed" and "prepared" generally mean the same thing, though there are a couple of edge cases, like subs, prepared salads, etc. where it's going to vary from case to case. Matt Deres (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a black and white issue. Food provides nutrition. Even if certain ingredients aren't implicated in harmful effects the question is their usefulness. Ingredients may be chosen for reasons unrelated to nutrition, such as shelf life. A long manufacturing, packaging, and distribution (shipping) process imposes constraints on food products that could result in foods that are less than ideally nutritious. Consistency of product could be prioritized in widely distributed food products. This could require the addition of stabilizing agents—which may not necessarily be of optimal nutritional benefit given the nominal food under consideration. Also see Gums and Stabilisers for the Food Industry. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

poems

Most pages in the category Category:Poems don't insert the whole poem in the article. If you create an article on a poem, can you include the entire poem if its a long poem? 92.0.200.60 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's permissible, providing it is not in copyright; high profile poems such as The Raven and Kubla Khan include the full text. If you're considering writing an article about a poem or adding a poem to an existing article, though, I would point out that we have a project specifically designed to be a repository of non-copyright works called Wikisource. Matt Deres (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some poems are just very long; The Eve of St. Agnes, for example, has 42 verses, each of nine lines, but is easily beaten by The Song of Hiawatha which runs to 22 chapters. Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, "Ten Little Indians" has 1.5 words per titular folk hero. Only 1.3 if lumping plural and singular. Wikipedia even throws in a previously unheard bonus bridge, just to pad it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may also ask why 'most' of pages about novels do not contain full text of books, why pages about films do not contain full movies or why pages about sculptures do not contain holographic copies of those. The reason is the same in all cases (apart from technical limitations) — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an anthology of arts; it contains articles about pieces of art, not those pieces themselves or their copies. (The more because many of those pieces are protected by copyright.) --CiaPan (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Sevens

How are the 5th to 8th placed teams determined in Rugby Sevens?

Scotland came in 8th place in South Africa last December, with Argentina in 5th, Ireland in 6th, and Kenya in 7th places. May I be reassured that Wikipedia hasn’t lost the ability to properly record the results of Rugby Sevens Tournaments?

What I mean is that Scotland technically did better than Argentina if you look at the results closely of the Pool statue, as we had 8 points as opposed to their 7. Also, why isn’t Wikipedia recording the results of the 9th place thingy?

I can’t see how it is possible for Argentina to be above Scotland when the two teams hadn’t met at any point in this tournament? What in the name of goodness is going on here?

I look forward to your replies, I hope to hear from you soon. Pablothepenguin (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to specifically ask the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, who should be maintaining the rugby sevens articles. If you are referring to 2019–20 World Rugby Sevens Series and 2019 South Africa Sevens articles, my guess would be that it is because the official web site is also not clear on how 5th to 8th is determined either. Looking at the results of South Africa, apparently they got rid of the "fifth place bracket" (as seen on last season's article 2018 South Africa Sevens#Fifth place), but I am having trouble finding the current 2019–20 rules. The bottom of information page still links to the old 2018 rules! So it looks like we are left with just that little information there is on the standings page. Wikipedia cannot report what is not documented elsewhere. But again, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever the OP asks, it would help a great deal if they provide links so we can know WTF they're talking about. According to our article which has not been edited since December [2] Scotland made 7 points (from 2 wins and one loss) in the group stage (not 8) with a zero net points scored difference. Argentina was also on 7 with a net 52 points scored difference. Ireland did have 8 points (finishing top of their group due to their better net points scored difference) as did Kenya (finishing second to Ireland), so you might debate their position but not so much Scotland. Our results are consistent with the official ones too [3] Scotland where not even in the 2019 South Africa Women's Sevens so I guess the OP isn't referring to that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see that Scotland did lose to New Zealand the tournament winners, while Argentina lost to France who were in third place, so I guess by that token you could say they were better. But OTOH, Scotland ended up with a -16 points scored differential after the quarterfinals compared to Argentina's +43, Ireland's 0, and Kenya's -2. (If I had to guess, this was probably how the placings were decided.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

Barbie princess pauper

I understand that classic is a word that's thrown around a lot and opinionated. I asked a lot of questions on here not realising the term isn't what I thought it would be. I thought it was certain things old still popular and valuable. However I gave up on the word because it's pointless living your life believing this word could help you get better with people. But anyway one day I was on here looking at barbie princess pauper its considered to be best barbie film but does that mean its a classic?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_as_the_Princess_and_the_Pauper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7427:6B00:2D82:A885:55F2:C5D2 (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone, like a reputable movie critic or other well-known and well-respected source, called it a classic? That's generally how you would know. Look for what others have already decided about it. The term is not quantitatively defined, and depends on a combination of collective opinion of many people, and on the published opinions of respected critics and the like. --Jayron 32 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From where would anyone derive that "classic" is strictly defined? Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a "classic" within the Barbie series, relatively speaking. (Though my favorite was Barbie Meets Godzilla.) Like which film within the Police Academy series would be the classic, relative to the series as a whole? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being the best in a series doesn't necessarily mean it's a classic (unless it's plans from outer space) . The best model Trabant isn't one. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A contemporary work may be hailed as an instant classic, but the criteria for classic status tends to include the test of time. What does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7427:6B00:705C:4591:4BCD:3EB2 (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty close to something in the archives from a few months back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper uses the term "classic" in reference to its source material, The Prince and the Pauper, rather than trying to claim that the Barbie movie itself is a "classic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bugs is right about that, The Prince and the Pauper is an old, popular Mark Twain story, so it is what is being described as "classic". --Jayron 32 13:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

Direct flights between antipodes

Musing in bed last night, as one does, I got to wondering whether there are pairs of places, with international airports, that are so positioned on the Earth's surface that there would be virtually no difference (in distance, time, and cost) whether one flew in one direction or the opposite direction to get from one to the other.

This question supposes there are direct flights between such places. If so, are flights always in the one direction, and why would this be so?

I guess such places would be antipodes, but not all would qualify if (a) there aren't direct flights to the other place, and (b) they don't have an international airport to begin with. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.geodatos.net/en/antipodes/ is a fun site for such musings. Best I could do with a quick search is Málaga, Spain and Auckland, NZ. About 70 km off. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, most of the Earth's surface is water, and most of the Earth's land is in the Northern Hemisphere, so it's actually uncommon to have sizable settlements that are antipodal. This goes against our anthropocentric bias, where a lot of people seem to assume humans are about evenly distributed all over the planet's surface. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are cities that are exactly antipodal and are large enough to have airports: one pair I know about is Neiva and Palembang. (Their airports are just a few kilometers off being antipodal.) But I can't imagine that there are any antipodal pairs with direct air services from one to the other. If there were, the direction of travel would be chosen for commercial reasons such as:

Prevailing winds
Distance to airports for emergency diversions
Possible intermediate stops for passengers

The first two are commercially significant because they affect how much fuel must be carried, and carrying more fuel requires burning more fuel (or taking fewer passengers). --142.112.159.101 (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Longest flights is a relevant article for what has actually been done. Some long flights might actually be useful, others look to have been done to break a record, or for a one-off situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

Judge Jury and executioner

Are there any instances where a decision to box a question (or otherwise stop any further discussion) on the reference desk has been overturned following discussion on the talk page. If so, I would be curious to know the percentage both ways. I ask as it appears to me that Wikipedia has a prevailing tendency to curb the freedom of speech of the questioners. I may be wrong and hope to be proven wrong. Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but you should have posted this question on the ref desk talk page. It would be better if you could delete your question (and this reply) and repost it over there. --Viennese Waltz 10:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that no where on Wikipedia do you have freedom of speech. It is not a concept that exists here. What we have are standards and guidelines for what is an appropriate topic of discussion in this specific forum, and what is not. The idea that you should be able to say anything, anywhere, at any time, and that everyone there has to accept what you say uncritically, and also has to allow you to continue to say anything regardless of what you say; that is not a concept that exists anywhere in the world, less of all at this forum, which as stated at the top, is designed to handle certain types of questions, and not others. If you ask a question which is not of the type this forum is designed to handle, we will direct you to a different place to ask it. That is not censorship, and it is not a violation of any freedom you thought you may be entitled to. Because you aren't. --Jayron 32 12:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have noticed it, but Wikipedia is not a public service. It is a product provided by an individual foundation. The Wikimedia foundation can set its own rules regarding what is accepted here. JIP | Talk 13:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to answer the question? Are there any instances where a decision to box a question (or otherwise stop any further discussion) on the reference desk has been overturned? Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]