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.

September 7

What's the furthest possible domestic call?

By great circle distance. Can landlines or cellphones in say France call ~10,000 miles away parts of France with basic plans and no extra charges or minute limits? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of France are 10,000 miles away from France? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French Polynesia? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enlarge; what other countries might call colonies or overseas territories, France deems parts of itself with equal administrative status to regions of Metropolitan France (the part in Europe). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is also hardly unique in that regard. The United States grants equal status to Hawaii and Alaska as it does to the lower 48. --Jayron 32 13:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the shorter great circle segment from Paris to French Polynesia (which passes through Dublin and Los Angeles) is about 9,770 miles (15,720 km). By definition of "domestic", a call from Paris to Papeete is a domestic call. --Lambiam 05:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about calls that can be made with basic plans and no extra surcharges. Can such a call be made from Paris to Papeete? DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly expect this to be a special purpose line. As an example, I grew up in farmland. The area served by our school covered three domestic calling zones. So, some students could call home at no charge. Other students were charged long distance. To avoid this, the school had special lines installed that were considered local for the other two calling zones. If you used them, it wasn't long distance. It basically extended the distance you could call without using long distance because the carrier ran one extra very long line to the school. Consider that scenario for, as an example, a call box in the middle of the Mojave at some research shack. That would be an extra long distance to call without a long distance surcharge. The problem is that it isn't in any of our "world record" books that I can find and searching online turns up nothing more than sales sites trying to separate me from my cash. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In France nowadays, most people have a phone plan that comes through their internet provider and includes free calls to a large number of countries around the world. So there's nothing exceptional about calling French Polynesia for free when you can also dial up someone in Australia or Argentina as if it were a local call. Xuxl (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that it is including cell phones. With my plan, I can travel to the northern-most cell tower in Canada and call someone at the southernmost cell tower in Mexico and call at no extra charge. It is unlimited to Canada, U.S., and Mexico. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When automatic long distance dialling first came in students at Oxford University devised a 10-digit dialling code enabling them to call London numbers at the local rate. When they found out about it the Post Office disabled it. It was always on the cards because instead of dialling one of the national codes you could dial into a nearby exchange which had its own local codes, and from there to another exchange which again had its own local codes and so ad infinitum. 2A00:23D0:C32:2601:998F:A7BF:6379:214 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does New Zealand count? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It goes "tishhh"

What is the name of the percussion instrument that is essentially a series of chains of varying size and length that makes a nice "tishhh" sound when stroked? I scanned the images in List of percussion instruments -- no luck. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cabasa? Or do you mean hanging chains? --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging chains -- is that what they're called? (Too obvious). -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closest that I could find: Musical Bead Chains, but is described as an "enabling device" that "increases sensory awareness". -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark tree? --Error (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mark tree should not be confused with two similar instruments:

* Wind chimes are mounted in a circle with a hanging striker strung in the center; they may be solid or hollow and made of many types of material, whereas the mark tree is mounted in a linear fashion and normally has solid metal bars.

* The bell tree is a set of graduated cup-shaped bells mounted vertically along a center post.

--Error (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! A trip down memory lane led me to Eclectic Mouse,^[1] which led me to Steve Forman (percussionist) which led me to this webpage which led me to his instrument inventory -- wherein lies: Chains | Metal Chain | various lengths of misc. chain | USA -- So, it doesn't really have a proper name. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Error, for your erroneous effort (sorry, couldn't help myself); let's mark this thread...

Resolved

– 136.54.106.120 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Live-stream-initiated rescues

According to Natalie Compton, reporting for the Washington Post, a hiker in Katmai National Park and Preserve was rescued this week because live-cam viewers, hoping to get a glimpse of Katmai's brown bears, noted the hiker's distress. What are other examples of rescues that have been initiated by live stream viewers? Georgeliotswims (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who bears the brunt?

I am reading the Chicago Manual of Style in its entirety to better improve my understanding of editing, as one usually does. In my 16th edition for sub heading 2.53 fact-checking, it states that "... the author is finally responsible for the accuracy of a work" for books. Further, "most book publishers do not perform fact-checking in any systematic way or expect it of their manuscript editors unless specifically agreed upon". It makes sense. I was thinking for Wikipedia, it probably works similar. We have identifiers that let us check who put the information into an article, and if it is factually inaccurate, the editor who included the information bears the brunt of that inaccuracy.

However, if an article made it through one of our set standard reviews (new page review, articles for creation, peer review, good article review, featured article review, etc.) and we expect those articles to be checked by another/other editor(s) for accuracy, do said reviewers also bear the brunt of inaccuracy? Is there a difference in the veracity if the factual inaccuracy missed is intentionally or accidentally placed (of course, not dealing with the occasional grammar mistake, but for complete passages)? Are there any cases in Wikipedia's history that have precedent for such a situation, at least for the higher echelons of article-status? Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Errors such as "Manuel" of Style?) You can probably find some examples on Wikipediocracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is so called reliable sources that bear the brunt. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pedantic problem being that "to verify" means "to make true". So the way to verify it or make it true is by using proper sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, to "verify" something in a WP article means to verify that the source says what the article says it does, not that the source is necessarily accurate. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify your expansion, if a source is shown to be inaccurate, then it isn't a reliable source and should not have been cited in the first place. "To verify" means "to be shown to be true", verifying something doesn't make it true, it is merely means that the truthfulness has been checked. If something isn't true in the first place, it can't be verified. Wikipedia doesn't rely on something being true via assertion only, it relies on something being verifiable in the sense that the truthfulness of it can be checked. --Jayron 32 16:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does answer part of the question. Also, I guess part of the question was unclear. Let us say theoretically in the article Iron Gwazi (in a parallel dimension or timeline), there is a false fact in the passage that goes: Gwazi covered fifteen acres (6.07 ha) previously occupied by a merry-go-round. when the true statement is Gwazi covered eight acres (3.2 ha) previously occupied by [a] brewery. Let us also surmise that this is a crucial fact in the article, which is necessary to explain a lot of other facts that are supported accurately by references. The latter is supported by a reference, while the former is an utter falsehood that was either intentionally or accidentally put into the article by a random editor. Obviously, the editor who included that falsehood is to bear the brunt of that inaccuracy when it is found. However, Iron Gwazi (in this timeline also) made it through new page review, articles for creation, peer review, good article review, and featured article review, without anyone spotting that error. Do those reviewers also bear the brunt of that falsehood not being found because the quality/source-to-text/accuracy is then compromised?

Addendum, if there are multiple so-called "authors" to a Wikipedia page and this happens, do your "co-authors" bear that burden like those in the academic field? Essentially this half-question involves the mindset is Wikipedia's review processes the same as the academic community when falsehoods are found in journal articles. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tool called WikiBlame that can be used to find who's to "blame" for a particular passage in an article. Editors who routinely add copyright violations, false, invalid, or vandalous information (etc.) may be banned from editing. They more often are banned for obvious reasons without needing WikiBlame, however. Wikipedia has a fundamental principle of "assume good faith" for editors who simply make mistakes, but obvious abuse is not tolerated. Keep in mind that WP is an "encyclopedia that anybody can edit" (unless they've been banned) -- not just scholars, academics, or "experts". -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember that, unlike published journals, WP articles are never complete; they can be added to, changed, and corrected at will. There are varied extents for locking articles that are contentious or prone to continued vandalism, misinformation, etc. Articles have talk pages where discussions (often heated) are made regarding uncertainties or potentially controversial edits. Ultimately "who bears the brunt" is the Wikimedia Foundation which gets sued on occasion -- which explains why they are very particular regarding copyright violations and biographies of living persons. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally worth mentioning is that WP articles do not have authors, only editors. Of course, articles are originally created by someone, usually in user's draft space, but once it is moved to article mainspace, it's fair game for others to edit. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "bears the brunt" is an unfortunate phrase to use in this discussion. All good faith editors strive for accuracy in summarizing reliable sources, and collaborative editing has been shown to greatly assist this process. Being human, we all make errors with greater or lesser frequency. When errors are detected, whether it is a source used that ends up being judged as unreliable, or a failure to accurately summarize the source, the correct course of action is to correct the error, learn from what went wrong, and move on. Trying to decide who "bears the brunt" is not an exercise we should engage in when evaluating the work of generally competent editors acting in good faith. Of course, we also need to deal with hoaxers, axe grinders, cranks, POV pushers and those who lack basic competency. Such people are restricted, blocked or banned not to make them "bear the brunt", but to protect the encyclopedia. Here's an example: I wrote most of an article, Harry Yount, which is currently a Good article. I was unaware that there were two Union Army generals during the US Civil War named "John Phelps", namely John W. Phelps and John S. Phelps. I inadvertently linked to the wrong General Phelps, and the article passed a GA review in 2013 without the error being detected. It was not until 2022 that another editor detected the error, which I promptly corrected. So, should I "bear the brunt" and what exactly does "brunt" mean in this context? Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree on the wording. I was characteristically leaning towards an example about an editor caught in the intentional act, with good-standing in the community; though, I was also inquiring on good-faith accidents as well. Maybe bearing "responsibility" is a better word for it, as we have all have some sort of editorial reputation to create and uphold for article creation and moderation, and in the spirit of AGF (if that makes sense; such as a newspaper writer having to create factual reports and uphold that accuracy for their readers, otherwise, misreporting might damage their reputation or status as a writer). I think you got to some of what I was putting down, with those who are needed to be dealt with-part. I, too, have made several mistakes in wording or phrasing at my FAC and GAN reviews before. We are humans after all! As an example of this "bearing", I feel a hit in personal responsibility/editorial status when I overlook or misinterpret something by accident. "Brunt", for this context, I will surmise as "responsibility", or a sense thereof. Whether we assign responsibility I guess is another question in itself (depending on a situation, whether that assignment is personal responsibility or community-implied).

Essentially, at worst for an editor who is good-standing and made intentional factual errors, is there an equivalent of the Schön scandal and what was the outcome for reviewers/editors. At best for an editor who is good-standing and made accidental errors, what are the unintended consequence to our mistakes in the short- or long-term (e.g. how our fellow editors view our work in the future or how we personally feel about a past-mistake or how readers interpret content)? Also for the replies above, I did not know about "WikiBlame" or "Wikipediocracy", those are interesting. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, an editor's reputation is whatever others perceive it to be. Editors have talk pages where one can leave questions or comments about their editing (see Wikilove and Wikiquette for example). They also have a userpage where they can expound about how wonderful they are. There are occasions where an editor's edit history is scrutinized (e.g. sockpuppetry), but there is no periodic review or ranking system (that I'm aware of). Applying to become an administrator however, does involve some analysis of the candidate's edit history. There are noticeboards where disruptive or suspicious activity can be reported. There have been some notorious WP hoaxers, ~~but I don't have any examples at hand.~~ e.g. Jar'Edo Wens hoax. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC) . . . See also: WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bicholim conflict -- nominated for featured article status!^[2] 16:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! Looked further at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 14#Problems with criteria and review procedure, which had an interesting outcome at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for GAN's and reviewers. I wish there was a thank you button for IP's. 🖱️ *click* [thanks] :P Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brunt might be borne by Ichabod Crane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seat belts for routine vehicle operation

A playground near my home has a half-bucket swingset seat for little children, as if you cut the pictured swing in half: the child sits on the back half, and a little chain fastens in place of the front half to keep the child in.

According to the introduction to Bucket seat, they were employed in many German military vehicles during the Second World War, because the vehicles had no doors, and bucket seats were needed to prevent the occupants flying out of the vehicle during normal operation. Whether in this context, or in others where occupants might be thrown by normal operation, is there any evidence of anyone (manufacturer or aftermarket technicians) ever installing a belt device to restrain occupants, even something as simple as my swing chain example? After discussing a belt in an aircraft, Seat belt#History begins in the 1950s with the history of a retractable belt, whose designer (a neurologist) was seemingly concerned with victims of accidents, not doorless vehicles whose occupants might bounce out. Apparently "he investigated the early seat belts with primitive designs", so I take it that there were others before him, and probably he wasn't aware of the aviator from a century before. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, Edward J. Claghorn redirects to Seat belt, but is mentioned nowhere in the article. Nevertheless, according to ThoughtCo.: The first U.S. patent for automobile seat belts was issued to Edward J. Claghorn of New York, New York on February 10, 1885.^[3] -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article mentions the patent description which includes that it is designed for securing the person to a fixed object -- which implies it's intended to keep folks from falling out. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in Newspapers.com (pay site) for "seat belts", I'm seeing references as far back as the 1860s, for seat belts in boats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of aviation, this article credits Benjamin Foulois with inventing the first aircraft safety belt in 1911. The same source says that the US Air Commerce Act of 1926 required “safety belts or equivalent apparatus for pilots and passengers in open-cockpit airplanes carrying passengers for hire or reward.” This forum thread says that a lap belt was sometimes used in the Blériot XI aircraft in 1911 and had come into general use for "scout" (i.e. fighter) aircraft by 1915 (better source needed). Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our seat belt article credits Sir George Cayley (1773-1857) with inventing the seat belt for his experimental gliders in the 1840s and 1850s. The first pilots of these contraptions were small boys including his own grandson, so I expect he was rather keen that they didn't fall out. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

How to understand this term?

Science Fantasy is normally considered a bastard genre blending elements of sf and fantas - bastard genre? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:bastard#Adjective, particularly definitions (3) "Of or like a mongrel, bastardized creature/cross" and (4) "Of abnormal, irregular or otherwise inferior qualities (size, shape etc)". It's a common enough idiom to refer to something that is neither one thing nor the other, a mongrel cross. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(To understand this term, see wikt:neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Children getting taller until 16 or 18

Does a child grow until 16 or 18? 81.151.247.95 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't come as a surprise that there is quite a bit of individual variation. Child_development#Physical_growth gives a range of 14 to 17 for girls and 15 to 19 for boys. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the individual child's genetics and environmental factors. Usually girls stop growing at a younger age than boys. You can view the statistical charts compiled by the CDC here for boys and girls. As you can see from the graphs, most girls don't grow significantly after they are 16, for boys it's closer to 18, but again it differs from person to person, and the graphs aren't even completely flat at 20 years old, so some (mostly boys) continue to grow even after their teens. - Lindert (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So girls grow until 16 and boys until 18? 81.151.247.95 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It varies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And do they grow 6 to 7 centimeters each year? 81.151.247.95 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It varies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If an adult is about 160/170 cm (or over), does that mean the child has grown 6/7 centimeters each year until at age 16 or 18? 81.151.247.95 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It varies per individual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of children growing, the pace, the possible target height are influenced by a multitude of factors, some of which are: parents' height (and genetic make-up in the broader sense), course of pregnancy, nutrition (all aspects), whether parents smoke, whether teen smokes, amount of physical exercise. And it takes place in a jerky manner: you never know when they choose to grow more or less, it just happens. The late Terry Pratchett may his name forever ring out throughout the cosmos aptly put it in one of his books that you have to feed them on one end, clean the other and make sure they don't catch anything. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the statistical charts linked above? They clearly show that growth starts fast, slowly decelerates, accelerates again in puperty and finally slows down to a gradual stop. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A child will put on a growth spurt shortly after you buy some nice fitting school clothes. If, however, you get a size larger to allow for this, the child's growth rate will slow to a stop for at least a year. It's called the "WTF, how much? You must be joking" effect. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of feet this phenomenon occurs right after You get them shoes that are more expensive than yours. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Unknown contraption

What is this thing for?

I'm intrigued by a large machine which has appeared in a field adjacent to the M25 motorway near Kings Langley in Hertfordshire to the northwest of London. The field has been landscaped by a green energy company, Renewable Energy Systems, which also has a middle-sized wind turbine on the site. Apologies for the poor quality images which were taken from a moving car (I wasn't driving!). At a guess, it's about 2 metres tall. Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complete guess; could it be either a sonic or laser bird scarer? --Ykraps (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess is that it is a water pump, which can be about any size. The riddle is, what would the energy company use such a huge pump for? --Lambiam 16:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a part of either an electric motor or a dynamo or alternator of some sort, likely one of the latter two, given that this is on property owned by a windfarm company? My guess is that this is a piece of equipment someone dropped off for future use either to build a new wind turbine, or to replace a faulty part on an existing one. --Jayron 32 16:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support images for my guess: See here for one installed in a wind turbine, and here for a much larger design for likely a very large wind turbine and here (the green thing). It's the generator from the wind turbine, I believe. --Jayron 32 16:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Jayron, that seems to be it. The intention seems to be to create a sort of eco park, so it may be intended to educate visitors. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

September 14

Idealism and pragmatism switcheroo

I just noticed something for the first time in the American political literature, and I’m curious how it happened. After the New Deal, and prior to Bush being elected in 2000, for just under a century or so, Democrats were often described as idealists, while Republicans were pragmatists. After Trump was elected, Republicans turned into idealists and Democrats became pragmatists. How did this happen from a philosophical perspective? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the first switch in history. LBJ's push for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Nixon's subsequent use of the "Southern strategy" in the 1968 election flipped the parties' traditional positions regarding the disenfranchisement of black voters. In this case, however, I don't think the Democratic Party has significantly moved on the idealism–pragmatism axis; if anything, it has become more idealistic, which does not necessarily mean less realistic. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has changed dramatically; it resembles its old self from before the Tea Party movement mainly by continuing to use the name but seems to live in an alternate reality. --Lambiam 07:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Different look of Ray-Ban Aviators - in general: Lens shapes for the same type of glasses

In Top Gun, characters Maverick and Slider apparently both wear RB3025 Aviator sunglasses - see here - although Slider's look very different (smaller lenses with different shape and different bending of the frame). What is the scope of different lens shapes used for Aviators? In general: Which models of glasses and sunslasses always use the same shape of lenses, which use in contrast different lens shapes? --KnightMove (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This website has some details. Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second question, there are many tens of thousands of models of glasses and sunglasses, so you need to be a lot more specific. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both actors are wearing RB3025 sunglasses. Cruise's sunglasses have a gold frame, making the frame more prominent. Rossovich's sunglasses have a black frame, making the lenses appear slightly different because the frame is not obvious. Further, facial structure can make sunglasses appear different, which is why most sunglasses are not one-size-fits-all. The exact same pair may look way too small on one person and way too big on another person. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it is just an optical illusion? I can hardly believe it, anyway thank you very much. --KnightMove (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the chance, and I know this is a wild idea, that the fan-made website you linked to, is wrong about the sunglasses Slider is wearing. I know, slim chance, but it's at least a possibility that a random website on the internet with unknown credentials and expertise on a subject may sometimes make a mistake. --Jayron 32 14:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but a) at least this is the site of a commercial eye care office and they should know a bit about glasses, b) this other random website on the internet with unknown credentials and expertise on the subject comes to the same conclusion and c) if the website is wrong about the type of glasses, asking here would still be my best chance to get to know this. --KnightMove (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, they can be right than. Your faith in the perfection of information found on the internet is probably justified. --Jayron 32 15:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, speaking as a spectacles-wearer and user of clip-on sunglasses, metal frames are often susceptible to a degree of bending, so individuals can to a degree alter the configuration of their sunglasses to better suit their exact facial contours. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown board

I am back to ask another question. Yesterday at my workplace, this board appeared on my desk. No one knows what this is, or what it is used for. I spent a good hour trying to Google and translate and backwards search what this is to no avail. Thought I might post a picture and drop it off at this reference desk to get some possible ideas. The best answer I could come up with was a mezuzah holder when in its original case. Any thoughts? Adog (Talk・Cont) 12:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely zero Hebrew experience, but based purely on the letters in the Hebrew alphabet page I think it says "מזוזה", which is indeed mezuzah (e.g. see he:מזוזה) GalacticShoe (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adog does your workplace have a Lost and Found? Mysterious objects appearing on arbitrary desks seems like it might indicate someone is missing a delivery. Folly Mox (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are the dimensions of the item? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]