Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:28, 10 May 2023

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

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.

May 3

"Presidential" curiosity

Hi Guys, I have a small question for you. If an incumbent U.S. President loses re-election, he can of course run again as will probably happen with Trump if he gets the Republican nomination. Here, I'll take him as an example: he ran in 2016 and won, then he then lost four years later, but if he wins in 2024, after the four-year term of 2025/2029, he could not run again? Thank you very much. 93.41.96.86 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. See Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. You can't be elected if you've been elected before twice, or if you've been elected once and also served more than two years of someone else's term. --Trovatore (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Two full terms is the maximum. Partial terms of less than two years do not count, so hypothically, a president who came into office as the result of the death of their predecessor could serve almost ten years if subsequently elected to two terms. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was the situation LBJ was in, in 1968, where if he had run and won, he could have been in office for 9 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? I am elected once and serve a full term. Then I am elected Vice President, and my president snuffs it after serving 23 months, and I succeed to the presidency for that last month. Someone else has already been elected as the next president. Twenty-five months later I am elected Vice President again, and my new president resigns after serving 22 months, and I succeed to the presidency for those last two months. Someone else has already been elected as the next president. Twenty six months later I am elected Vice President again, and my new president is impeached after serving 21 months, and I succeed to the presidency for those last three months, by now being very familiar with where the bathrooms are in the White House. I have been president four times, and served 28 months. Does this work? Hayttom (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential terms are for four years, or 48 months. Your President could resign each time after 25 months, leaving you for 23 months in office as their constitutional successor. You then never hold the office of President for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President, regardless of how often this is repeated. According to the letter of the amendment, you remain eligible. --Lambiam 01:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling this trick every four years would consume a lot of your lifespan. Also, each time you assumed office you would be a lame duck and it would be hard to accomplish anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twiddling one's thumbs while someone else is pulling this trick every four years consumes the same amount of one's lifespan. And perhaps the only aspiration of the repeat veep is to earn a mention in the Guinness World Records. --Lambiam 15:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing all those convenient deaths also takes it out of one. —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just possibly, forgetting that presidential terms are 48 months and not 24 ought to disqualify me from getting nominated, even for VP. On the other hand, knowing when to capitalize 'President' and 'president' (I think I've been getting it right) should count for something. Glad to have my theory validated. Hayttom (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

Stendhal syndrome

The article on Stendhal syndrome reads like an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. For example, 1.5 million tourists a year visit the Galleria dell'Accademia to see the famous artworks. Cardiovascular disease alone accounts for 18 million deaths per year. Wouldn’t we expect some people to die or have health problems while viewing art? This syndrome doesn’t sound like very much of a syndrome, but I admit Stendhal had a way with words. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the article also doesn't claim it is a medical condition. Just because the word "syndrome" in the name doesn't mean it appears in medical textbooks or is a real medical diagnosis, anymore than Murphy's law is a tested scientific principal, or something like that. Things can be called things in common speech (metaphorically, hyperbolically, etc.) and not actually be that thing. --Jayron 32 14:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We report what reliable sources have to say on a topic. It is impossible to decide by armchair theorizing how real the effect is. Scientific studies have established that viewing artworks in a museum can elicit physiological responses, including an increased heart rate.^[1][2][3] Such physiological responses are also reported for the experience of being moved by music. In reporting the experience of awe on appreciating a work of art, people may say they were overwhelmed by awe. While I have no source, the assumption that such an overwhelming experience also has physiological correlates is not unreasonable; this may add to the effect of being struck by beauty. All considered, Stendhal's anecdotal report may reflect something real. An altogether different issue is whether the effect is notably stronger for Florentine art. I don't think this has been investigated; it is unclear how to set up an unbiased study. --Lambiam 14:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People having physiological responses to strong emotions is well documented. That there is a disease caused specifically by the art of Florence is less so. --Jayron 32 15:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, no one but you has said anything about the responses being a disease or medical condition per se. Instead the OP seems to be suggesting that if people really had such responses, we would also expect deaths or at least health problems from viewing art. IMO this is somewhat flawed, but it is true that something can be associated with deaths or health problems without itself being a disease or medical condition. For example, although regular exercise is generally a good thing including an overall positive effect on health, people can be killed or suffer health problems from exercise, one reason a lot of guides tell you to speak to a medical professional before beginning regular exercise in certain circumstances. But I don't think it makes sense to call exercise a disease or medical condition. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seemed to be objecting to the use of the term "syndrome". My only point is that people use words to mean things in a metaphorical or hyperbolic sense, and that doesn't mean they are trying to say they are the "official, scientific, dictionary-approved definition" of those things. My point was that, just like "Murphy's law" is not meant to be taken as a bedrock scientific principle in the same way that "Ohm's Law" might be, calling something a "syndrome" like "Stendahl syndrome" doesn't mean that anyone should take it to mean it should be held to the same level of rigor as "chronic fatigue syndrome". That's my only point, if the objection as the OP notes in their own words is that "This syndrome doesn’t sound like very much of a syndrome", then maybe the OP is placing too much restriction on how people may use the word "syndrome". I don't really care about the medical aspect at all, it wasn't a feature of my response. It was purely on the ability of people to use words imprecisely. As I did with the word "disease". --Jayron 32 17:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at biographical sources, it appears that Stendhal was already suffering from syphilis well before his so-called experience with art in 1817. The "syndrome" Stendhal experiences sounds very much like the effects of neurosyphilis, ocular syphilis, and otosyphilis. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Jayron 32 23:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-wedding legal advice

As is well known, the percentage of marriages that end in divorce in Western societies is high, particularly compared to stats from earlier generations. Obtaining a divorce, particularly where there are children and/or significant assets to consider, is usually a matter about which legal advice is sought by both parties, and such advice is not cheap. But knowing these statistical and financial realities, how many people seek legal advice prior to marriage, to find out exactly what they're getting themselves into legally? And I'm not talking about prenups, although that may well be covered in such advice.

I know that many people consider the very notion of a prenup antithetical to the notion of the love and trust that are meant to form the basis of a marriage, and I would assume that such people would also have a reluctance to get any sort of pre-wedding legal advice. But it is, after all, a binding legal contract like anything else, and harder to get out of than most other contracts. Simple mutual agreement to end the contract is just the first step in a typically lengthy process. Yet, I've never heard of pre-wedding legal advice being much of a thing, except for the very rich. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't speak from personal experience (being single and non-practicing), I have gathered from reading various things over the years that, in the Anglican church in England at any rate, engaged couples could/can (voluntarily) visit their local vicar for a series of preparatory talks about the various aspects and responsibilities of married life: since divorce is allowed in Anglicanism, the vicar might touch on the subject. Perhaps someone else can enlarge on this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a common practice in many Christian denominations. I assume that such talks are more about the spiritual and moral aspects of marriage, but not the legal aspects. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google of pre-wedding legal advice indicates that is is a very common service offered by solicitors in England & Wales. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How very interesting. I never thought to google it. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal observation: As worshippers in the Church of England in the UK, my fiancee and I did attend marriage preparation with our vicar, but I do not recollect any specifically legal advice or any reference to preparation for divorce. I also consulted my solicitor and had them write up a new will in anticipation of marriage, and of possible offspring, but not of divorce. (In this context, marriage annuls any will not written explicitly allowing for the marriage.) I am happy to report that both marriage and offspring have occurred, but not divorce. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your children will be delighted to know they have occurred. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

World Trade Center and lightning

Could both of the Twin Towers have taken lightning strikes or was it always the North Tower? The South Tower obviously didn’t have a spire. Hmm1994 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tall buildings will be struck by lightning during thunderstorms, whether they have a spire or not. Presumably, both towers were adequately equipped with lightning conductors. --Lambiam 06:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's true, you would think that a photo would exist showing lightning striking 2 WTC, but I wasn't able to find one in Google Images. Certainly the decision to reuse the name World Trade Center for the replacement buildings has made such searches harder, though! --174.89.12.187 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name "World Trace Center" is a licensed franchise name, just like KFC. There are many WTC's around the world. --Lambiam 07:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them have, or had, a North Tower and a South Tower? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the expression goes, 1 WTC (with its spire) "acts like a lightning rod", thus attracting lightning that otherwise would strike 2 WTC. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely, but occasionally, lightning is initiated by an upward leader from a tall building.^[4] A nearby spire may attract downward leaders but does not repel upward leaders. --Lambiam 09:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning a photo of the lightning strike, keep in mind that there are two very popular "photos" of a lightning strike on the North Tower. Both of those images are computer generated. They are not actual photos. But, as with just about everything on the Internet, widespread use of the images has lost the fact that they were computer generated and they are now distributed as photos of a lightning strike on the tower rather than a computer generated image of a lightning strike. The main point is that expecting a photo of a strike on Tower 2 could be misplaced because of the theory that there are common photos of a strike on Tower 1. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Including the spire, the North Tower was about 100 m higher than the South Tower. The separation between the centres of the towers was about 120 m. I expect the North Tower would have drawn some lightning away from the South Tower, but the height difference was too small or the separation too large to draw away all lightning. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

Does Kierieian, Rhode Island exist?

A new editor has claimed that Kierieian, Rhode Island doesn't exist and that this article is a hoax. A DuckDuckGo search does not return anything that is a not a copy of the Wikipedia article. A search of Geographic Names Information System returns no results. A quick look at Apple maps at the coordinates given show only what appears to be open space. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After checking without fruit four local printed sources (the Arrow Street Atlas of RI, the South County Tourism Council's Official Map of R.I. & South County, the official Rhode Island Manual for 1986-7 published by the R.I. Sec. of State, and a couple of Providence Journal-Bulletin Almanacs), I went onto Google (although I'm more of a Bing fan) and found a directly-pertinent and very recent exchange on the Facebook Group called "You are probably from Ashway, RI, if you remember.."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/136779689743865/

The general tenor was that this is a hoax by a repeat offender on Wikipedia.

Negatives are unprovable, and Rhode Island has had many tiny company towns that vanished when their mill or quarry closed, but if the people in Ashaway with a strong interest in local history can't remember or document such a settlement, while there has also been a hoax on Wikipedia, the place's existence seems extremely doubtful to me. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on reddit as well

https://www.reddit.com/r/RhodeIsland/comments/wcyogq/this_cant_be_a_real_village_right_like_mfs_are/ 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got to be a hoax. On Google Maps at the 1,000 feet level, the label is there, but if you zoom in closer, the label disappears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The label of Ashaway also disappears. Labels disappearing don't mean much. Look here or here. Where is ~~Waldo~~ Mecca? --Lambiam 05:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a hoax, not only Google maps but also other companies fell for it: "We’re here to help our Washington County neighbors with affordable disposal services to all Ashaway communities such as Kierieian, Hopkinton, Richmond and more."^[5] "In the southern part of Hopkinton, RI, you'll find Burdickville, South Hopkinton, and Kierieian."^[6] "The building/address is in the Kierieian neighborhood."^[7][8] Note, though, that these sources identify Kierieian as a community or neighbourhood, not a "small village". --Lambiam 06:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on Bing Maps, there do seem to be about 20 or so houses in the vicinity, so it plausibly could be "a small village". However, neither the original editor nor the present company of Google-wizards here assembled could find "at least three high-quality sources" and so the article has to go. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, I have similar concerns about Bethel, Rhode Island, created by the same editor. I've become familiar with the villages of Hopkinton and Richmond in the process of researching and writing Wood River Branch Railroad, and I never found any mention of Kierieian or Bethel. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Trainsandotherthings, that you can hasten the disappearance of these articles by adding your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethel, Rhode Island and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kierieian, Rhode Island. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check who started the Bethel AfD and then please get back to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The creator's talk page shows that several other villages in RI and Connecticut are similarly under suspicion. Five of them were created on that user's first day, 30 Aug 2013. That editor's last activity was 8 Apr 2014. —Tamfang (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small (electoral) curiosity

Small curiosity; has the city of Minneapolis, had in the past as a voting system, Votomatic punch cards? Thank you. 93.41.96.86 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, they were only used in Bloomington and Coon Rapids on a trial basis in the mid 1960s, and the Electoral Commission rejected them for wider use. These are both suburbs of Minneapolis, but it doesn't seem that Minneapolis itself used them. See [9]. --Jayron 32 23:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Singolar Request, thanks!

Hello. It is customary nowadays that in European football (soccer) championships, the winning team is presented with the Cup with ribbons in the social colours of the team itself, or flag of the country the national team represents. If at the 1996 English Europeans, the Czech Republic had won against Germany, having three colours on their flag, would the ribbons have been tricolour or simply two, given the fact that the Czechs' uniform that year was red for the jersey and white for the shorts? I say this, because when the Queen handed the cup to Jürgen Klinsmann, the ribbons were black and white and not the colours of the German flag, which was also three-coloured. So even if the Czech team had won, it would not have been 'inspired' by the flag but by the uniforms? Because today it is different; the ribbons are in the colours of the flags of the countries, as it should be. Thank you. 93.41.96.86 (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know. Nanonic (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] The only people who could answer your question with certainty would be officials who were involved in the preparations at the game itself, and it's not likely any of them are reading here, or recorded such a minor detail in writing, or are now identifiable and contactable 27 years later.

That said, since both countries involved had tricolour flags, and since the ribbons used were only two colours and based on the winning team's uniform, I cannot see any reason why the ribbons used for the Czech team, had they won, would not have also been two colours, i.e. red and white. This is so obvious that I doubt if anyone will be prepared to try to find almost-certainly nonexistent evidence to the contrary.

Incidentally, since both team strips used white, this would have meant that the white ribbon could be tied on in advance, and only the black (or, potentially, red) ribbon would have had to await the result, saving a little time in the preparations for the presentation.

A related question that might be answerable is when the ribbons were changed from being strip-based to national flag based. There's certainly no mention in our article UEFA European Championship, but you could try looking at all the photos on the website https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/history/seasons/ (there seems to be an article on each final, each with multiple photos) and see if you can work it out. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photos of the trophy ceremony from Euro 2000 (the next such tournament) suggests that organisers can handle three colours of ribbon. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time-Date-City wristwatch

Has there ever been wristwatches that tell the time, as well as the date in cities worldwide? 86.130.77.121 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're called World Time wristwatches, invented by Louis Cottier in 1931 for the time. A Frédérique Constant timepiece also shows the day of the month (though apparently just in your time zone), but not the month itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, a number of Patek Philippe watches of this type are on the List of most expensive watches sold at auction. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many smartwatches have that functionality (and many more as well). --Jayron 32 11:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

Asking what happened to an article

I know this is ridiculous to state, but there was an article named "Morgann Book" a few months ago, it was my first and I never made any articles since. What happened to it? (I do not edit often). Was it deleted because it was empty in content? Trakaplex (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgann Book. You were notified on your talk page. --Viennese Waltz 06:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgann Book-gadfium 06:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 January 8 § I haven't created a page before. Not being able to see the article as it was before deletion, I can't know if any of the advice was followed. --Lambiam 20:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Book

Not sure where to ask this. Is there any tool that is comparable to as a http://reftag.appspot.com/ Wikipedia citation tool for Google Book? It was a tool that used to format a wiki citation for you with the input of a link. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see reftag capability, but if it is making a Wikipedia ref tag with cite book, the editing toolbar includes this with cite cite book drop down; visual editor has this capability; if you do {{cite book|url=googlebooks.url}} citation bot (https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=Whatever ) can expand this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also makeref at toolforge. I don't know how it compares. --Lambiam 06:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

The Flower Pagoda

The article Temple of the Six Banyan Trees says the Flower Pagoda was built in 1097 and rebuilt the same year, which sounds rather suspicious. Mistake or urban renewal run amok? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing is poor, so you will have to look yourself for sources, probably available in Chinese to obtain clarification. zh:六榕寺 has more content. This suggests that an original tower was burned down prior to 1110. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 :Just as a side note, a number of Patek Philippe watches of this type are on the [[List of most expensive watches sold at auction]]. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 22:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 :Many [[smartwatch]]es have that functionality (and many more as well).  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 11:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
-::In the ''Chucklevision'' episode ''Market Forces'', Paul got a wristwatch that tells the time & date in 12 cities at the same time. And when Barry asked when did he get it, he said "A week next Thursday". Funny, strange or silly, whenever Barry asked what time it was and what day it was, Paul would say the month rather than the number or day (e.g. Hour: 20-past June. Day: January), and Barry does not say "What do you mean, 20-past June?" nor "I said day, not month." When today was actually Saturday, Paul's watch said Friday, which is one of the days the markets open, only the markets were empty today. So maybe it was only Friday in Tokoyo. See the episode on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B4FEQwXKSM Youtube]. [[Special:Contributions/86.130.77.121|86.130.77.121]] ([[User talk:86.130.77.121|talk]]) 18:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 = May 9 =