Wikipedia:Reference desk/all

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Reference Desk - All recent questions
WP:RD/ALL redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Redirect or Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This page lists all the recent questions asked on the Wikipedia reference desk by category. To ask a new question, please select one of the categories below. To answer a question, click on the "edit" link beside the question.

For information on any topic, choose a category for your question:

Computing reference deskP computing.svg
Science reference deskP physics.svg
Mathematics reference deskP mathematics.svg
Humanities reference deskP art.png
Computers and IT Science Mathematics Humanities
Computing, information technology, electronics, software and hardware Biology, chemistry, physics, medicine, geology, engineering and technology Mathematics, geometry, probability, and statistics History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society
Language reference deskP literature.svg
Entertainment reference deskP music.svg
Miscellaneous reference deskP question.svg
Reference desk archivesP archive.svg
Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
Spelling, grammar, word etymology, linguistics, language usage, and requesting translations Sports, popular culture, movies, music, video games, and TV shows Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories Old questions are archived daily
Help deskWikipedia-logo.png
Village pumpWikipedia-logo.png
New contributors' help pageWikipedia-logo.png
Help desk Village pump New contributors' help page
Ask general questions about using Wikipedia Ask about specific policies and operations of Wikipedia A range of services to answer newcomers' questions
Help manual MediaWiki handbook Citing Wikipedia Resolving disputes Virtual classroom
Information and instructions on every aspect of Wikipedia Information about the software that runs Wikipedia How to cite Wikipedia as a reference For resolving issues between users An advanced guide on everything Wikipedia
See also the Wikipedia department directory



June 17[edit]

♪ versus 🎵 in Unicode[edit]

Why was the emoji 🎵 assigned a separate Unicode point, rather than being simply considered an emoji presentation of ♪ (and thus represented as ♪ followed by Variant Selector 16)? NeonMerlin 01:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is the emoji 266A ♪ eighth note meaning two eighth note symbols connected together by a beam (it does not display in my browser), its history is that it was part of the proprietary / non-standardized emoji set first introduced by Japanese carriers like Softbank. These emojis became part of the Apple iPhone starting in iOS 2.2 as an unlockable feature on handsets sold in English speaking countries. In iOS 5 / OSX 10.7, the underlying code that the Apple OS generates for this emoji was changed. The artwork varies. Blooteuth (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
For me, 266A ♪ appears as a single eighth note. —Tamfang (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion the unicode consortium should have done what you say, use the existing symbol with the emoji variant selector. I guess they just didn't think of it at the time. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi! You're my only hope!! (Referrer policy)[edit]

At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#A solution that satisfies privacy and GLAM requirements? (which is a section of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy), I have an editor who claimed without evidence that a particular feature is supported only by the chrome browser. my research suggests that it is supported by all major browsers, but the ref I am basing that on is is to searchengineland, and I really am hoping to find a better source. I could really use some technical help here.

In particular, if Wikipedia puts the following in the head of the HTML...

<meta name="referrer" content="same-origin">

...thus sending no referrer information when a user clicks on a link to a non-Wikipedia page, and then Wikipedia adds the following to selected links...

<a href="" referrerpolicy="always"> override the meta tag in the head, what browsers support this?

According to [ ] Referrer Policy is supported by Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, iOS Safari, Android Browser, and Chrome for Android and (maybe) Microsoft Edge. (It is not supported by Internet Explorer, but because Internet Explorer doesn't support the referrer meta tag or referrerpolicy on the link, IE will always have the default HTTP/HTTPS behavior no matter what we do with our meta tags and links.)

According to [ ], There are many ways you can deliver the referrer policy:

  • Via the Referrer-Policy HTTP header
  • Via a meta element with a name of referrer
  • Via a referrerpolicy content attribute on an a, area, img, iframe, or link element (emphasis added)
  • Via the noreferrer link relation (rel=) on an a, area, or link element
  • Implicitly, via inheritance

I have searched and searched and cannot find a shred of evidence that this is only supported by chrome, but I am also lacking good, strong evidence that it is supported by other browsers.

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi! You're my only hope!! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

[1] claims it's supported by Firefox since version 36.0 or 39 depending on the situation and Chrome since 17 but not supported by Microsoft Edge. IE, Safari and Opera are unknown. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[2] seems to be the Mozilla Bugzilla entry for implementation. There is someone there from Facebook implying it was supported in Safari since version 6 onwards. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Reading more carefully, I think Firefox possibly only supports no-referrer, origin, no-referrer-when-downgrade, origin-when-crossorigin and unsafe-URL. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[3] from Microsoft seems to suggest it's supported in Edge although no idea what version. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[4] suggests Edge may possibly still only support "default, never, origin, always". [5] is example code test for Edge. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[6] on the webkit bug tracker and [7] on the Wikimedia bugtracker suggests Safari possibly still only supports 'no-referrer', 'origin', 'no-referrer-when-downgrade', or 'unsafe-url'. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[8] on the wikimedia bug tracker suggests some older browsers still use origin-when-crossorigin and newer ones use origin-when-cross-origin. OT but [9] goes into detail on various things Facebook does to try and handle various issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Whops I just noticed you were asking about referrer-policy not meta "referrer". The earlier link [10] suggests it's probably not supported on Edge at least circa January of this year. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW, link that's part of the comment implies it's referring to the a attribute. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[11] from Mozilla claims the a element referrerpolicy is supported by Firefox since version 50 (and Chrome since version 46.0 implemented behind a flag) probably with the attributes 'no-referrer', 'no-referrer-when-downgrade', 'origin', 'origin-when-cross-origin' and 'unsafe-url'; but not IE, Edge, Safari or Opera. Note that [12] and I think some of the earlier links suggest that 'always' is deprecated and instead 'unsafe-url' should be used. BTW if you're interested in the referrer-policy HTTP header, [[13] from Mozilla claims it's supported in Firefox with various attributes since 52.0 but Chrome only has basic support as of 56.0 and Safari, Opera, Edge and IE don't support it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[14] has more info on implementation of the HTTP header on Chrome if you're interested. It also suggests there is no signals from Safari or Edge that they will support it. It also links to the Mozilla bugzilla [15] for it. Incidentally, the lack of support for meta referrer 'origin-when-cross-origin' on Safari seems to be a common issue handled either via custom per browser policies or via choosing some other option [16] [17] Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Is there a good reason the HTTP header is referrer-policy but the A/content attribute is referrerpolicy? I can understand abandoning the misspelling of referrer, but having one being referrer-policy and one being referrerpolicy just seems a recipe for disaster. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh [18] seems to be the Mozilla Bugzilla for the element referrerpolicy attribute. It seems it was initially implemented but not enabled by default if I'm understanding correctly. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
[19] claims support for referrerpolicy on a and other attributes on Chrome Desktop, Chrome Android, Android Webview since 51, Opera 38 and Opera for Android 38. Interesting it suggests no public signals from either Edge, Safari, Firefox and also no signals from web developers. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I can't find further info (like from Safari or Apple) about support for referrerpolicy attribute on a elements such as a bug/feature request (e.g. on not helped by the fact that referrerpolicy seems to refer to several things including I think webkit's own internal referrer policy. Maybe Nimur can help. I get the feeling though that it isn't supported yet. [20] is a feature request for Edge. I'm lazy to investigate much for Opera especially since I get the feeling this is a feature of Blink (web engine) where they just went with the flow. Getting fairly OT here but it seems Opera, Chrome and I think Safari [21] [22] support referrerpolicy in some fashion as part of the Fetch API. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! That was a huge help. I may have more questions after I carefully study all of the linked material.
I do have a question about the comment "I think some of the earlier links suggest that 'always' is deprecated and instead 'unsafe-url' should be used."
Given that some sources[23] say things like "Supports an older draft of the specification with never, always, origin & default values", would "unsafe-url" or "always" on the a link be the best choice for achieving the the desired effect (overriding the "same-origin" in the head and sending full referrer information for that link) on as many browsers as possible? Or would something like <a href="" referrerpolicy="always, unsafe-url"> work? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Multiprocessor computing[edit]

In a year or so I may need a multiprocessor computer. I've seen 96 core workstation made by Dell in the past. I think they stopped selling those. In the meantime I want to study what is available. I went to SuperMicro[24], of course. It seems they offer 22 core workstations[25]. I need a workstation, not a server. Some of the websites say it is 22/24 cores. Somebody said that the second number after the slash is the number of "virtual" cores, that is, each real core has an extra one "virtual." XS8-2460V4-4GPU unit (workstation) also has 4 GPU as follows.

Someone suggested yesterday that SuperMicro hardware is an old news and now one can do multiprocessing via cloud (???) and also GPU's. Is it correct?

I would appreciate any comments.

Thank you. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is impossible to properly answer your question without you explaining in detail what you want to do that you believe needs multiprocessing. The answer for someone playing high-end video games or editing IMAX video streams is different than the answer for someone mining bitcoins, and the answer for someone mining bitcoins is different than the answer for someone who is doing complex SQL work on a huge database. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
22/24 doesn't make sense. You probably mean 12/24? See our hyperthreading article to understand the difference between actual cores and virtual cores implemented by hyperthreading. CodeTalker (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The second website he links to does show a 22-core Xeon system for $14,298. Yes, you can do such computing on the cloud. I've seen services that give you a small amount for free and then it costs for more. I looked into that, and for me it was more cost effective to buy several refurbished computers. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This is what I need to do. It is no gaming. It is numerical integration over a 2-D surface. I also need to compute the entire cycle in about 0.1 second. So, the idea is to break this surface into small fragments and use multi-CPU system, using one CPU to integrate over a 1/N area where N is the number of cores. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@CodeTalker, yes, I made a mistake, sorry. It was actually 22/44 cores. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bubba73, thanks. It is a very valuable piece of information. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It works with what I'm doing, but I don't know about what you are doing. I have 9 computers (i5s and i7s) that I got refurbished for $145-210 (bare bones) and I run 20-30 copies of the program. But in your problem, it sounds like you need one CPU to control the integration done by the others. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably you need to repeat the process continuously. Your bottleneck may well be interprocess communication. I would recommend prototyping your software and optimising the algorithms first. Then try it out on a cloud system. Only if that convinces you it will work should you invest in real hardware - remember the longer you leave the hardware purchase, the cheaper it gets (though not as quickly as it used to). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC).

Thank you for all suggestions. They really help. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The cloud can be used to test, but it probably won't give you a consistent response under 0.1 seconds. Networking delays, and waiting to get access to your VM could easily delay that much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
AboutFace 22 has not made it clear that he really needs a result in 0.1 second. It may very well be that what he requires is a sustained rate of 6000 results per minute and desn't care it the system takes 10 seconds to deliver the first result.
Getting back to the topic of multiprocessors, a $500 Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080 video card has 2,560 CUDA cores, and you can install four of them on a modern motherboard. The question is, are those 10,240 cores capable of doing the job AboutFace 22 wants them to do? If so, they may be considerably faster than even 22 general-purpose CPUs. Or they may not be able to do the job at all, forcing him to use the more expensive general-purpose CPUs.
There is another possible trade off between money and results. It may turn out that it makes more sense not to buy more expensive hardware but instead to hire a really good programmer to optimize the bottlenecks in his program. I have personally seen 100X speedups by replacing a poorly-optimized FORTRAN routine with a small assembly-language replacement, leaving the rest of the code as it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting posts and ideas. Thank you. I believe I described my task clearly. It is a numerical integration over a 2-D surface, namely a hemisphere. The process involves many repetitive operations. Optimization of the program is on my agenda and will be done. It is mostly finding or creating a simple database to store intermediate values instead of computing them every time. Using a video card which seems to be built on the multi core principle is something I learned only after posting this thread. How can I program for those cores? Is it possible? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That graphics card approach suggested by @Guy Macon really made me very excited. If I only could program even in Assembly language for it, that would be a solution to many of my problems. Thanks, ---AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think I found all the answers, thanks to @Guy Macon[26]. A very interesting development[27]. All I need is C or C++ and this is what I am doing now. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You can use the OpenCL library to run an R program on a high-end graphics card; this is probably more efficient than writing the code yourself in C/C++. Note that configuring the driver on a high-end graphics card can be very tricky: my best advice is to Google the best combination of OS, motherboard, and card, and follow the recommendations exactly (e.g. if it says to use Ubuntu 14.04, don't use 14.05). It took me months to get my card working correctly.OldTimeNESter (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@OldTimeNESter thank you. I am not familiar with OpenCL but FORTRAN, C, C++ are my territory. I will look into the OpenCL for sure though. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@AboutFace 22: What numerical integration algorithm are you using? Note that the best numerical integration algorithm will depend on both the integration problem and your hardware.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Adding an accent[edit]

So I just tried to add an accented E (É) to an article, but appear to have lost the ability to do so without copy/pasting an existing character. As far as I can remember to create for example E acute, you would hold CTRL and E (caps optional), but it seems when I did this just now I didn't get a response. Instead the cursor disappears as if it were retrieving a pull down menu, but nothing was showing. Do I need to change a setting to get it to work again? I previously had no problems with this function, but admit I haven't used it for a while. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance, This is Paul (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong place for your post. Go to Help Desk. They are very fast over there. All the answers by the staff. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I should have made it clear I'm asking this question in a wider context, as currently it doesn't work on any browser or word processor. It was editing Wikipedia that brought it to my attention, but it's not a Wikipedia specific problem, so here is probably the right place. This is Paul (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that in many Windows applications, you could type É by holding down Ctrl, pressing , and then pressing Shift-E. I just tested it and it didn't work. I assume it is part of the move to unicode. You have to memorize the unicode numbers for every letter now. Hopefully there is some setting to revert this change for users who want to continue to do it. (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you can use the 'Special characters' menu in the toolbar. Ruslik_Zero 17:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, I just found it under "Latin". Great stuff. Thanks, Ruslik, and also thanks to the anonymous user as I thought it was something I'd done to change things, or a problem with my computer. Now if anyone can tell me how to do it in Word/Open Office/Libre Office I'll be back on track. This is Paul (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe they each have "insert special character" in the menus. (But I don't need to know this because I'm on MacOS, which has smarter keyboards.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If I wanted to write an e-acute, I would hold down control, hit the apostrophe key, release control and hit the e key. This works in my word processor (word 2003) but not my browser (IE very old). Perhaps you've misremembered the key sequence? Ctrl-e is always likely to be a keyboard shortcut (like ctrl-p normally provdes print). Phil Holmes (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I find it unlikely could ever just push ctrl + e (or other suitable letters) to get an accented character by default in Windows as this strongly risks conflicting with program shortcuts. If you had this option, I strongly suspect you did something to allow this. Windows is fairly flexible so it would be relatively easy to add support for it.

As 209 hinted at, on some programs like Office it's possible to add accents by typing ctrl + some other character like grave mark ` then letting go and pushing a suitable letter. I just tested it on Word 2016 on Windows 10 Creator's Update and it still works. This is for Office 2007 [28] but I suspect its still current. Note as I said and the article indicates, you need to push ctrl + some other character like ^ including the shift if needed to get that character and then let go and quickly push the relevant letter (with shift if needed). I'm not sure if this was ever a general Windows feature, if it was I couldn't find much discussion of it which seems a bit weird, although there is a lot of discussion about alt codes so this is a difficult area to search. It's possible that it was supported on some other Windows programs besides Office but isn't any more and there is a Firefox addon which I think adds similar behaviour to Firefox [29]. Personally I have doubts this was ever a universal feature. Although less common, I imagine there may be cases where ctrl + possible accent symbol (or ctrl + shift plus possibly accent sumbol, e.g. 6/^) will conflict with shortcut keys on some programs.

There are of course plenty of other options to enter accented characters on Windows. If you regularly do it, you may want to consider another keyboard layout. US International [30] would allow you to entered accented characters by simply pushing the accent like character and then the relevant letter although this obviously slows things down when you want to use the actual character. (E.g. Quotation marks or tilde!) You can switch between keyboard layouts with a chosen keyboard shortcut key if that helps.

For some more options see [31]. (Someone there claims the Finnish layout used to have the ctrl plus accent functionality but it no longer works although I wonder if they are remembering wrong or confused. It's specifically claimed here as being Word only functionality compared to US English International and I'm fairly sure that page isn't only thinking of Windows 10 although this doesn't prove it wasn't functionality in some other keyboard layout.) Note one of the options there is to create your own keyboard layout [32] which I think still works on Windows 10 [33]. However I'm not sure if it's possible to introduce Word like functionality. You could however probably do it aith something like AutoHotKey. (Which someone else used to introduce OS X like functionality.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys, this is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for. I bought my current computer from a place that builds their own machines, so from what's been said above it sounds like it may have been set up that way, and perhaps cancelled out by a Windows update. I'll give the above suggestions a go anyway. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
If you have a UK keyboard, try AltGr+e. (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Very low level programming[edit]

How many man-hours would it take to make 4 minutes of techno music with an abacus? A Turing tape? (1 read, write, erase or square move per second) You can't actually hear it since the system's so slow and speakerless but just because the it's not a PC doesn't mean it's not Turing-complete. How many abacuses do you need? Turing tape squares? About how many words would it take to describe the initial state and "how to do it" in plain English (though if it has enough loops doing the instructions might make learning them seem like a millisecond?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

An abacus is not a programmable computer, so that part of the question doesn't make sense.
The rest of your question isn't likely to have an easy reference answer. You'd be asking us to do a lot of research, math, and estimation on your behalf.
Perhaps you could attempt the estimation yourself and ask us for any constants you can't find through your own research. ApLundell (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
A CD is 44,100 16-bit samples/sec*2 (~172 KB/s) so an uncompressed song is about 10 megabytes/minute. A decimal abacus with 10-14 rows of beads has a storage capacity of at least 4 bytes and can hold one 16-bit audio sample (stereo) or 2 samples (mono) so storing a song would take millions of abacuses. If a common abacus weighs only 100 grams(?) that'd be 2,000 tonnes of abacuses (stereo) or 1,000 tonnes (mono). Laid end to end the abacuses could span some continents if each was 1 foot wide. If 1 square foot they'd cover a large fraction of a square mile. This could be reduced greatly if compressed to mp3 or something. I don't know what the smallest program that can make electronic music is but surely one can be stored in only kilobytes or several megabytes. I don't know how many PC cycles it'd take but perhaps drawing the sound waves by hand would simple enough that a human could do it (calculating the value of each sample of i.e. saw-shaped waves of middle C, low F, high A or whatever the notes you need are, adding together like 7+ of them into chords, figuring out when to change the notes, calculating the new chords, and inputting the samples into roughly 10 million abacuses (mono). 1 second to write each abacus digit would be almost 5 years stopping only to sleep/eat/excrete. If you want the song to have tremolo, vibrato, portamento, glissando, volume changes, or stereo bouncing from one ear to the other that'd be a ton of more work. Perhaps it'd take over 100 man-years even without those effects but I can't estimate better than that. I've heard that some techno is made of 21 seperate notes(!) which would have to be added by abacus. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Low-level programming generally means writing software without the aid of a compiler to isolate the writer from the execution semantics of a computer architecture.
Techno is a genre of electronic dance music characterised by a 120 to 150 beats per minute tempo created with music technologies such as drum machines, synthesizers and digital audio workstations, and expresses what Adorno saw as the alienating effect of mechanisation on the modern consciousness. has some answers to What-is-the-best-equipment-software-for-a-beginner-to-create-electronic-music?
An Abacus is an ancient bead frame calculator capable of simple manual calculations such as addition but it is not capable of performing a program algorithm involving conditional branching or of synthesizing the sinusoidal tone waveforms of Electronic music.
Turing Tape is the name of a Seattle-area experimental musical project. You may be confusing this with the Turing completeness criterion in Theoretical computer science. Blooteuth (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I assumed that "Turing Tape" was a reference to the infinite tape drive on Turing's hypothetical machine.
It's a common misunderstanding that if a physical Turing Machine could be built to Turing's original specification (perhaps with finite tape) it would somehow be the "most primitive" computer possible. That's not really the case. It's more of a universal machine for thought experiments, not some primitive base case upon which all other designs are built. ApLundell (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think a talented musician might be able to use the abacus as a sort of inconvenient cabasa - an abacasacabasa? - and with a little imagination, you could probably perform at least a portion of a musical composition that some might call "rhythmic." Nimur (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It also depends on what you define as "techno" (do you count 8-bit music?). But I don't see the point of making music for a speakerless system unless you intend to make it write the notes down on the Turing tape. If it has no output, how do you decide if it's "made" anything? (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The question is very unclear, but one could imagine a computer program for generating music being written down on paper and "executed" by a human being. It's a common exercise in elementary programming classes to give the student a program and ask her to determine what it does by executing it manually. An abacus could be used to assist with any arithmetic operations required by the program. (Multiple abacuses would not serve any purpose, except perhaps to save the trouble of copying the result of an arithmetic operation onto paper.) Perhaps that's what the OP was asking. I would estimate that it takes a human 1 to 10 seconds to execute an assembly language instruction, so the answer would require determining how many instructions a music generating program takes, and multiplying by that number. Human are of course vastly slower than computers in executing computer code -- a typical modern computer takes less than a nanosecond to execute an instruction, several billion times faster than the human. CodeTalker (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
On the same lines as the abacasacabasa might I suggest Mechanical Turing Machine in Wood which definitely does make a noise though one would probably need a number of them to produce music like The Floppotron: The Final Countdown. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Forced crop[edit]

Why some social networks, including Facebook, apply a forced crop of the uploaded avatars? If the size is an issue, wouldn't it be better to just autoresize them pixel-wise? Brandmeistertalk 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think resizing is better than cropping? There's sites on the web which will resize for you if you like, just type something like 'resize photo' into Google and you find some. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In these cases I think resizing is better, as it preserves all desired areas, while in cropping you're forced to choose what to include. If I want a crop, I can do it myself. Brandmeistertalk 13:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
One reason might be that cropping will consistently work on all graphics formats and sizes, while resizing can sometimes create artifacts (at least in my experience). Cropping might also require less storage space than resizing, if they only store the cropped image. OldTimeNESter (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
As well as details being lost if it resized then one would also have to choose between bars at the sides or top and bottom because of the different aspect ration. One really needs to allow both cropping and resizing to satisfy most people. One advantage of resizing would be that it could produce a number of versions with the resolution determined by the target device, that takes a bit more support but it isn't too hard to do efficiently with modern browsers.. Dmcq (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Brandmeistertalk 16:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Do they? When you upload a Facebook avatar you don't have to upload it at some specific size.
I suppose you're complaining that Facebook forces your avatar to be square, instead of taking some rectangular image and just stretching it into the square box. Stretching like that would look really cheazy. People can always tell. And besides, it'll make people look fatter or thinner than they really are, making their face look different. ApLundell (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I mean you are forced to select a limited area on your avatar with subsequent automatic crop by the website. By resizing I specifically mean autofitting of an entire image. Brandmeistertalk 16:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But you aren't? I tried 1 minute ago and I can both crop (it needs to be square so cropping is semi automatic depending on the size) and resize (using the slider at the bottom). I have to select a square size thumbnail but I don't even have to keep the profile photo square, there is a skip crop button. (What this means is for both the crop and resize it shows in the thumbnail, but clicking on the profile picture will take you to the original photo. If you don't select it the profile picture will be the same as the thumbnail albeit possibly high resolution including I think upscaling to achieve a minimum res.) I'm using the desktop website so I can't say what the mobile app or website may do but it's definitely not required on Facebook as you implied. Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW, by "avatar", I'm assuming you mean profile picture. If you mean something else, I don't know what since Facebook doesn't have anything else which seems like an avatar. It's possible the pictures shown in other areas (like chat) taken from the profile picture may be more cropped, I never paid much attention. Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I had a quick look and AFAICS, both the chat and the thumbnail shown in place like next to your name on posts is not further cropped so yeah I'm fairly unsure what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It does seem the default option is to crop meaning the resize is not at the far left. Especially I think if it's a photo you are in and Facebook recognises you. Weirdly sometimes the resize bar shows at the far left but isn't, once you drag it it fixes itself. But yeah at least on the desktop site I seem to have no problem no cropping other than needed to be square and as said even that it only for the part shown in must circumstances the actual photo stays the same. The fact that the default is to crop does I presume mean if you don't get the option to resize you're SOL but it's definitely not forced in all circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Final test, the Android app seems to let you crop and resize using a typical mobile interface (pinching to zoom etc). The mobile site on Chrome Android does not seem to let you adjust in any way, you can't even select precisely where the square will be. You can use the desktop site on Chrome Android of course, which lets you adjust resizing (meaning turn off any both direction cropping) but you can't adjust the square (i.e. on direction cropping) due to the inability to drag or at least I couldn't work out how. If you have a browser which lets you do so, I guess it will work. I guess you must be using the mobile site (although weirdly not for wikipedia). Unfortunately mobile sites are often a lot more limited than the apps despite the promises of HTML5, probably not helped by the dominance of Android and iOS. Facebook is one of the better ones (e.g. notifications) but still I suspect they didn't think it was that important since many people probably just accept the default crop-resize option. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
One final comment, since Facebook is known to roll out different features to different users depending on a lot of different things like geographical location and browser, I can't guarantee that you have the same option available. Still most complaints about this seem to have died out perhaps 2 years ago at least that I found. (It maybe started about 4 years ago when the scale to fit option disappeared?) And I'm not certain the mobile site actually resizes or crops other than to the square by default as I see it suggested as a solution. It sounds like the app has had the option to adjust zooming and cropping for a while when the desktop may have still been limited. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually reading a bit more I'm not sure how many of the complaints are about cropping in both directions or about forced one way cropping. I.E. the thing which a lot of people seem to be unhappy about is that for a while it sounds like using the desktop site the profile picture was cropped to a square no matter what. (Meaning you wouldn't get a non square image when clicking on it.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It lets me resize just fine. The final image needs to be square, and it won't squish or stretch a rectangular image into a square. But If I start with a square image, it resizes to let me use the whole thing. (This is the web page I'm speaking of. I don't have the official app installed on my phone, so I can't test that.) ApLundell (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Linking to github files with space in its name[edit]

If I have a file named "" in my Github repo root, I can link to it within Github using the syntax:

   [my file](./

But sometimes filenames have a space in it, so when I have a file named "foo bar.txt" in the repo root, linking to it fails:

   [a filename with space in it](./foo bar.txt)

How could I make this work? (Other than the ugly workaround of replacing all spaces with underscore for all my files.) Scala Cats (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]


June 18[edit]


Why is francium so unstable? The article doesn't explain. Google found me a Prezi presentation ([34]), but first off that's not a reliable source for expanding the francium article, and secondly it doesn't explain why many isotopes of related elements, e.g. 238U with 54 more neutrons than protons, are so much longer lived. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Island_of_stability has some general info on how people have tried to understand stability of stuff with high atomic numbers. I don't think it gives a direct and simple answer to why francium has a short half life, but lots of good relevant information and theory is presented. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Additional good stuff at Semi-empirical mass formula, valley of stability, and magic number_(physics). The magic numbers and semi-empirical bits lead to to believe that a complete and thorough answer in terms of first principles may be beyond our current understanding though I'd be happy to see refs to the contrary! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
At a low level, it isn't very surprising - I mean, it's not like technetium sitting in the middle of the periodic table. It comes in a rogues gallery near the tail end of the known stable isotopes, between astatine and radon on one side and radium and actinium on the other. There is one little clump of stable isotopes after that - thorium, protactinium, uranium, neptunium, plutonium (protactinium and the latter two aren't all that stable, but at least you can take a picture of a big lump of plutonium, though somebody might have to kill you afterward). Wnt (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Minor note: you noted that uranium-238 has 54 more neutrons than protons. Yes, that's what makes it relatively stable. Neutrons, just like protons, attract other nucleons through the nuclear force, but, since they're electrically neutral, they don't repel other neutrons or protons. Hence, neutrons are essential for stabilizing nuclei with higher numbers of nucleons. The neutron–proton ratio of stable isotopes goes up with increasing atomic number, for this reason. -- (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
That is absolutely not the full story, or else heavier uranium isotopes would be even more stable. You need to take beta decay into account; too few neutrons and a few protons will want to turn into neutrons to increase binding energy, but too many neutrons and some will want to tun into protons for the same reason. In the middle we have the line of beta stability, a sort of "Goldilocks zone" for the nucleus. There are also regions of increased stability against other decay modes: here alpha decay and spontaneous fission are also important.
In the case of thorium and uranium, the beta-stable and alpha-stable lines coincide, and nuclides like 232Th, 235U, and 238U have not much of a desire to decay. Astatine and francium have a big problem because the lines do not coincide in that region: you will find that the most stable isotopes of At and Fr towards one decay mode quite readily suffer the other one.
Admittedly this explanation just puts the question one step further back. Why does the beta-stability line dive into a region of alpha instability just past Pb and Bi? The reason is because doubly magic 208Pb has a very stable closed nuclear shell, so much so that the energy gap between the highest occupied and lowest unoccupied proton and neutron shells is very big. Alpha decay thus ends up releasing enough energy and being energetically feasible, and thus if you look at a chart of nuclides the alpha-decay region appears to suddenly explode from polonium onwards. (Why Po and not Bi? Because making the alpha particle from Bi requires breaching the full subshell for both protons and neutrons. 210Po is less inhibited because emitting the alpha gets us back to the filled proton shell, and because both start and end nuclei are zero-spin; it is easier to form the alpha when the nucleons that form it are already paired the right way.) The same thing happens, though with much longer half-lives, in the lanthanide series once the closed shell of 82 neutrons is surpassed.
As a result, stability is greatly depressed until Th and U with their semi-closed shells at 142 neutrons and 92 protons. (Already the alpha- and beta-stability lines are not quite in sync; the most stable isotopes 232Th, 238U, and 244Pu can suffer double beta decay, and from Cm onwards spontaneous fission from the overly large Coulomb repulsion of protons puts an end to the island. But the region of alpha-stability is less skewed to the neutron-rich side than it is around astatine and francium.) Double sharp (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yellowstone national park super explosion[edit]

Would the eclipse which could be total in Wyoming put enough gravity on the hot magnma underneath yellowstone and make supervolcanos to destroy America? Can the fracking make it even worse? Thankyou! (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Total eclipses visible in Wyoming have, probably, happened multiple times since the last eruption 630,000 ago without any consequences. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
No. Absolutely not. A geographic location is totally eclipsed every few centuries on average. I don't know about fracking. And I'm on the East Coast but Wikipedia's news ticker is on my watchlist and I saw "Yellowstone national park super explosion" new section and 1 reply and was like oh my God. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
And even if it could, there's nothing to be done about it, so worrying is fruitless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
No, because eclipses do not have a significant effect on gravitional effects on Earth. It's just not fundamentally different from any other spring tide. Even then, the maximal effect is a perigean spring tide, which occurs three or four times every year (far more frequent than eclipses), and the August 2017 eclipse does not coincide with one. The maximal totality duration for August 2017 is about 2:40, substantially less than the possible maximum of around 8 minutes of totality. Finally, the inclination of the lunar orbit with respect to Earth (about 5°) means that even when the moon is maximally angled away from directly overhead, some 99.6% of the theoretical maximal gravity pull is still oriented along the vertical — that's the key bit to explain why the fact that it's an eclipse (and directly overhead) simply doesn't matter for gravitational purposes. — Lomn 19:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Also note that the solar eclipse of March 9, 2016 did not trigger an eruption of Lake Toba. Count Iblis (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
But wouldn't the tides suck more molten rock into the caldera? Scientists seem to be unconcerned because the caldera is only 10% molten rock, but tides could increase that. (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Why does the squirty hand soap dribble in hot weather?[edit]

There are no stupid questions, right? :D So: I have a squirty hand soap, i.e. plastic bottle with a vertical tube that dispenses the soap when the top is pressed down. Recently the weather has been hot (for the UK: high 20s ºC; and that part of my house is a heat trap), and I keep noticing that some of the soap has drooled out on its own. Is there some heat-related explanation for this? Equinox 00:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thermal expansion. A decrease of viscosity may play a role too. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I doubt expansion matters here. Likely the viscosity is rising with the temperature and the dispenser starts leaking because its not build to keep such highly viscose content. Easy to test. Put some of that soap into a glass and put the glass into hot water. Then check if it becomes more "fluid" when heated up. --Kharon (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Kharon: This is what I was thinking ... but take note that high viscosity means a high resistance to flow, while low viscosity liquids are what seem more fluid. Wnt (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The viscous friction normally keeps the thick fluid from the last use in the tube, but when it becomes thin, then gravity can pull it down. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Kharon: Rihgt! That's easy to test: replace the liquid soap with water and see how the device behaves (in normal temperature and in heat; when pumped and when left alone). Then replace water with glue or with plasticine and see again. Correlate results with temperature and with viscosity. --CiaPan (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that test would work, because with water it would flow completely out of the tube right away, as opposed to being thick enough to stay in there initially, and later becoming liquid enough to dribble out. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Using water (with food coloring over a paper towel) will prove that after pumping completes, there is still water in the tube. It drips out. If water remains in the tube after pumping, then we have to decide if it is reasonable that soap remains in the tube after pumping. Add gelatin to the water to get it between the consistency of the liquid soap and plain water. Does it still remain in the tube and dribble out? Keep increasing the consistency of the liquid. If you prove that soap remains in the tube after pumping (which makes sense), then you put the soap on a small cold dish with a thermometer and slowly heat it up. At what temperature does it start to get runny? Is it low enough that the ambient warm air could cause it to be runny? If so, you've demonstrated that soap remains in the tube and it is runny in the warm air. So, there is no need for gas expansion to explain the observation. There could be gas expansion - but it is not necessary and, in reality, gas expansion is a one-time thing. It would expand, dribble out some soap, and then be done. It won't dribble out soap every time you use the container. (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I put it down to thermal expansion, try loosening the pump from the top of the bottle (undo the thread a bit) and it will stop doing it! works every time for me here in Brisbane. (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Moka Animation.gif
Seconded: it's a matter of pressure, caused by thermal expansion of gas. The same way the Moka pot works. See the animation.
In a coffe pot the hot vapour presses water below, which escapes upwards through the internal vertical tube. The same way hot air in a soap bottle presses the liquid soap which escapes upwards and drips outside. --CiaPan (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There you're talking about boiling temps, and we aren't considering temps as hot as that here. The expansion created when a liquid boils to become a gas is far greater than that due to thermal expansion of liquids. See boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The coffee pot is an analogy, not an exact parallel. Try reading CiaPan's last sentence: air expands considerably when warmed, easily enough to create in the sealed, partially air-filled bottle a mild overpressure sufficient to force some soap through the pump mechanism. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The Moka pot effect is due to the change in volume of the contained gas, not the liquid. It's easy to calculate the change in pressure, using the ideal gas law. Assuming the container is air tight and doesn't change its volume, the pressure of the gas is proportional to the temperature, expressed in Kelvin. So, for example, if the temperature increases from 15 C to 32 C (288 K to 305 K), the pressure increases by 6% (17/288). At standard atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, the increased pressure would be about 0.9 psi. If the soap tube is 3/8 inch in diameter like the one I just measured, it has a cross sectional area of 0.11 square inches, so the force on the liquid in the tube would be about 0.4 Newtons (1.6 ounces). That seems like sufficient force to move the gelatinous soap. How much would actually be extruded from the nozzle would depend on the volume of the contained gas, since the pressure decreases as the air expands into the tube. CodeTalker (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the air won't expand into the tube. In the top-plunger design described by the OP, the tube extends (almost) to the bottom of the (partially) soap-filled bottle, so until the soap is (almost) entirely expended, the end of the tube will always be submerged in soap, while the (heat-expanded) air is exerting overpressure on the soap's top surface.
Sorry, I expressed that poorly. I meant the pressure decreases as the volume of the trapped air expands, due to the soap (not air) being pushed into the tube. CodeTalker (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
A possible contributory factor is that there must be something of a one-way valve effect allowing air into the bottle, otherwise as soap is expelled the air in the bottle would develop underpressure/partial vacuum and work against the pump mechanism, and the bottle (if flexible plastic) would tend to contract. Fluctuating ambient temperatures will then tend to "pump up" the internal pressure. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems barely worth mentioning Kipp's apparatus, though it's not that relevant. Wnt (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does Earth keep getting nearer and nearer to the edge of the "habitable zone"?[edit]

The idea of a habitable zone, a part of a solar system where liquid water can exist, is deceptively simple. After all, habitable for what kind of planet? But I cannot for the life of me figure out the NASA graphics with the green habitable zones that keep putting Earth nearer and nearer to the edge. Like [35] Figure 6 -- I mean, their bright green non-"optimistic" habitable zone would seem to have Mars more squarely in it than Earth! (I think this estimate comes from here, but I don't see that much explanation of the logic... while liquid water may have flowed on Mars once, under what conditions was that?)

I just don't get it. From first principles, I'd think a non-optimistic habitable zone would be about the width of Earth on the diagram. Maybe you can broaden it on the basis that a planet might be a bit bigger or smaller than Earth, have a bit more or less CO2, a bit more or less water and so on. It's true that the Sun was fainter before (faint young Sun paradox), but it's also thought to be the case that there was a snowball Earth as recently as 600 million years ago, and that this lack of insolation was something that held back development of life. We ourselves came out of an Ice Age, and our culture seems to think it can take a six-degree-C increase in temperature over the next century and scarcely even complain. So where does the asymmetry come from? Does a habitable zone include underground Martian brine? Because I'd think there's a chance you could find brine in a cryovolcano on Pluto, so is that habitable zone? Why wouldn't we be able to postulate a planet in the position of Venus with a thinner atmosphere and a high albedo that is no warmer than Earth, but still has seas? Wnt (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Life has existed for approximately 4 billion years, but we're near the end "In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher than at present. This will cause the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics will come to an end, and with them the entire carbon cycle." Count Iblis (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
We almost missed having stable liquid water, actually: if you look at circumstellar habitable zone, you will notice that even at 0.98 AU calculations (see the recent Kopparapu 2013 paper) show that an Earthlike world (which would need to have similar quantities of liquid water – that seems a plausible general assumption) would receive enough insolation to slowly boil off the oceans. Then the water vapour in the air would be split into hydrogen (lost) and oxygen by solar ultraviolet radiation, and the entry of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ends up going unchecked. Venus followed this route, and if the Sun was a little bit brighter (as it soon will be) we would too.
Mars is far enough away from the Sun that this problem does not apply. Instead, its problem is that it is too small and lacks a strong magnetic field, so its original atmosphere was stripped away by the solar wind and the water all froze. An Earthlike world at Mars' orbit may not have such a big problem. In general, the obstacles at the hotter side are more difficult to surmount than those on the colder side: the Kopparapu paper places the upper limit around the orbital distance of Mars. Double sharp (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
An additional factor is that Mars is apparently too small to have maintained tectonic activity, which apparently ceased there around around 2 billion years ago. On the Earth this causes atmospheric gases and liquids that have been chemically combined into the surface rock to be subducted and then recycled via vulcanism: on Mars, however, the rock-absorbed gases and liquids remain 'entombed' in the now-static crust. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Venus has infact a much higher albedo (0.75) then earth (0.3). Nevertheless its around 450 °C there. Its much to close to our sun. Also a habitable zone orbital position does not guarantee a habitable planet. It only implies a good chance for one. Many other properties can make it unhabitable. From toxic gases, vulcanic activity to an eliptic orbit around the sun, allot can be wrong. We need much more than the right temperature and some water. I dont understand what edge you refere to in the nasa diagram. As noted below our 3 planets are only put there as reference. --Kharon (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a lot more can go wrong. The border at about 0.99 AU merely alludes to how it can go wrong in one specific way (becoming a Venus), and the habitable zone merely states where things might not go wrong. It is quite possible that the border just outside the orbit of Mars is overoptimistic; at the very least it shows that planetary size is another way in which things might go awry. Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the paper I have been referring to. While it is true that we appear closer to the inner edge than we might really be, there is generally much less wiggle room at the inner edge than the outer edge. Earth would then look like a perilously borderline case, while Mars would almost certainly have been habitable had it been Earth-sized. Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Earth has been much hotter, apparently without going greenhouse
@Double sharp: Thanks for pulling up the paper! Albeit I find myself inhospitable to its content. So far, I see that they assume a 6.5 atm surface pressure, a fixed assumed stratospheric temperature of 200 K, and ignore the effect of clouds entirely ... then come up with the notion of a "moist greenhouse" that depletes all the water via a very sharp-edged set of curves for stratospheric content if surface temperatures get just slightly higher than on Earth. Now this is indeed alarming in that they show a curve where at a nearly constant Seff only slightly above 1, the surface of the planet gets more than 50K hotter - it suggests utter catastrophe awaits us with global warming, for example. But a problem I have with that theory is that we did that with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and nothing very significant happened. I mean, it wasn't long enough for a "moist greenhouse" to do much, so we don't know that, but we know the surface temperature didn't go completely insane and roast everything.
So I'm tending to reject the validity of their model to some degree; yet there is one thing I will admit... yes, the Earth has all the water it can have. I mean, I'd think it seems possible there was even more water at some point but it raised the level enough that some of it got lost to space - fine tuning us right smack dab on the inner edge of the "habitable zone" where Earth can exist. And by the same token, if Earth started losing water to "moist greenhouse" until it was 1/3 ocean and 2/3 land, surely the level of water vapor in the stratosphere would go back down again, no? Also, what about the magnetic field? Couldn't that drastically expand a habitable zone against slow atmospheric loss, just as its lack put Mars, it would seem, inside the inner edge in reality?
Comparing Venus and Mars seems to understate the importance of carbon dioxide. Earth has 0.0004 atmospheres of CO2; Venus has 90. It's hotter than Mercury on average, but I'm not convinced it has to be that way. I don't know what the CO2 level on Mars was when it had liquid water flow - if that was ever water and not a dense brine. So I'm just not buying all of this ... but the drastic moist greenhouse definitely seems worth keeping track of anyway, just in case they have something there. Wnt (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If the surface of Mars had been covered by brine, wouldn't it now be covered in salt ? StuRat (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Earth's case may have been complicated by the development of life. An aspect of the Gaia hypothesis is that, due to evolutionary-like feedback mechanisms, the Biosphere has tended to modify Earth's atmosphere in ways which moderate temperature extremes, to its benefit. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
We have to bear in mind that cloud feedback will cool the planet's surface down, and that given the minuscule increase of Seff needed for this, it may well have been cancelled out by the minuscule increase of the Sun's luminosity since that thermal maximum. So perhaps, given how close to the edge this seems to be, we could have gone that far up then and have had things return to normal; but if we did it now, the prospect of creating a positive-feedback loop and going the way of Venus seems more likely.
The reason why Venus is the way it is is because the water all evaporated away even before the CO2 got there to such a degree. Actually that is the first reason; the CO2 levels were only held in check by buffer reactions when the water was still there. Then it boiled off, and a few billion years later, here we are. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I found a chart with the temperatures in Oligocene (now included at right) - which marked the beginning of the permanent glaciation of Antarctica. It makes it apparent that the PETM was actually a small blip on a larger pattern ... why that pattern is as it is I have no idea. I mean, common sense says there has to be an upper limit, but I'm thinking that upper limit has nothing at all to do with the model in the paper. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The idea is that with this amount of effective insolation, the cycle can go up and down without problems, as things are balanced correctly. If you go too hot, for examples, the clouds of water vapour that form will cool the planet back down through their high albedo. The habitability limit the authors impose is when the cycle breaks down and there is nothing stopping the water vapour from accumulating without end. The authors acknowledge this and note that 0.99 AU is probably a little too pessimistic. But I would note that the authors also impose a standard Venus-style greenhouse limit, and it comes out at about 0.97 AU. So even if you disagree with the conservative estimate, the habitability zone still ends up not going very much past Earth, while going quite a distance past Mars.
In fact, it seems that because of radiative warming from CO2 clouds (again) and the possibility of using other greenhouse gases as well, you could extend the habitability zone another 0.2 AU at least past Mars' current orbit. I wouldn't dare to include Ceres in it as a few early speculations suggested, though. Double sharp (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you're taking these estimates a little too literally. There are so many variables and processes we don't fully understand that any of these models are ballpark guesses at best. As for what the "habitable zone" includes, I think the article is pretty clear: the area where persistent liquid water on a planet's surface is possible. As the article notes, this concept dates back to the 1950s. It's easy to forget that back then we knew practically nothing about other Solar System bodies, apart from them being rocky or gaseous. (Fans of classic science fiction will be familiar with Venus and Mars being depicted as slightly more extreme Earths. It wasn't until the '60s and '70s that probes started giving us a clear picture of what other planets and moons were like.) As we now know, there may be environments suitable for life outside of a star's "habitable zone", so maybe we should rename it the "Earthlike zone" or something else more accurate. -- (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed, they are all guesses, and the only vaguely reasonable thing we can say is that at some point things get Venus-like and at some point they get Mars-like, while shrugging our shoulders on where exactly this happens. I mention Kopparapu because he is recent and stands about midway between the historical optimists and pessimists, and gives a rough ballpark of the obstacles that may be expected at the extremes, but we should take all of this with about a mole of salt. The phenomenon Wnt refers to, minus all the authoritative-looking markers, would simply be to say that it seems to be rather easy to end up like Venus, which while plausible still needs more empirical data that is of course not going to be very forthcoming.
I think we focus on the water habitable zone because we know for a fact that life is at least possible in it. Whereas we don't know enough about other biochemistries: it could be that methane and ammonia are acceptable substitutes, but it could also be that there is some sort of obstacle that we just don't know about yet. So the focus on water comes out of caution. Double sharp (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Your comment on the natural cycles above may have some sense to it, but did they really refer back to the PETM to decide what the habitable zone was? But it gets me thinking that there ought to be a scientific way to infer how close we are to some catastrophic greenhouse effect (moist or otherwise). Basically, the Kopparapu group claim that there is a curve of Seff vs T that goes almost horizontal if S (I'll leave off the subscript from here in) goes just a little higher than it is now. So dS/dT goes practically to zero, or dT/dS to near infinity. But we ought to be able to infer those values directly from variations in the geologic data! We have the Milankovitch cycles to tell us exactly how much the insolation changes over time, and we can look at how much those cycles affected temperature of the Earth's surface when it was high versus when it was low. Based on this we should be able to integrate a real T(S) function and then fit polynomials to it to extrapolate what actually happens. I should say though that at a far lower level of analysis, just eyeballing the data figure I posted above, and assuming the variations (whatever their cause, definitely not Milankovitch cycles) are about constant, I don't see the temperature numbers getting wild and looking to explode off the top of the chart every few million years when it is hottest. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to Figure 3(c), I think the scale makes it a bit difficult to see, but the start of the horizontal region does not appear to be close to our current 288 K on a human scale, even though with such a wide range on the x-axis of course it will look pretty bad. Figure 3(d) shows that water vapour in their model doesn't start accumulating in the stratosphere until around 340 K, which seems a lot more plausible given that we never went anywhere near that, and seems to fit the position on the graph given. But thanks to the self-reinforcing nature of the greenhouse effect, and the rate at which T ought to increase with increasing Seff, I can believe that we avoided disaster by what looks like a large amount from the temperature perspective (since we never get anywhere near 340 K), but a small amount from the distance-from-the-Sun perspective. Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Health effects of sulforaphane[edit]

Cruciferous vegetables are healthy and that may be because of sulforaphane. But sulforaphane is destroyed by cooking so I don't understand how one can invoke the observed health effects in people who eat more cruciferous vegetables, because most people don't eat these vegetables raw. Broccoli sprouts contain more sulforaphane, but even in that case, you need to apply the right amount of heat for the right amount of time to get the most out of it, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Well eating them raw will preserve the substance. But there are probably other health benefits for cooked vegetable such as vitamins, and fibre. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Adding mustard seems to help. Count Iblis (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sulforaphane may or may not be specialty healthy, our article looks rather skeptical on this. Meaning cooking may makes no difference on a close to nil effect.
other possibilities includes
  • Sulforaphane are produced AFTER cooking and eating, from some others components that survive cooking
  • active substance may not be sulforaphane itself, but some other substance produced when sulforaphane is destroyed, while the cause of this destruction (cooking or digestion) do not really matter

Gem fr (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

What is the nonmetallic liquid with the highest surface tension?[edit]

Specifically at around 20 °C. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a data table in the surface tension article - the only things with a higher surface tension than water (apart from mercury) are concentrated salt and sugar solutions. There is another list here - - but nothing beats water. This list is even longer - - but the answer is still water. Wymspen (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
As far I can tell hydrogen peroxide actually has a higher surface tension than water does. But is there anything else? OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Are there any ionic liquids with a surface tension exceeding that of water? OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Only Mercury (which is a metal) and strong inorganic salt solution have higher Surface tension than water. Blooteuth (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm finding sources that say hydrogen peroxide's surface tension is higher. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I see a bunch of numbers at sites like this (though they'd have to be checked) - apparently platinum is higher than mercury at its melting point, and sulfur is higher than water. Near room temperature you can get anything from mercury-like surface tension to less than olive oil out of an indium-gallium alloy, I think it was in base, depending on applied charge. [36]
It would be interesting to see more of a theoretical overview of this. At a liquid's melting point, it almost has enough bonding to be locked into a solid. So why are some at a low surface tension and others at a high surface tension, based on different levels of cohesion between particles of the liquid? I assume there's some aspect of "flexibility" involved but I admit I have no clue on this one. Wnt (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you make thiourea from urea?[edit]

Can urea be converted to thiourea? How? I know thiourea is usually synthesized using hydrogen sulfide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This page describes three different methods for converting carbonyls to thioketones. Although those methods are given in general terms, not for specific compounds. I don't know if the amide groups of urea would interact with the other compounds used in those methods. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The examples on that page (two different reagents, two variations of the recipe for one of them) all say that certain amides are viable. But for the specific example of urea to thiourea (not regular amides, and not more complex structures containing these substructures), hydrogen sulfide can do it after an initial treatment with various metal oxides at a few hundred degrees celcius.[1] DMacks (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ CN patent 101602702, "A production method of thiourea from urea", issued 2009-16-12 

What mug material would make it hardest for soda bubbles to resist their buoyancy?[edit]

Teflon-coated diamond? Oil-coated glass? How would I know. The cup has vertical, smooth sides and is at sea level on Earth. Which material would make it easiest for the bubbles to resist their buoyancy? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What does "resist their buoyancy" mean? You want them to stick to the side of the mug without rising? CodeTalker (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Right. So one material would have the highest adhesion strength to bouyancy ratio and one would have the lowest. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that if you gave the bubbles a charge, and the water was very pure they would stick to the side. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest something that imitates Diving bell spider belly, that allow them to bring bubbles of air from the surface to their diving bell
that is, a "hairy" hydrophobic coating, so that, when the bubble detach from the hair, more water tries to touch it, which is resisted
Gem fr (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The Q needs clarification:
1) If you just want to prevent bubbles from rising, then preventing them from forming is one way. A lack of nucleation sites is one way to accomplish this, with very smooth sides and a pure liquid.
2) If, on the other hand, your goal is to have lots of bubbles sticking to the sides, then the above approach won't work. Here a container with "pockets" to catch the bubbles might help. StuRat (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
2, where it takes the most force to dislodge the bubbles (i.e. banging it on the table) and the opposite of 2 - which would look cool if they rise fast without percussive help but otherwise have no practical use. Perhaps something hydrophobic and smooth but not so smooth that there's no nucleation sites? Would they rise still in contact with the sides even if adhesion could be zero (since it's perfectly vertical) or would they break contact with the side out of a desire for spherical shape or because of turbulence if the adhesion was low enough that it wouldn't have resisted their rise much? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Turbulence is unlikely from just bubbles rising in soda. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Their mugmates burst sometimes though, as bubbles are prone to do. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How much damage would an explosion at Trinity that barely destroyed New Mexico cause?[edit]

That's impossible but what effects would that cause? About how many gigatons is needed to do it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Trinity was the code name of the first detonation of a nuclear weapon conducted about 35 miles (56 km) southeast of Socorro, New Mexico. Its explosive yield was about 22 kilotons of TNT (92 TJ). The article Nuclear weapon yield may be of interest. Blooteuth (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It may be noted that one of the things the physicists had to consider before the Trinity test was whether it might ignite a nuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere. They were able to rule this out, but as it says in the article, "Enrico Fermi offered to take wagers... on whether the atmosphere would ignite, and if so whether it would destroy just the state, or incinerate the entire planet." (Emphasis added.) -- (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Fun times, the Manhattan Project! I can recommend this book if this arouses your interest. (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC) (different IP user)
You need something like this. Count Iblis (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Tendons and ligaments are classified under muscular or bone system?[edit]

Tendons and ligaments are classified under muscular system or bone system? Basically they are not bones or muscles and that's why I have doubt. (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither. They're connective tissue. Rojomoke (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Death = last thing seen gets imprinted in the eye[edit]

This sounds like a urban legend or fictional thing, but I guess it won't hurt to ask. Is it true that when a person dies, the last thing they see gets imprinted in the eye and the image can be retrieved somehow?

This was used as a plot point in Saint Seiya (manga only, the eye thing does not appear in the anime) by the character Black Swan.

(I tried to Google this, but keywords like "... image eye last thing seen death ..." got mostly pages about the completely unrelated notion that we see our whole lives past our eyes when we die.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your hunch was right. The opsins in photoreceptor cells are degraded rapidly after being photoactivated by incoming light. This makes sense if you think about it. Your eye has to "refresh" in order to update what it's seeing. The membrane potential of the cell also rapidly resets to its resting state; furthermore, following death, the cell will deplete its energy reserves, the cell's ion pumps will stop working, and its membrane potential will dissipate. -- (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on Optography.--Shantavira|feed me 08:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
An interesting read. The idea is not false after all. But its usefulness as a forensic tool is pretty near zero. It would be interesting to see if this Gary Larson item could be accurate.[37]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Almost all organic cells keep functioning for a while after an Organism is regarded dead. Else organ transplantation operations, from victims of accidents that subscribed to be donor in case of death, would not work. So this imprint theory is completely made up nonsense as usual in movies and shurely much more so in japaneese ones. --Kharon (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The article disagrees. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The article Optography is already categorized in Category:Pseudoscience. So its hardly allowed to cite this here in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ;D. --Kharon (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But we don't have Wikipedia:Reference desk/Pseudoscience! Plus, if the answer were "Yes, this is true. Eyes do work like that in real life." it would be science. (thanks for the answers!) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dicotyledonous wood[edit]

What on earth is dicotyledonous wood? I came across the term while researching for draft:Akal Wood Fossil Park. There's no WP article about it and Google search mostly yields research papers only which are largely unintelligible to lay readers. A book search also failed to turn up any explanation for what it is. (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Obviously it's wood from a dicot, rather than a monocot. However, is it a term in any sort of use?
I checked my usual source for all such, R. Bruce Hoadley's Understanding Wood. It's not in there. A thorough check might also cover the US Forest Products Handbook. So although woodworkers are deeply interested in wood structure and distinguish between species, let alone hardwood and softwood, there's no evident distinction for dicots and monocots. Timber species are almost all dicots, the only monocots I can think of for commercial timber production would be the woody palms and bamboo.
From the context, I think that this is a palaeontological question, not a timber question. The point is that monocots are seen as "early" plant in a geological context and the dicots as "later". Their fossils are also identifiable by species, thus then (indirectly) categorizable as either dicot or monocot.
AFAIK (I may be wrong here, I'm no botanist, just a carpenter), there is no specific timber or fossil structure that shouts out "dicot", any more than other differences between species (there are some common differences between softwood and hardwood as groups). So a botanist still has to identify down to a finer detail than "monocot", such as "a palm" or "a bamboo" before identifying to the group level. But if the distinction is interesting as a fossil one, then they might be doing just that. Certainly identifying fossil species from structure, seeds or pollen grains is an important discipline. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think, most xylologists and foresters and botanists would not consider e.g. bamboo to be be true wood anyway. While our article doesn't call normal wood, dicotyledonous wood, it does have section on monocot wood, indicating its sort-of-wood status. So I suspect dicotyledonous wood is being used here as sort of equivalent to "true wood", and this is useful verbiage (Edit,see below) to distinguish from monocot fossils that may also be woody. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
And to clarify further: " there is no specific timber or fossil structure that shouts out "dicot", any more than other differences between species ", I don't think that's true. I think if a paleontologist had a small bit of bamboo fossil and a small bit of coinfer dicot fossil, they could immediately distinguish the two. The growth of monocot "wood" is very different, they don't have the same tissue structures. See here [38] for some discussion of differences, and e.g. here [39]. One easy detail is that monocots won't have growth rings. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Monocots (for the most part) don't produce wood. Nor are monocots the most primitive angiosperms, the claim above is not even close. The Magnoliids are usually called dicots, and they along with a few other minor groups are the oldest angiosperm clades. They produce wood, unless they are herbaceous. The two crown clades of Angiosperms are the monocots and the Eudicots which are equally recent. Conifers also produce wood, so it is not unique to Angiosperms.
Basically, dicot wood in the broad sense is what we think of as hardwood, and include wood from the Magnoliids and the Eudicots, but excludes wood from the conifers and monocots. It's a taxonomically invalid (polyphyletic--like calling whales fish) grouping, but it is useful in forestry and woodworking.
Of course there are the articles wood and secondary growth. There's also Plant Biology, Raven, Evert, and Eichorn which gives an encyclopedic view of the biology of the Plantae proper as well as other organisms such as fungi and protists historically treated as part of botany from an evolutionary and physiological standpoint.
μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Nobody said monocots were primitive, so I'm not sure what or whose claim you're referring to. But I do think you're right that coniferous wood would be excluded from "dicot wood", so I've stricken the "true wood" bit above, because it's confusing. For the rare occurrence where it comes up, "dicot wood" is basically synonymous with "hardwood" SemanticMantis (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

From the context, I think that this is a palaeontological question, not a timber question. The point is that monocots are seen as "early" plant in a geological context and the dicots as "later".

could be intepreted that way, whether or not it was the intention. I personally did intepret it that way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
"*Monocots (for the most part) don't produce wood" but see Coconut timber. Alansplodge (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Solar eclipse hype[edit]

Today on the CBS Morning News Charlie Rose said "A total solar eclipse will cross the United States for the first time in 99 years." That would at first blush seem to mean no "total eclipse" in any US state since about August 1918. I have seen this August 2017 eclipse similarly hyped elsewhere. It seems like every decade the newscasters tell us there is about to be the first such eclipse in umpty-ump years and there won't be another one in our lifetimes, as if we have no memory of previous eclipses. The article List of solar eclipses visible from the United States lists "total eclipses" which crosses the US.Neglecting annular and partial eclipses, it lists the most recent one as the Solar eclipse of July 11, 1991 and says Hawaii (by then long since a US state) saw a total eclipse. It lists Solar eclipse of February 26, 1979 whose article says there was a total eclipse in five US states. It lists Solar eclipse of March 7, 1970, whose article's map appears to show totality across several east coast states. It lists Solar eclipse of July 20, 1963 whose map appears to show totality crossing at least Maine. It includes the Solar eclipse of June 30, 1954 which had totality over several northwest states. It says about the Solar eclipse of July 9, 1945 that "The path of totality crossed northern North America, ..." and a semi-legible map shows the path crossing several northwest US states. It says the Solar eclipse of August 31, 1932 hit the NE US and the map seems to show a couple of NE states in the path. The Solar eclipse of April 28, 1930 hit the northwest US states. The Solar eclipse of January 24, 1925 produced a total eclipse viewable in New York City. The list claims the Solar eclipse of September 10, 1923 hit the SW US, but the fuzzy map and the article about the eclipse imply the totality missed the US. Then we get to the 99 year eclipse: The Solar eclipse of June 8, 1918, which crossed many states from the northwest to the southeast. But how can they dismiss the eclipses of 1991, 1979,1970, 1963, 1954, 1945, 1932, 1930, and 1925? From 1918 to 2017 inclusive, there have apparently been 11 total eclipses visible in one or more US states, for an average of 8.9 years. What am I missing here? That is more often than some people trade cars. Do astronomers endorse this hype? Edison (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1925 eclipse was pretty cool. A scientist asked people what street they were on and whether they saw totality and 100% saw it above 96th Street and 0% saw it below 94th Street (or something similar). 1 street is only 264 feet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
One news story added the qualifiers "first total solar eclipse to cross the United States from coast to coast in nearly a hundred years" which seems accurate, but so far as one's personal experience, you just see it in one place (absent pacing it from inside a Concorde as was once done)., and the sense of wonder is not much greater to know that many others can see it too. Yet Rose said he had "never seen one, and little wonder, since there hasn't been one in a hundred years" which seems to be nonsense. Edison (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Correct, that's the big thing here. coast to coast, more states, more 'potential observers within reasonable travel distance' than in a long while. 1918 was somewhat comparable to this event in terms of the track. So 'for the first time in 100 years' is somewhat accurate in that regard, but it should be noted that the 2045 event will be similar (longer even). So yeah, it's a bit of hyperbole, but then, that's the news. For anyone outside Hawaii, NYC, or the North West, there is a big chance that you have not had this good an option to observe a full eclipse in your lifetime before. Esp. because modern times has made travel this cheap. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It's ignorance, more than anything else. Here's a report of an eclipse which never happened:[40] (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW, as having personally observed a total eclipse in France when I was in my teens, I would advise any and everyone to take any opportunity you can to observe it. It's one of the strangest experiences I ever had. Will never forget it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Solar eclipse of February 15, 1961. I remember it as a deep partial eclipse. My mother saw a total one - for practically everyone in Britain 11 August 1999 was clouded out, and the one before that was 30 June 1954 (also visible as total in the United States). Our article Solar eclipse of August 11, 1999 could do with some work - it claims it was "the first visible in the United Kingdom since 29 June 1927". (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Few saw the '91 umbra in America because the average July sunniness of Baja vs Hawaii made many people plan to fly or drive to the tip of the Baja desert to see it and by the time the weather report showed it was more likely to be seen in Hawaii than Mexico flights to Hawaii were probably pretty expensive. In the end the desert of Baja California had lots of cloud and the tropical rainforest of Hawaii saw the eclipse. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What plane is this[edit]

What plane is this[41]? I've never seen anything with that kind of a belly before. The screenshot is from 0:40 of this video[42]. Scala Cats (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

C17 Globemaster? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
That's it. Thanks! Scala Cats (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Can acetic acid in aqueous solution alone pickle foods?[edit]

Is it safe enough to be consumed? (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if suitably manufactured. In the UK it has long been sold as "Non-brewed condiment", diluted and coloured with caramel, as a substitute for malt vinegar. "Vinegar", if sold under that name, must be made by brewing (or at least fermentation). NBC uses industrial acetic acid. It is cheapest (if you're buying acetic acid for industrial workshop use) to buy these "acetic acid pickling vinegars" in gallon jars, rather than a chemical reagent-grade acid.
Note though that glacial acetic acid is fairly easily available but warrants all the care in handling of any concentrated acid. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This sounds like normal "white vinegar" we use in the U.S. It is the most common vinegar and apparently can use either foodstuffs or petroleum as a starting material although the industry claims not to be aware of any company making food-grade vinegar from petroleum.[43] It seems in the UK, malt vinegar may be the main type in use and laws do not allow certain other products to be labeled as vinegar: non-brewed condiment. Rmhermen (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and you could pickle with it, but it would be a bit nasty if used "alone" (emphasis in title). A typical pickling solution would include salt and other seasonings. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

anal sex & hygiene[edit]

a. What measures (or cleaning routine) are taken to keep the rectal region clean ? How sexually engaged couple makes sure that there are no remaining excretions behind ? Is an enema required each time they commence love-making ? b. Is the issue of remainings age dependent ? Namely, natural cleaning processes are more efficient when we're younger ? c. A few years ago, as I remember, I saw somewhere in Wikipedia (through 'external' or 'see also' ?) some guide regarding this issue, medically & hygienically. Any ellaboration is welcome. בנצי (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a guide from Cosmo [44], here's one from Men's Health [45]. Dan Savage also has plenty to say on the topic, see e.g. here [46] or search The Stranger archives for related content. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Also see under point 3 in this Article in the cosmopolitan. Seems google thinks cosmopolitan-readers practice this allot :D. Doubtfull if "amateurs" always take as much care and you can be shure todays media would reveal if both ever did any seriouse harm to anyone - i remember reading about people needing surgery after "working" themselves up with big objects in that area so anything alike oddly ironic would have made headlines too. I also read there are far worse (medically & hygienically) frequently practiced kinks in human sexuality. --Kharon (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about Anal sex has general information but it is not a how-to guide. However it links to an external guide that concludes "The most important pieces of advice anyone can give on anal sex are: lubricants, condoms, and patience." Blooteuth (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I've seen written about this topic that don't seem to add up. For example, I have no idea how the logistics of prison rape are supposed to work when it is done this way (and certainly I've seen sources that say it is). Are the victims forced to prepare in advance, or do the guards see one guy crying with a soiled uniform in the rear, and another with a soiled uniform in front, and just smile and keep going about a good day at work? And there are authors like Norman Mailer who seem to engage in flights of fancy, or at least, fantasies that omit anything unappealing. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Preparing is not mandatory at all, and I confirm it does not get messy very often, even without any preparing. But many people like to prepare. Here is a very detailed description with drawings of how to thoroughly prepare (not safe for work) : [47] --Lgriot (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Free Neutrons making dark matter[edit]

I have a doubt. Please clear it. Can neutrons interact with electromagnetic radiation or electromagnetic fields? I am thinking that as neutrons have no net charge, they don't interact (I may be wrong). So I have a thought that free neutrons (like a diffuse gas) may contribute to majority of dark matter. (The reason for my doubt is that neutron stars can produce radio waves). So my major question is that can slow and diffuse free neutrons interact with electromagnetism considerably? Please help me.--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The origin of this doubt : Majority of normal matter is Hydrogen. Hydrogen's majority don't have neutrons. If neutrons were produced in roughly same number as protons, I think the rest of the neutrons could not make a nucleus and may be diffuse forming the dark matter.--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrons are not elementary particles. The net charge is practically zero, but it is made up of charged particles. It does interact with electromagnetic fields. A simple experiment shows this. Shoot a beam of neutrons through a strong electromagnetic field and it will separate into two beams. (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Neutrons are not stable. With the half life of ~882 seconds they would decay very fast emitting in process copious amounts of energetic electrons. Ruslik_Zero 19:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The charge on a neutron is zero within the limits of experimental accuracy, so it is not affected at all by an electric field. The magnetic component of an electromagnetic field is what affects the path of the neutron. Dbfirs 20:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Some of the above might be confusing, so I should emphasize that as far as I know nobody expects to see any small amounts of charge on a particle - it is believed that all free particles have multiples of the elementary charge and quarks have multiples of 1/3 that amount. The charge does not vary with reference frame like other parameters in special relativity, so you can't get partial charges at a point in space by shooting things past each other either. I have no idea what kind of awesome mathematics can be invoked to explain that quantization, but I think no one expects to find a fractional charge on a neutron if they look really hard. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Neutrons and protons were indeed formed in similar quantities at the Big Bang, but most of the neutrons all quickly got mopped up by Big Bang nucleosynthesis into helium-4; the unlucky ones that didn't decayed away. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Only neutrons traveling at super relativistic speeds could survive for a long time. But even these will be turning into high energy protons and electrons that would be easily detectable. However it is quite easy to make dark matter from matter contains neutrons. If there were many free floating Earth or moon like objects floating between the stars they would be dark. However these might be detected by gravitational lensing or eclipsing stars. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is this seal used on buzzers ?[edit]

Why do we need to remove this seal after washing etc.[[48]] (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This seal is there to cover the hole that is underneath. When a PCB has been assembled the soldering flux is washed off and the seal prevents this fluid from getting into the hole and damaging the buzzer. The seal also mutes the loudness, which in some applications may be desirable. The innards of these devises are also affected by moister etc., and thus its life can be prolonged by leaving the seal in place (at the expense that it operates more quietly). Also note, the circle with the + sign within it, aids quick identification of the positive terminal; although this should be obvious from the length of the leads. Aspro (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Whoops... Completely missed answering your question. One does not need to remove it. The manufacturer of the buzzer leaves the choice to its customers – but only after washing. Aspro (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Random chance, probability, and predictability[edit]

In chemistry, I once learned that the exact locations of the electrons are not known (and probably not important anyway), but the probability of finding the electron at a particular point can explain why something bonds with another. Then in statistics, I learned about probabilities, which then made me think of randomness. In a realistic setting, what is randomness? While in theory "random" means "everything is equally likely", how is this practically possible? If one writes a personal name on an index card and repeats the process for 50 index cards, each having an unique name, and then puts all the cards in a Black Box and shakes the Black Box, then it may seem random that a random card will be drawn, but in reality, the card at the top may be more likely to be drawn than the card at the bottom. Maybe "randomness" is the "unknown"? If one doesn't know or expect something, then it's "random"? Another case is when a teacher lists the students "randomly". Practically, the students may race to the teacher and line up. Whoever's first in line may just happen to be closest to the teacher to begin with or be the fastest person in the room. The last student in line may be the slowest person, or because he/she can't find any open spots, may be forced to be the last in line. At what point is something "random"? At what point is something "biased" or has some sort of tendency/correlation? (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is trickier than it may appear. Probability and statistics of discrete events (i.e. probability of a 2 dice roll being a seven (1 in 6) verses a 2 (1 in 36)) is different than quantum location where the distribution is a fundamental construct of the particle. Temperature of a gas is the mean of the temperature of individual particles and processes like evaporative cooling and sublimation work on the principle that particles are discrete. An electron in the orbital is a completely different construct that is described in models as a distribution and probability but lacks discrete components that can be separated to define the distribution. It is not a collection of random individuals but the distribution is a fundamental part of the particle. --DHeyward (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Randomness doesn't mean all results are equally likely. It means the next result can't be predicted from the previous result. Iapetus (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There several definition of randomness, yours is one of them. "all results are equally likely" is another definition, perfectly legit provided (big caveat!) you have a correct definition of "result" (ie: equal chance for a dice to produce 1-6, which is correct, vs equal chance for a dice to produce 1 or not, which is not). Unfortunately those 2 definition do not means exactly the same. Gem fr (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Your question is hard, and not solved. There are different definitions of randomness, that do not exactly overlap. A system perfectly deterministic, but chaotic and hence unpredictable ( n-body problem or Double pendulum for instance), can be said random because unpredictable, or NOT random because prefectly determinist.
I would recommend determinism and Bohr–Einstein debates for the famous "god don't play dice" quote and implications. Also maybe Hidden variable theory: obviously in your student example, there are hidden variables (proximity and sprinting abilities), so the order is not random, but pseudorandom. It could however be argued that those variable are themselves randomly distributed, meaning the result is random. But it is no longer, if the teacher is well aware of these abilities, meaning he actually choose the result, hence it is not random. When you think of all the things that make you shift back and forth between "it's random" and "it's not random", you end up at classical Antoine Augustin Cournot's definition of randomness (i just wonder why it is neither in his article nor randomness) « Encounter of two independent causal series ».
for instance : a first series of causes made you arrive somewhere, sometime; an other series made a bus arrive at the same place at the same time. The more common causes there are, the less random (the more biased) your encounter with the bus is. With enough knowledge of the causes, your encounter could be perfectly predicted (or explained afterward and then appear it HAD to happen), but would nonetheless stay random (according to this definition) provided they stay independent.
hope it helped, although it may rise more question than it answered Gem fr (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Can wine and beer be used to clean stuff?[edit]

Rubbing alcohol is isopropyl alcohol. Drinking alcohol contains ethanol. What happens if flour (with added water) is left fermented on the kitchen counter for a very time and then the fermented liquid is used to make beer, which is then used to clean stuff? Will ethanol still work as effectively as isopropyl alcohol? Is it safer to use ethanol than isopropyl alcohol simply because you can ingest it safely? If you add a lemon wedge or slice to the ethanol solution, then will it smell like lemons too? (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Ethanol does make a good cleaner, beer and wine is usually only between 4-15% ethanol. The other stuff in beer and wine will make whatever you want to clean dirtier than before you started, defeating the purpose. Neutral spirits, such as vodka or moonshine can be used to clean things, though: [49]--Jayron32 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Even so, rubbing alcohol is usually 70% which is stronger than most vodkas, whiskeys, rums and so on.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Isopropyl alcohol is more toxic to humans' central nervous system than ethanol but it's not that toxic. It'd take about a half shot to be toxic. Methanol is more toxic. Now that's some dangerous stuff. Even so, if the thing being cleaned is 50.4's mouth, using 70% isopropyl alcohol is a bad idea even if you spit it out immediately. The mouth will instantly desiccate and take days to heal. Alcoholic mouthwash is designed to not do that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
"The mouth will instantly desiccate and take days to heal." Some people actually tried that before? (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Well at least the hard palate. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
"IPA causes rapid intoxication, so people sometimes drink it to get drunk. Other people use it to attempt suicide". What Is Isopropyl Alcohol Poisoning? Alansplodge (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Some Russians told me it had been popular during Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like you're describing this IPA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Deglazing (cooking) where wine is used to dissolve the gunge off the pan after frying some meat, especially if the meat has been coated in a seasoning with flour. Dmcq (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinhole Camera[edit]

1. (Just to double check) Can a pinhole camera contain a lens element?

Assuming the answer is no, then:

2. Are these[50] really pinhole cameras? I can see a little glass-like reflection from little hole. And this site[51] sells what appears to be the cone-like tip of the camera, and it clearly contains a very large lens element.

Note that I'm not suggesting the seller is misrepresenting his product. Linguistically "pinhole camera" certainly covers all miniature cameras, regardless of operating principle. He has every right to sell it as a "pinhole camera". I'm just interested in learning about the operating principle behind these cameras. If they're not true (scientifically speaking) pinhole cameras then how come the front lens elements can be made so small? Is there a limit to how small the front lens elements can be before performance is unacceptably degraded? Scala Cats (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, diffraction. This is the same reason why a telescope lens has to be at least 115.8 millimeters wide to look as sharp as 20/20 vision at 60x magnification. Almost certainly not coincidentally, this is almost 60 times the width of the human pupil in the daytime. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


There are two completely different things that are called "pinhole cameras".

The first uses a pinhole instead of a lens. It is characterized by having everything in focus no matter how close or far it is, and by requiring a huge amount of light (typically full sunlight, fast film, and long exposures). Example:

The second uses lenses, but configured in such a way that you can drill a pin-sized hole in a wall with a cone-shaped space behind it (there is a tool for that) and then take pictures of the inside of the room, hopefully without anyone noticing the pinhole your camera is looking through. Example:

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


June 17[edit]

Majority as logical quantifier[edit]

What kind of logical quantifier is that represented/expressed by the noun majority?-- (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Normally it means more than half, so more than 50%. A recent example is the recent UK election. Before the election the Conservative party had a majority (of seats). But after the election they no longer have a majority, though they are still the largest party, so in a sense they won the election.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
So, in math notation, that would be "> 0.5". To give an example, let's say the story problem is "Prove that the 5,6,7,8 rolls of a pair of dice represent the majority of dice rolls". So, if we used R2(5) to represent the probability of rolling a 5 with two dice, that statement becomes "Prove that R2(5) + R2(6) + R2(7) + R2(8) > 0.5". StuRat (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

What's the distance?[edit]

A boat take 23 min 35 secs to complete a course at average speed of 23.21 knots. How far has it travelled in miles, and how far in metres? Moriori (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
(Yes, I know you've probably asked questions here before, but I firmly believe we shouldn't work out solutions without the asker first trying; knots = nautical mile/s).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted. The figures I gave came from an actual America's Cup race this morning. I casually asked a couple of friends what the distance travelled would be, and got two different answers. Eureka, I know, I said, I'll ask at the wiki maths reference section which has all sorts of boffins involved. Unfriendly testy ones too I see. Moriori (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you will use the same sort of wording that a homework problem would, it shouldn't be surprising if people think that's what you're doing!
A nautical mile is 1852 meters, but a knot is one nautical mile per hour (3600 seconds), not per second as Jasper said. So the distance in meters is 1852 × 23.21 × (23×60 + 35) / 3600 = 16,895 m, which should be rounded to 16,900 m since the inputs only have 4 significant digits. Now a mile is 1609.344 m; so divide by that number and you get 10.50 miles. -- (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
My bad, I'm so used to using seconds for time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Reasonableness check - a nautical mile is a bit longer than a statute mile. So we have a boat travelling at a little more than 20 mph for a little less than half an hour. So ballpark answer is 10 miles. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Solvability of the Rubik's cube group[edit]

I don't mean solvability of the puzzle, but rather, whether the group is a solvable group. To me, it seems like it is not solvable for similar reasons as the Galois groups involved in the Abel-Ruffini theorem. I've tried looking this up but couldn't find an answer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

All subgroups of a solvable group are solvable. But (even permutatiions of corner pieces) and (even permutations of edge pieces) are subgroups of the Rubik's Cube group, and and are not solvable (since they are simple and not Abelian). So we can conclude that the Rubik's Cube group is not solvable. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Technically, the piece permutations form a homomorphic image of the Rubik group. But the homomorphism splits so there are isomorphic copies of these groups as subgroups. It should be mentioned that the Jordan–Hölder theorem comes into play here as well: the fact that if one non-solvable group appears as a quotient then there is no decomposition series with solvable factors. --RDBury (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Random walk on a 2d rectangle graph[edit]

I have a 2d rectangle graph with 4 vertices: A,B, C, D. An agent start moving from an initial position p0∈{A,B,C,D}, either clockwise or counterclockwise. When encountering the vertex A, it can change its movement direction with probability of 0.5. How can I calculate the probability the agent will be at position P after t time steps? intuitively I guess after long enough time the probability to be in each of the 4 positions is approximately equal, but I am looking for an analytical solution. I am especially in a modeling that can be extended to other movement schems (i.e. various "direction flipping" points or other probabilities for changing the direction). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You probably want to have a look at Markov chains. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If t = 0 mod 4 then the agent must be at vertex A, and if t = 2 mod 4 then it must be at position C. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Please notice agents don't necessarily start at A, and change movement direction randomely when visiting point A. (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this works: Label the positions with their numerical values 4, 3, 2, 1, such that the initial direction of movement is toward a lower number with wraparound. Let x_n be the position after n moves (n≥0). Then for n≥1 n≥x_0 we have:
If n = x_0 + 4k, Pr(x_n=4)=1;
If n = x_0 + 4k ± 2, Pr(x_n=2) = 1;
If n = x_0 + 4k ± 1, Pr(x_n=1) = 1/2 = Pr(x_n=3).
Loraof (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
can you please explain how did you derive this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I set it up so after n= x_0 iterations, we are at the value 4 with certainty. After that, every four more iterations in either direction brings us back to the value 4 with certainty. From value 4, two iterations more or less in either direction would leave us at 2 with certainty, whereas from 4 one iteration more or less moves us left or right, and hence to value 1 or 3, with the equal probablilties you gave as 0.5. (Note that I have changed the above slightly so that it applies for n ≥ x_0, since smaller numbers of iterations give a deterministic result.) Loraof (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

0^0 other values...[edit]

The standard explanation of the fact that 0^0 is undefined is the fact that lim x->0 of x^0 remains 1 and lim y->0 of 0^y remains 1. Considering this as part of the graph z=x^y, is there an easy way to figure out the line of the form y=kx that approaching (0,0), the limit is 1/2 (to pick a number).Naraht (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The limit of x^(kx) is always 1. This can be found in the exercises of any calculus textbook in the chapter on limits. A good rule of thumb when dealing with limits of the form f(x)^g(x) is to begin by taking a logarithm. JBL (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Naraht: Take
for any real constant k and you'll get a curve approaching (0, 0) which maintains
Example graph at Wolfram Alpha: link. --CiaPan (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_power_of_zero talks about this. In fact entering 0^0 gets there. Dmcq (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Symmetric closure of transitive relation[edit]

Is there a transitive relation whose symmetric closure is not transitive? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you put any thought into your questions before you post them? If so, perhaps you could adapt your posting style to demonstrate it. If not, perhaps you should. --JBL (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please either help, or do not; being bitey is wasting everyone's time, and reflects poorly on our reference desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think JBL's comment is legitimate. IIRC the OP posts a lot of questions. I haven't followed this closely enough to recognize if there's an offending pattern, but if there is, it's justified to call them out on it. The reference desk does have rules. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Meni. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect repeat users to include a sentence of the form "Here is what I have tried before posting this problem: ...." (In this case, such a sentence would not include "looking at relations on a 2 or 3 element set.") --JBL (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me we don't need such a policy; if you don't like a question then don't answer it. Probably more people will find a question interesting enough to answer if the poster says what they've tried, so maybe it's to the poster's advantage to do that, but it shouldn't be a requirement. --RDBury (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not asking for a policy, I am asking for a cultural norm: people shouldn't post thoughtlessly here. --JBL (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I haven't thought about this stuff in a long time but symmetric closure would seem to preserve transitivity. If R is the transitive relation, and S is one symmetric closure, then you know (aRb & bRc) => aRc, and you know that bSa => (aRb or bRa). From here you need only to work out that (aSb & bSc) => aSc. Does that clear it up? SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the answer to the OP's question is positive. I can think of at least three very nice examples. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the smallest number of for the underlying set is two. Specifically, if S={0, 1} and R={(0, 0), (0, 1)}. R is transitive but R∪Rt is not. An easy way to check transitivity is to think of R as a Boolean matrix, then R is transitive iff RR⊊R. --RDBury (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Since by now the OP has hopefully had some time to think about it, I'll share what I had in mind (which are less artificial than yours):
  • Real numbers (or any other totally ordered set) and (has to be strict inequality).
  • Positive integers and .
  • Sets and .
As for your example, it can be trimmed down further if you're ok with R being transitive vacuously - . -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice one, even more minimal. There are more permutations to think about: Is the transitive closure of symmetric relation still symmetric? Is the symmetric closure of a reflexive relation still reflexive? There are six basic combinations but there are more complex ones too. It looks like the answer is yes for most combinations. --RDBury (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
So corrected, thank you. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]


June 17[edit]

Consolidation Act[edit]

What was the earliest consolidation bill passed by Parliament? Peel's Acts are the earliest ones that I know of.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The Inclosure (Consolidation) Act 1801 was earlier, no idea which was the first. Warofdreams talk 21:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If everyone owned an equal number of shares[edit]

Imagine every citizen has come to own an equal number of shares in every company in the country. This will cause a large fraction of the country's GNI to be divided equally among them. What effects would this have on the economy? Would it be good or bad for their standard of living? I assume a lot of people would give up working if they could live on the dividends. Would that make the whole thing a failure?-- (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a request for "opinions, predictions, or debate", which we don't do here. -- (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I imagine it's something that's been discussed by economists and I'm interesting in reading what they had to say about it.-- (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The dividends wouldn't be enough to live on. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Based on the estimates here [52], if all US dividend payments were redistributed equally to all US residents, it would amount to about $1300 / person / year. Not enough to make a large difference to the standard of living of most people. Dragons flight (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
A Vatican citizen with a thousandth of the Church would pull in about $75,000 a year, just from American donations. That's an impressive-sounding 130 million lira, or a little over double middle-class Italian. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, June 17, 2017 (UTC)
Dividends from shares are supposed to be taken from profits, not throughput. And as to the original question, exactly how would this differ from communism, would it be because people would not get any extra help if they got sick for instance? Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
How is the pence not profit? That cash is only earmarked for "the many different needs of the Universal Church and for the relief of those most in need." As long as an ostensibly decent Pope's in charge, those needs will be ostensibly be limited to the decent sort, but the Pope's shadier neighbour could spend his chunk of the daily bread on heroin under the same faith-based agreement. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
Note that some approach like this may actually be necessary, at some point, when working for a living no longer becomes practical for most people, due to replacement by robots, computers, etc. The alternative is high tax rates on the corporations and the few who still can work, with everyone else living "on the dole". At least if everyone was given stock they could do something useful, in that they could help guide those companies to act in their interests through shareholder votes, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to own certain companies like tobacco but selling them could raise the stock price (however miniscule), what could I do in that world? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yea, rather than giving everyone stock, giving everyone a voucher they can use to buy the stocks of their choice would be better, both for personal preferences and to make the market more functional. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
We have a case study: post-Soviet Russia. If there's no restriction on resale of the shares, most people immediately sell their shares for cash, and the rich buy them up. So, you kind of wind up back where you started, or worse. See: Privatization in Russia and History of Russia (1991–present). -- (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC) -- There were shadier things going on than just poor people selling to rich people. The word "rich" is a little problematic, since most of those who were rich in Russia in the early 1990s were so due to misappropriating government property... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
A lot of the answers here are looking at this purely from the perspective of profit paid to shareholders. There is also the issue of ownership and control of the corporate sector being handed over to the population. (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I addressed that in my 1st response. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Making US hundred dollar bills worthless[edit]

Are there good sources that discuss the following?

If the US government suddenly declared all US $100 bills held outside the United States as worthless, what would the downside be?

If they decided to do so, how would they handle amounts that foreign governments hoard?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Reading withdrawal and replacement of legal tender might help. Do you mean exchanging old bills for new ones, as for example happened with the 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation? Dragons flight (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure what I mean. I've been reading about it and am a bit confused. I just read part of 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. Yes, that sounds right. Tell everyone that they have to exchange them for new ones so that baddies with huge sacks of the stuff will be left with worthless currency. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec)If you mean that they would just declare them to be worthless without compensation or replacement, then presumably a) it would hurt the status of the US$ as a reserve currency, and as a widely accepted international currency, and b) it would lead to a a large proportion of these bills making their way back into the US. To stop this, the US would need to install currency controls, but these would be very hard to enforce in practice. Foreign governments are unlikely to hoard huge amounts of US$ bills - they often have huge amounts of US$, but not in the form of paper currency, but rather in the form of US Treasuries and other outstanding balances. In general, in modern economies, cash is a small part of the money supply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Anna_Frodesiak -- you can read on the Soviet ruble article how on December 14th 1947, paper money in the hands of private individuals was decreed to have lost 9/10ths of its value, while most other things remained unchanged (there was not a general currency revaluation at that time), or on the North Korean won article about something similar there in 2009. The Soviet measure more or less did what it was intended to do, but only under the conditions of a Stalinist police state. The North Korean measure seems to have been a fiasco... AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, those inside the US might be worried that something similar could happen there, and dump their cash in favor of non-cash options. Some businesses might refuse to do transactions in cash, as it already has downsides of being difficult to track if stolen, requiring keeping cash on hand, and bringing armored cars to transfer it, etc., and this just might be the "nail in the coffin". StuRat (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
But StuRat, it would only be about 100s, only outside US, and only after people had a chance to exchange them. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Much of human economic behavior is motivated by fear of what might happen, based on similar events elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! And Soviet ruble is very interesting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Likely downsides: total pandemonium in the global financial markets, and an explosion in smuggling as people try to get $100 bills into the U.S. without being detected. There's nothing physically different about a bill held outside the U.S. versus one held inside it, so as noted above the only way to try to enforce this would be to search everything coming into the country. (For historical interest, see Hawaii overprint note for an example of notes that were created with distinguishing characteristics, so they could be demonetized if needed.) As also noted above, something very important to understand: only a small fraction of U.S. dollars exist as banknotes. Most dollars exist as entries on financial institution ledgers (see money supply). Foreign governments don't hold their U.S. dollar foreign reserves as piles of banknotes sitting in a vault. They hold them mostly as U.S. treasury securities and balances at central banks. -- (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Although, you did mention "baddies with huge sacks of the stuff"; criminals do indeed often deal in cash to avoid getting caught. Fun fact: at its height, Pablo Escobar's cartel spent over $1000 a week on rubber bands for wrapping their cash. But then, offshore banks in a number of jurisdictions have a reputation for facilitating money laundering, so I'm not sure how effective this would be in hurting criminal enterprises. -- (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
AnonMoos, many countries in Eastern and Western Europe, including decidedly non-Stalinist ones like Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and France had confiscatory denominations to reduce the post-War monetary overhang. Actually, the Ruble reform was less confiscatory overall and more sparing of vulnerable segments of the population than in the West. It had a concrete economic purpose and was necessary to transition away from rationing. The mass-robbing-of-the-population-by-the-government view is spin. (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
That's not what the Alec Nove book (An Economic History of the U.S.S.R.) says. Soviet industrialization was funded to a significant degree by keeping living standards of workers and peasants low (see Primitive socialist accumulation), and Stalin was always particularly opposed to giving peasants producing food crops much meaningful incentives (i.e. "the unfavorable terms of trade imposed on the villages by the practice of compulsory procurements at low prices. ... [Post-war] Soviet agriculture remained in a very weak state until a drastic change of policy occurred after Stalin's death. There is no escaping the conclusion that he delayed long-necessary changes of policy by his obstinately hostile attitude toward the peasantry"). The decree of December 14th 1947 was very specifically designed to impact peasants (who rarely kept their money in banks) much more than others.
Also, regular bond purchases were compulsory for most people in the Soviet Union, and in 1936 and 1947 the interest rates on existing bonds were lowered, while in 1947 the face value of the bonds was reduced by 2/3rds -- which is pretty directly "mass robbing of the population by the government"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Forgot propiska - also basically an anti-peasant measure. Still, what's the cardinal difference between the 1947 reform and the reforms in other countries? Italics mine: "Post-1945 Europe had many of the traits observed today in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: price controls, shortages, black markets and a monetary overhang. The policy response in most countries was monetary reform - - the deliberate immobilization of liquid assets and in many instances an outright write-off of deposits. [1] (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
PS there's nothing wrong with keeping consumption low, per se, it's called mobilizatsionnaya ekonomika. It's not Russia's fault she was forced into self-preservation mode. (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
(machine transl., sorry) In Belgium, for example, according to the law of October 6, 1944, all old banknotes were subject to surrender, and in return new ones were issued only for the amount of 5,000 francs per person, the rest was credited to deposits in banks and savings banks, 40 percent being temporarily blocked, And 60% - constantly. Further, blocking was extended to former bank deposits; Only 10% of the amount of deposits was credited to the so-called free account, of the rest of the 40% - to the temporarily blocked account and 60% to the permanently blocked account. [2](in Russian) (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thus, in terms of rationale and mechanism, the monetary reforms in the countries of Eastern and Western Europe did not differ. In both cases, it was a matter of confiscating (freezing) a permanent or temporary part of the population's savings. However, their socio-economic consequences were not the same. If in Western countries, the state sought to alleviate the situation of entrepreneurs, in People's Democracies reforms were targeted against the affluent strata (ibid) (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC) -- I really don't know too much about monetary stabilization measures in Continental Europe in 1944 and 1945, but I would doubt that they were an integral part of a consistent conscious deliberate policy (pursued for more than 20 years, from forced collectivization until after Stalin's death) of keeping the living standards of peasants/farmers as low as practically possible, as was pretty much the case in the Soviet Union... AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading and learning. Thank you all! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reason for income redistribution[edit]

Is the reason for leftists supporting income redistribution because they believe that since white people are the bad guys while darker skinned people are the good guys, white people deserve to have less wealth than dark-skinned people,given that most wealthy people happen to be white while most poor people are darker skinned? (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Have you actually read Income redistribution? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Most liberals reject explicitly racial agendas, and believe that there are people of every race who are at the bottom of the pecking order due to past injustices, and that redistribution of wealth should give all of those at the bottom a better opportunity to rise. However, there are some who believe in explicit calls for racially targeted measures (affirmative action, racial set-asides). Note however that even among groups explicitly favoring black rights, there are some who will favor a switch to a universally fair set of priorities -- notably, the "Black Lives Matter platform" favors a long list of very good ideas; in each case they say, this is what they are doing for blacks, and in each case, they propose a non-"reverse"-racist method when you actually look at what they say. In any case I hope this document will make a good read for you. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Wow, so many mistaken assumptions in that Q:
1) Income redistribution attempts to somewhat even out income, not make anyone have more than anyone else.
2) As a practical matter, 100% equality of income is not achievable, and whoever has the highest incomes will continue to have the highest income, just not by as high of a margin.
3) One reason for it is that income naturally flows in one direction most of the time, from the majority to a small minority (here meaning a small group, not a racial or ethnic minority). Over time, this leads to a dangerous imbalance, where that small group at the top has all the power, too, and this can lead to social instability and violent revolutions.
4) A progressive income tax, combined with social programs for the poor, such as quality free education, are effective ways to limit income inequality. Racial tests are rarely applied, so all poor people are given help, not only those of certain races or ethnicities.
5) Wealth redistribution is slightly different, and there methods such as inheritance taxes can be used to limit the degree to which wealth inequality is magnified with each generation. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What size city might host a 600m2 cricket administration building with an auditorium?[edit]

In an area where cricket is popular. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: That sounds like a small office to me (6400 sq ft), so pretty much any city. Can you provide more details on where you saw the reference to this office? It will be hard to narrow it down just on size alone. RudolfRed (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Last night I dreamt I was wandering around a building of cricket administration offices in Guelph, Canada, that is my best estimation of the size and I was wondering if that was realistic. I recall that it was just for the town, not the regional/national headquarters of something but whether it was for a commercial team or university or school system or what I don't know. Yes I realize cricket is not as popular in Canada as it is in Australia, South Africa etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The England and Wales Cricket Board occupies rather modestly-sized offices at Lord's Cricket Ground and the Board of Control for Cricket in India have offices on the 4th floor of the Wankhede Stadium [53]. I doubt either boasts an auditorium and can't imagine what it might be used for if they had one. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
So I suppose that my unconscious amazement was at something unrealistic. For comparison I looked up NBA headquarters and they have 175,000ft2 of office space but the NBA is the top 30 basketball clubs of Earth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps lay off the cheese at bed time ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Or the fried crickets. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How do Islamic banks earn money[edit]

How do Islamic banks earn money if interest is forbidden in Islam?Uncle dan is home (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The same way that any other bank does - by investing the deposits in businesses which make a profit and then pay dividends, or in property which goes up in value, or in commodities which you buy at one price and sell at a profit. Islam bans interest on loans - but not making a profit from a business. Wymspen (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
We have a pretty extensive article on Islamic banking and finance. Short answer: they lend money, and get paid back the principal plus some extra, but they don't use an interest rate and don't call it interest. -- (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but I am suspicious that Western banking actually is more "Islamic" in character than it is often given credit for. I mean, the traditional idea of interest is that a homeowner takes out a mortgage on a house, in which the house is pledged as collateral, i.e. the bank can take it and have it sold if they aren't paid. But as I understand it, the homeowners actually end up leaving the title of the house in the bank's name, so that it is not merely collateral but actually isn't theirs in the first place. Same for cars. [54] Though with houses, apparently there's a difference between a "quit claim deed" and a "title" ... I'm not the right one to shed light on this. [55] Traditionally there is an additional requirement that the "owners" maintain fire insurance on the house.
In the UK, (and probably other countries), a mortgaged property is owned by the householder, not the bank. However, the bank holds a lien on the property, which means the owner can't sell the property without informing the bank, and the bank can reprocess (seize) the property if the owner doesn't keep up repayments. The bank can also insist that a buildings insurance policy is in place; this will recommence the owner (and the bank) should the property be badly damaged.
For Islamic mortgages, I believe that the general process is that the bank owns part of the property, and the householder the rest, in general proportion to the loan-vaue / deposit paid. The bank then rents its share to the householder, at a rate commensurate to a traditional mortgage. Part of this payment is used to (slowly) buy the property from the bank; at the end of the term, the householder will own all of the property. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Now where the rubber meets the road is whether the banks nowadays (and I have no idea if they have started doing any such thing) are using their ownership to make it ever clearer that the holder of the "loan" is really just a renter, and one with few rights. For example, do they insist that the "owner" of a car allow them access via some kind of electronic module that transmits driving behavior back to them or indirectly via an insurance company? (I think I have already read about bottom-feeding companies that demand tracking devices in the vehicles...) Do they mandate "home security" that is surveillance on the inside of their house? I feel like this is the kind of area where capitalists have never been shy, and typically move ahead of the news coverage, but again, it's not something I know much about. But anyway, such manifestations of ownership would make it clear that the bank is not lending at interest, but charging the customer for some degree of access. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless there is a law saying that "any money earned from a loan shall be calculated as a percentage of the principal and called interest", then they can just call this money "fees" instead. The only technical difference is that there's no compounding (interest on interest), but if the fees are high enough, the total can equal or exceed the compounded interest. Western banks like to charge both interest and fees (including penalties), making it even harder to figure out the real amount you pay for the loan. StuRat (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the article linked by the IP above, a good article to read would be Murabaha. (Not to be confused with Mudaraba.) As the main article linked by the IP indicates, quite a lot of Islamic banking is controversially in this form. I've never loaned money from an Islamic bank but have held a term deposit in the form of Commodity Murabah, because at the time HSBC Amanah in Malaysia was offering a slightly better "profit rate" than the interest rate offered by HSBC Malaysia. In my case from my POV there was basically no difference between the two other than the slightl better rate. Nominally the Islamic finance term deposit is structured such that I am buying a commodity and then selling it in the future for a profit, and I believe the commodity technically really exists in some form but really, it's not something which affects me. I'm not even sure what the commodity was (I'm pretty sure it isn't said anywhere), and it's not like the collapse of the price of the commodity makes a difference. As an interesting point, compare [56] to [57]. (The new T&C gives palm oil as one example commodity.)

Legally there are likely some differences although the specific one that jumped out to me was that if you have a lot of money, it's actually useful to have some in traditional banking and some in Islamic banking because the government deposit protections were separate so you could double the amount of protection if you had enough. That said it depends on the precise intepretation, and as said in both our articles, nominally Murabaha is supposed to be an intermediate step.

I believe one particular disputed issue when it comes to loans is how to handle late payments, as our article indicates late payment charges are controversial as they tend to be seen as riba/usury. If allowed, there are various ways these are structured e.g. for some info on those in Malaysia [58], but I don't think things there are particularly strict there. (Notably I'm fairly sure when changes do come they tend to be only things that banks have to apply in the future. Our article implies in some other places banks have found themselves in trouble due court rulings or other authority intepretations which have prevented them doing things they were doing with existing customers without a clear recourse. On factor is probably that in Malaysia Islamic finance issues are still largely decided by civil courts [59].)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Older/Fat mothers[edit]

this is either a question to invite debate or speculation, for which it had attracted much, or it is outright trolling, for which it has been​ well fed. Either way, we've had enough here. Move along--Jayron32 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How would non-pretty older or overweight women get pregnant or have young children? (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse is the traditional approach. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Like (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Accurate, concise and to the point. Well played. General Ization Talk 05:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Define "pretty", "older" and "overweight". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the OP has a false assumption that human pregnancy and marriage are based on personal sexual attractiveness. For most humans in the world (most humans in the world live in Asia), arranged marriage is the norm. Even if the marriage is not fully arranged, older relatives (especially parents) tend to have a lot of influence over the choice of spouse. Most humans exhibit bilateral symmetry, which really helps in improving beauty. But what counts as "beautiful" is very subjective. Older women may re-marry to older men. Both of them are old, so youthful beauty is not a priority. Overweight women may actually be favored or appear more attractive, because the appearance of chubbiness is a sign of wealth and that her family can feed her. So, overweight women may be more attractive, not less, than thin women. (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting topic with broad implications. The question is, how are people being programmed to distinguish sexual attractiveness, and what makes that change? Traditionally, the ideal is that a young couple marries and continues to find one another attractive into old age, which suggests a gradual change of optimum perceptions is routine. (And subjectively, I know for example that when I was just past puberty, a girl in seventh grade who first started growing breasts was exceedingly attractive, while women in their twenties seemed matronly; now women several decades older seem perfectly fine) One possible explanation is that pheromones cause positive reinforcement of a particular appearance, and average appearances are considered the most beautiful (perhaps by averaging of many pheromone reinforcements?) and that the age of those to whom one is exposed tends to shape expectations, but I'm really winging it with that explanation. Pheromones remain controversial and the rest uncertain. Whatever the reason, it seems very important because so much damage results when people retain a youthful preference or even "regress" to prefer younger children over adults, and yet, there is the bizarre perception that such a thing is an unchangeable sexual orientation, even though nearly all of us go through changes in what ages seem attractive! My feeling is that the idealization of senior citizens drooling after 18-year-olds is nearly as diseased as pedophilia itself; it is a failure of some natural process. Wnt (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Typical misogynistic question and we already have a answers that are calling for debate. So while were at it let's answer the questions "how do non-handsome, older or overweight men get women to let them impregnate them?" and "has anyone seen the birth of older children?" Sheesh. MarnetteD|Talk 04:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Mick Jagger's brother has had about enough of his zygotic shenanigans. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
The query implies that only slim, young, pretty women become pregnant because these are the only ones with whom any fertile male could achieve arousal to the point of ejaculation leading to impregnation. To which I suggest to the OP: change the channel on whatever mass media gave you this idea (above-called "misogyistic"), and learn about the real world and real people (men and women). -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There are various factors which can reduce a woman's fertility. Age is clearly one of them: it is more difficult to get pregnant when older. Weight is also a factor - though both obesity and being underweight can cause problems. I know of nothing which has indicated that being ugly, or just plain, makes any difference to fertility. Wymspen (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. Blueboar (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wisdom can come from the mouth of babes, and in a world ruled by madmen, who can call anything too crazy? From a scientific perspective, troll questions are entirely legitimate. Modern quantum mechanics started by people asking why electrons didn't spiral into nuclei, even though they obviously don't. And it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of inductive logic to say that if one boy doesn't want to have sex with an older woman, why does anyone? (Of course, this sauce would work even better on the gander than the goose, since a population does not need every male to inseminate something for maximal reproduction). I would urge people to put aside the tendency to see a question as a position or to resent why someone asks it, and simply think about what, as I went into above, I think can be a productive topic in the social and biological sciences that could, if better understood, save many children from terrible crimes. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The OP may be a babe, but there's no wisdom in his question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Does this happen in real life? Is it common? (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Define "common". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Do Indian Christians eat beef?[edit]

The title is about the relationship between Hinduism and Christianity. Hinduism is the indigenous religion of the Indian people. Hindus are known for their vegetarianism and special regard for the cow. Do they carry this over when they convert to Christianity? The concept of dalit in the Hindu-based caste system apparently carries over to Indian Christians. Is there a difference in food/dietary restrictions between the St. Thomas Christians (early Christian converts) and later Christian converts (by European missionaries)? Similarly, do Arab Christians eat pork? (The question in bold is the most important question. Others are similar, but not relevant and can be ignored.) (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people will keep their dietary habits after conversion, yes. Also, if in an area where a certain dietary preference is seen as offensive, it might be best to comply with it just to get along. For example, eating dogs in the US would not make you many friends. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Do Arab Christians eat pork? In Israel, Christian Arabs not only eat pork but are involved in raising swine, slaughtering and marketing. Many years ago when a ban on the Israeli pork industry was considered, it would have impacted the livelihood of 40,000 people. Consumers include non-observant Jews, particularly immigrants from the former USSR, and tourists (and the many restaurants serving them). Otherwise, I've rarely seen pork featured in Arab cuisine of the Levant. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a big difference between eating pork in a Muslim or Jewish environment, and eating beef in a Hindu one. Pigs are considered unclean, while cows a considered holy. A Muslim should not be particularly upset by a non-believer eating something unclean, while a Hindu is likely to be very upset by someone eating something they consider to be almost a god. Wymspen (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
By way of a reference, I typed "Do Indian Christians eat beef?" into Google and found on the first page of results: More Indians eating beef, buffalo meat, a report in The Hindu of 29 October 2016, which says: " Consumption patterns vary across religions, data show. In 2011-12, 42 per cent of Indian Muslims reported having eaten beef/buffalo meat in the month preceding the survey compared to 26.5 per cent Christians and 1.4 per cent Hindus". So there we have it. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: The Ethiopia and Eritrea churches of Africa do not eat pork. The mother/sister church of Coptic Egypt does permit it, but many abstain from it there as well (including among the religious hierarchy) but by choice not decree. Furthermore, not all Hindus abstain from eating beef; many South Indians eat beef. South India also tends to be the region with the most Christians in India. DA1 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, these sources discuss various aspects of beef consumption in India including geographical and caste differences as well as religious ones [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]. Note as reflected in those sources, there has been a recent official crackdown with the rise of the BJP including in the federal government on the slaughter, trading and consumption of beef, which has also coincided (many say precipitated) dangerous vigilantism such as 2015 Dadri mob lynching. This has sometimes lead to counter protests of people eating beef.

As also reflected there and Cattle slaughter in India, India has been one of the largest exporters of "beef" for a few years now. As mentioned in our article and sources like [83] [84] [85], it's possible recent legal changes are going to put a significant dent in that, but as also reflected in those sources, not everyone feels that will actually happen and there are already signs a relaxation may be coming [86]. At least one of the earlier sources suggested that the more likely outcome is in a change in the trade probably at the expense of poorer, often Muslim, Indians and to the benefit of the wealthier Indians. (Which is not to suggest this is intentional or that some wealthy people aren't going to lose out.)

A notable point as reflected in the first source I provided and also [87] but not our article, although nominally all beef India exports is supposed to be carabeef/buff from the water buffalo, there is some suggestion a resonable proportion of it is actually beef from cows. Although we should always ve cautious since such claims are often used by vigilantes as an excuse for their behaviour without any real evidence (many others don't even bother to come up with such reasons). More resonable opponents of the trade (as well as competitors) also make the claim but again, I'm not sure how strong the evidence is. In any case, a fair amount if this meat whether legally [88] or illegally imported [89] is simply sold as beef sometimes even if local laws don't allow that. (Competitors clearly have an interest in pushing back against buffalo not correctly labelled but also given the political sensitivities in claiming that it is correctly labelled because it is cow despite coming from India.)

I could actually find any real analyis attempting to determine how much of India's exports were beef from cows. I found a lot of scientific papers developing methods for detecting this [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] but only the first one had very limited results from commercial samples (I think one or two others looked at samples from somewhere). One complexity is that the it's clear it's a fairly murky world with poor labelling practices (and probably legal requirements) so without government sanction I doubt you'll have much success actually analysing it since exporters and importers are unlikely to want to cooperate. I did only look at the abstracts so you're welcome to explore further although I'd caution that while I did try and remove results like [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] which seem to be only looking at identifying buffalo meat (useful if you have a sample you're sure is only from one animal and want to know what it is or if you're trying to detect buffalo meat which wasn't labelled as such, isn't useful if you're trying to determine how much of your buffalo is actually cow).

One final point is that as clear from a number of the sources, besides buffalo raised for slaughter (and perhaps some cows), another source of the meat is from buffalo and cows raised for milk which are no longer sufficiently productive. Several sources suggest about 45% of the milk comes from cows. (I think this may be exclude goats milk etc.) The often poor farmers can't afford to just keep these, and the anti-cow slaughter activists don't seem to be generally interested in taking over these cows so they have to be slaughtered either legally in a state that allows it or illegally in a state that does not, then either sold locally or illegally exported. (As the sources mentions there are also other requirements which may or may not be met which may affect legality.) And a reminder that the politics involved suggests a lot of caution should be placed on statistics.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS: Biography / Place of birth[edit]

I am trying to find information about guidelines on birth_place such as that in infoboxes for Biography and BLP articles. Particularly the former. Some people ask questions about replacing historical geographic names (or the closest equivalent we have to them) with modern districts/jurisdictions covering the same area. I can't seem to find anything on the topic. Anyone else have any leads? Edit: All I've found is 'MOS:BIO#Birth date and place' which only covers the issue of date, and not what I referenced above. DA1 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the "official" approach, but check out how they handled the birthplace of Al Jolson. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:PLACE is pretty clear. Use the name that was in use at the time the event occurred. --Jayron32 01:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Thanks, that does indirectly answer my question. Its a shame that there's no direct reference to "birth" or "born" there; nor is that page linked anywhere else on that particular matter. DA1 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Japan Rail Pass[edit]

Reading the Japan Rail Pass article, I was amazed by how cheap it is for unlimited rail travel. Since it's only available to foreign tourists, I guess it's way to subsidize rail travel in order to promote tourism.

1. Is there any publicly available information on how much the JR Pass program is subsidized by? Either per year or per pass issued is fine.

2. Is the Japan Railways Group compensated in any way for providing this subsidy? Either by the Japanese government or other Japanese tourism associations. Scala Cats (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I would not be too sure that the assumption is correct. The price does not seem particularly cheap to me - it's in line with other tourist rail passes around the world. Compare e.g. the German Rail Pass or the Eurail (current prices) (both only for non-Europeans). This may seem cheap compared to the travel you could do, but like an all you can eat buffet, the railway probably calculates averages. Tourists will not travel all day every day, and they will often follow a path of short segments. They will also have a more flexible schedule, and naturally avoid rush hours and other congested times on their own. Moreover, the competitive situation is different - tourists can chose not only the mode of travel, but usually also the destination. As long as the rail pass covers the marginal cost of the extra seats actually used, the railway company will be fine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example: I'm landing in Kansai International Airport and plan on visiting Kyoto. The unsubsidized train fare from the airport to Kyoto is 7000 yen[103].
Since I'm a tourist, I can buy the JR-West 4 day rail pass[104] for 6300 yen. So the price for my tourist 4-day-long all-you-can-ride ticket is cheaper than a single round trip ticket out of the airport. I don't know about JR pass users in general, but in my particular case I'm saving a butt-load of money. Scala Cats (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
JR Pass doesn't cover the fastest shinkansen services, and there are often supplements to pay for the more premium services. Obviously some tourists are happy to travel on the slower trains, and equally it is a way for JR to direct tourists towards spare capacity on the less popular services.
If you ar ereferring to the Kansai Area Pass on the website you cited, if you click into "train accommodation" you'll see that a supplement is payable for the Kansai airport express. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
On the Kansai Area Pass page[105], it says: "Valid trains are below; - Non-reserved seats on Kansai-airport Express HARUKA", so the 7000 yen round trip ticket from KIX to Kyoto is covered, with no extra payment needed. Scala Cats (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Where did you get 7000 yen from? I'm seeing "The JR Haruka limited express takes about 70 minutes and costs 2850 yen by non-reserved seat or around 3500 yen by reserved seat from Kansai Airport to Kyoto". For a round trip ticket it would be 7000 yen for a reserved seat but since you don't get reserved seats with the Kansai Area Pass ("Ordinary Car,Non-reserved Seating" is the only option without paying more) it makes no sense to compare the two. The 2 way unreserved price would seem to be 5700. Once you consider other services you're likely to save but it doesn't seem to me that it's cheaper than a round trip ticket, and you are locked in to using the service (as a tourist who may not have appreciated the options before). Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. A better comparison may be 2 one day passes at 2200 yen since someone staying (or away for) more than 4 days is not going to be able to use the 4 day pass for both legs of the airport journey. (It should be said 4 days is a relatively short stay for leisure by most standards, especially if travelling from far away although a person could be going to different places. At least on the page you linked to there's no longer pass for Kansai only. So plenty of people may need more than one, including Japanese if they were able to buy the pass.) 2200 yen is a resonable discount from 2800 yen but amongst other things, the assumption is likely to be many people aren't using it for the airport. For someone living in Kansai, they're probably not very likely to purchase a pass unless it's cheaper than what they'll spend otherwise and they may have a fair idea of what that'll be. And while price will be a factor, it may not always be that significant in their decision to use the train depending on the precise difference. By comparison, while some tourists do plenty of research, plenty of people do not and their decisions are often a lot more flexible (both in terms of timings, mode of transport, and where they travel to) and factors like travel time may compete with how scenic the route is or options for detours. If they can get a good price on a pass, they may buy it and use but may not have chosen the train otherwise and so could easily have spent less money with JR (or whoever). They may also choose to upgrade etc in some cases. And while I didn't see this mentioned for the Kansai pass, one of your links did suggest a discount for JR hotels for some passes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

What determines whether an issue is "liberal" or "conservative"?[edit]

Veganism supporters are "liberals". Anti-abortion supporters are "conservatives". Vegans are against the killing of animals; anti-abortions supporters are against the killing of unborn children. Both claim to be defend innocent, helpless beings. Liberals are for the legalization of marijuana. Conservatives are for the legalization of e-cigarettes. What is a liberal? What is a conservative? (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Conservatives are against killing baby because that's the way it's been since the days of Hippocrates and the Ten Commandments. Conservatives don't care about eating animals because the Bible doesn't care. Even Jesus ate animals. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sagittarian Milky Way -- the traditional European view was that abortion before "quickening" (sometimes defined as the 40th day) was much less serious than abortion after quickening, and certainly not comparable to murder. In the United States, conservative Protestants didn't really join together with Catholics to make abortion a major political issue until around 1979.[106] -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that. The liberal view isn't "restrict non-incest/rape/birth defect/medical benefit abortions to c. 40 days" though. I'm not sure who's right, it's killing babies but it did help stop the crime wave in the 90s so is it worth it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
To a significant degree, it also seems to be random. As an example, climate change is not a partisan issue in most of the world, and neither is the theory of evolution. Black emancipation and civil rights was a Republican topic from the US civil war to the Southern Strategy of the 1960s. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
In the civil rights thing the conservative politicians just switched parties and stopped being blatantly racist. The question is about liberals and conservatives, not Republicans and Democrats. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Stephan_Schulz -- in the United States of the 1850s, the real conservatives (the big business wing of the Whig party and such) opposed introducing controversies about slavery or divisive moralistic rhetoric into national (federal) politics in any form. The newly-formed Republican party was not exactly a radical party, but the majority of its members were resolved to vehemently oppose what they considered aggressive maneuvers by Southerners (and their sympathizers in the North) to expand the scope of slavery, so that few would have considered the Republican party conservative at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There's a conceptual difference between "liberal" veganism and "conservative" anti-abortionism, if viewed from the "more freedom-less freedom" axis. "Conservative" antib-abortionism is about making laws to outlaw abortion, i.e. it is a restrictive ideology with the aim of restricting others' life choices. It's not the same as a personal choice not to undergo an abortion, which mainstream liberals are unlikely to have issues with. "Liberal" veganism is about a person's choice not to eat / use animal products, i.e. it is a personal restriction. Most, even vocal, veganists go as far as advocating the availability of non-animal-based choices for vegans, but there are few veganists who go further and advocate outlawing the consumption of animal products. Those few extremists who do are quite far from being mainstream "liberal". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
That falls apart if you change to different topics, such as gun control. Conservatives support gun control measures that let them choose if they want to own a gun or not. Liberals support gun control measures that ban anyone from owning a gun. An endless set of anecdotes may be used to support any view you like. In the end, it is just one group vs another group. The ideology of the two doesn't really make sense. (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that so-called "liberals" sometimes support more regulation and sometimes less, that's why US-style "conservative"/"liberal" are bad labels - it's very odd that "liberal" is used in the US to describe Socialists, when Socialism is decidedly anti-liberal in many respects. "Right" and "Left" are better, and modern political science is a lot more nuanced in analysing what kinds of positions are "Right" and what are "Left", I wouldn't say it "doesn't really make sense", it just doesn't make sense in one dimension.
On guns specifically, the fact that any mainstream political groups are pro-gun in the US is itself an oddity. In almost all other liberal democracies no sane part of the political spectrum would be pro-gun. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A few comments on this... First, an issue is neither "conservative" nor "liberal"... what can be conservative or liberal is the stance taken on the issue.
Second, stances can change over time, so a stance that was once liberal can become conservative (an example of this is support for non-regulated free trade... once a "liberal" stance, but now a "conservative" stance) or vise versa.
That said, essentially the difference is that conservatives want to maintain the status quo (or to return to a previous status quo) on any issue, while liberals want change. There is an old saying: "If you are not a liberal at age 18 you don't have a heart... and if you are not a conservative by age 40 you don't have a brain". Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The labels are all screwed up, at least in contemporary America. "Big government" liberals should be in favor of the government telling people who can marry, how women should look after their health, and what services ISPs can restrict. "Fiscally responsible" conservatives are supposed to strive for balanced budgets and generally smaller national debt through means such as taxation. Neither is remotely close to the situation today.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

News flash: Politicians' words and deeds do not necessarily coincide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the political alignments in the US are currently in a state of flux... the popularity of both Trump and Sanders demonstrate that both parties are split between "mainstream" (relatively centrist) factions and more extreme populist factions. Who knows... we may even end up with a third party created out of the center leaning members of both parties (although third parties have usually not succeeded). The same thing is occurring (in a very different way) in the UK... support/opposition to Brexit is causing a realignment of which voters traditionally voted Tory vs Labour, and there seems to be an eagerness for someone in the center. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
We do have articles on these topics like conservatism for example. It is always a good idea to look at them first. They are different from left-wing politics and right-wing politics. liberalism is not quite on the same axis as conservatism, and I think it is better to talk about libertarianism instead rather than liberalism when combining it with conservatism, but individual freedom of thought as an actuality rather than as some mantra is rather inimical to conservatism. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the woman/blindfold/bird/blood thing?[edit]

[107] What does it mean? Is it France-related? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think it "means" anything? It's just a piece of artwork. I don't think it relates to anything in particular. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreeing with User:Viennese Waltz, this doesn't suggest anything from my fund of knowledge in the Arts & Letters. You might try:
  • Conducting a reverse image search to get more information about the artist if this image has been used elsewhere
  • Query the uploader of the linked content, e.g. with a comment, as to why this image was used. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I agree. AFAICT, this is a variant of the album artwork on Generation Nothing by Stereo Transmitted Disease [108] [109]. The album was released in 2011 but the art work associated with the album has been around since mid 2010 or earlier as per the links. It looks like the artwork both for the album and in that video was done by Adrian Knopik aka rarr112 aka RARRFC and may be called Hope [110] [111]. (At least my intepretation of that comment on DeviantArt is Adrian Knopik made the artwork for the album rather than this being their own re-intepretation of the album artwork.) Note that at least for me the Behance version shows in the cover for Illustrations but not in the gallery when I click on it. But it shows up in Pinterest and elsewhere e.g. [112] (I'm including this despite copyvio concerns). That version seems to have a signature on the arm, as well as the title at the upper left and seems to be the one generally used on Youtube.

As illustrated in the Deviantart comments, it seems to be very strongly associated with Mt Eden's dubstep Sierre Leone. Unfortunately the original version which I think is [113] is gone due to a copyright claim for Kewl Kid. But there are copies of it all over Youtube which often they have that artwork, the earliest one found was from 1 March 2010. (I'm not linking to it due to copyright concerns because. The mention of Dream Crusher Media recommending Mt Eden Official suggests to me it's likely Mt Eden would be earning royalties from this copy but it still has the Kewl Kid issue even if likely only relating to the artwork, see below.) While I can't be sure, that the image was in the original Mt Eden version (which was release in 2009 according to our article supported by [114]) especially since there are some other copies with different images, this comment [115]/[116] (and other stuff later) makes me think it was. I would expect the versions with different images could be related to Kewl Kid's copyright claim.

Definitely it has become strongly associated with Mt Eden's Sierra Leone as shown in the Deviantart discussion, this remix [117] (clearly a reinterpreation whether copyvio or not), this discussion about a tattoo on Reddit [118] (also this [119] to some extent) and the fact that new versions released by Mt Eden use a variant of that artwork [120] [121]. BTW the Reddit discussion suggests there used to be part of Fuse Collective which Adrian Knopik belong's to further confirming they or he did the artwork for Stereo Transmitted Disease.

Anyway the Dubstep via Sierra Leone connection is the likely explaination for why it's used in the video you linked to and some other dubsteps.

As to how Mt Eden came to use the artwork which I'm now fairly sure they did, the fact that Adrian Knopik makes no mention of Mt Eden or Sierra Leone but does STD (including the former mention on Fuse Collective) makes me think they just came across it somewhere whether in connection with STD or just on Adrian Knopik's work and used it, probably without permission. The Kewl Kid thing is also evidence in this regard as I'm pretty sure that refers to this studio [122] who I think did the album covers's commissioning Adrian Knopik or Fuse Collective for that specific image (or maybe all of it, not sure) [123]. It's also possible the artwork wasn't originally done for STD but instead they (also?) came across it and then got Kewl Kid to use it. There are other reinpretations e.g. [124] [125] who's signatures suggest other illustrates but I'm guessing these are also inspired by the Adrian Knopik work, probably after it took off in 2009. (One of them is dated 2010.)

P.S. I came across [126] who expressed scepticism but I wonder if he's just remembering wrong. 2009 is 3 years from 2012.

P.P.S. Supporting Deborahjay's comment but with the new info, if you want to know more I'd ask Mt Eden to confirm that they used in their 2009 video and got it from Adrian Knopik's work then ask STD about the meaning of artwork and depending on what they say, ask Adrian Knopik for more info on the meaning.

P.P.P.S. [127] shows another artwork with a hand associated with STD and Fuse Collective. The link suggests to me these are from the aforemention page on the Fuse Collective website which was I think

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

[128] suggests the image has been missing from Illustrations on Behance since 2011 or earlier. It may make sense if STD or Kewl Kid didn't want it there to remove it. As per my earlier comment, it's possible the image on Behance predated it's use by STD and STD and or Kewl Kid just decided they wanted to use it and commissioned Adrian Knopik or Fuse Collective for its use and to make more versions. Someone here [129] says they asked Mt Eden who said they just Googled it (although not sure what they were actually Googling for that they came across it). Frankly if you're only interested in the meaning of the image, there's probably no use even asking Mt Eden IMO, stick with STD and Adrian Knopik. I'm not sure how likely you are to have success with STD. Their Facebook page seems to be gone [130] as is their website [131] and even MySpace page [132]. They do have a dead but still around Google Plus page [133] and I also came across at least one member's Facebook page which I'm intentionally not linking to which hasn't had any public posts for a while but I guess they could still be using it. As for Adrian Knopik's well there are the earlier links, and I also came across a Facebook page which again I won't link to which is active. Although this image seems famous enough I can't help thinking you may not be the first person to ask and he may be sick of such questions. Maybe if you step with indirect contacts like Fuse Collective there could be someone who will filter it if they know Adrian Knopik has no interest. Oh and I forgot I came across [134] which is from April 2010 with a different artwork making me wonder if it was between then and July that the new artwork became available. However [135] and [136] and probably [137] make me think the band existed in some form since 2008 or 2009. Oh and [138] seems to further suggest some variant of the artwork was used in the original Mt Eden version although I'm not sure if this is a different person from the Reddit. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a very thorough answer. After I saw this weird creative thing several times (without remembering where) I wondered if it's political or pacifist or from a film or album cover or some guy who makes anachronistic propaganda posters of very old things or is memorializing the victims of an event or what? But I suppose if it's so hard to find out where it came from then it it's mostly just known for electronic music and some album covers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Coin with cave painting[edit]

I remember coins with cave art, like those figures throwing spears at animals. I think they were Canadian quarters, or they may have been Euros. I've been looking for them to show a friend, but no luck. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a Spanish 2 EUR coin (Euro coins have a common and a "national" side) based on the Altamira cave paintings, see [139]. Many of the national sides are short term commemorative releases, so this may not be easy to find in general circulation, but it should be easy to get from a coin dealer (at a premium, but not outrageous - I've see it for EUR 3.35, which means that p&p may dominate cost of acquisition). I also don't find the image easy to recognize ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Google is blocked where I am. But, I found the spanish coin. That's not it. That is what kept showing up in searches. I'm sure it was like stick figures throwing spears, that sort of thing. Odd. This is driving me nuts! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This Mexican 100 peso coin has an image from a cave painting, although nobody is throwing any spears as far as I can see. Alansplodge (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
No spears, but maybe this? Matt Deres (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
That's the Canadian one, the February 1999 quarter. (If you can't get the linked page, it should come up if you use "petroglyph" in your search terms. The image is from Writing on Stone Provincial Park in Alberta.)
Apparently there is also cave art on a Mongolian tögrög coin. Wikipedia won't let me show you the link, sorry. Search string "mongolian coin cave tugrik" should find it. (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean, try 2008 Mongolia gold 500 Tugrik (Cave Painting) for a tiny image. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be rather surprised if the French never made a coin to commemorate Lascaux. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Matt Deres, I think you found it! I remember spears, but it was so long ago. Thank you so, so much! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Compass-point orientation of churches[edit]

The local Roman Catholic church, which is larger than most, has its altar at the west end. Is this normal for Catholic churches? (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Our article Orientation of churches says that most early Catholic churches had the altar at the east end, because it was traditional for early Christians to pray facing east, but says "The importance attached to orientation of churches declined after the 15th century." Our article Ad orientem explains more about the history of this orientation. CodeTalker (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
My college humanities prof referred to churches with their altar in the west as "apse backward." Edison (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Like the Pope's church, St. Peters? What's up with that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Chinese economic reform and urbanization[edit]

Hi there, I have been reading literature on the matter and haven't been able to understand this issue so I would be grateful if somebody could provide assistance. I have been reading the article Chinese economic reform which is a lot easier to understand than much of research on the area however what I would like to know is how it has resulted in the process of urbanisation. I am not an academic so a short, pithy response would suffice if anybody is able to provide one? Thanks very much. 2A02:C7D:146:C400:3861:547C:DB91:A744 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Chinese economic reform has been focused on industrialization, in cities. Agricultural, rural areas largely remain undeveloped. Thus, in order to have a better standard of living, people must migrate to the cities. This is in no way unique to China, however, and industrialization has led to urbanization since the start of the Industrial Revolution. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
One of my favourite takes on this topic is the series of short documentaries and sketches that the BBC did at White Horse Village (some videos here). The way the place transformed from a rural village into a completely unrecognisable suburb is astounding - even the landscape completely changed, and the personal stories of the people caught up in the process are revealing. If you can access the videos, I strongly encourage watching it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to StuRat's admirable contribution, there is also an administrative component to China's urbanization. Local governments often add areas to cities so that the land can be reclassified, for profitable (to the local government) redevelopment. That has added millions of people to the "urban" designation, without those folks having to go to the trouble of actually moving. Rather, the city came to them!DOR (HK) (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Death Penalty In 1930s, For Out of State Resident?[edit]

Hello, I'm writing a story, taking place in Florida in the 1930s, that involves the death penalty for the protagonist. However, as of now, my draft has him living in South Carolina, but being arrested for a murder in Florida. I do have within the text that the local police are, essentially, looking for an excuse to execute him. However, legally, would this be a possibility? Thank you! (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the laws where the crime occurred apply, not the laws of other states. The only issue with another state is if they must be extradited from a state without the death penalty, they might refuse. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
According to Extradition Clause, they can't refuse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
According to that article, the governor could not be compelled to do so until a 1987 ruling, after the time period in question. StuRat (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The 1861 case appears to have been a noble attempt to thwart those trying to get fleeing slaves back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, and it remained in force until 1987, allowing governors to refuse extradition, although with the caveat that had there been a particularly egregious case before this, it might well have found it's way to the US Supreme Court earlier, and resulted in the ruling being reversed sooner than it was. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see if a governor actually refused to return an accused murderer to the state where it happened. Willingness to harbor a killer wouldn't likely set very well among the electorate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Picture a case of someone who was a kid in a group that committed a murder, and is considered to be guilty even though he didn't pull the trigger, but now 50 years has passed and he has been an exemplary citizen in his new state ever since, and now his true identity has been revealed. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
As with bomb-throwers in the late 60s / early 70s. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The case is a bit more nuanced than this -- the constitutional language only applies to people charged in states, of which Puerto Rico is not one. There was an Extradition Act which extended to Puerto Rico. However, the question then is whether a mere law can force the Governor of a State to hand over one of his citizens to be tried in a Territory, which would seem to be infringing on the State's self-governance, 9th and 10th amendment etc. Our article quotes Scalia as saying "no party before us has asserted the lack of power of Congress to require extradition from a State to a Territory." -- he and some others did not join the decision, and now I wonder if that was a hint of his willingness to vote against the demand if the state had made that argument? Wnt (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Izzy Einstein's autobiography[edit]

Does anyone know if this book, Prohibition Agent No 1, is available either electronically or for purchase for < $500? I'm astonished that such a relatively recent book should prove so elusive... Amisom (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would not call it recent... it was published back in the 1930s, and has been out of print for quite a while. Unlikely that there is an electronic edition. I think your best bet would be to ask at a large public library. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess recent in the sense of not like 200 years old (and lots of books from that period are cheaply available!) Amisom (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The availability and cost of a book is driven by supply and demand.... as long as a book is in demand, new editions will be printed... supply will be strong, and the availability of supply will keep the cost down. If there is no longer a demand, new editions will not be printed... the existing supply will dwindle (as existing books are lost or become damaged)... availability shrinks, and (for those who are looking for one of the surviving copies) the cost will rise. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You can try Interlibrary loan to (temporarily) get a copy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Austrian politics[edit]

What's the explanation for the sudden turn in the voting intention, as described in Opinion_polling_for_the_Austrian_legislative_election,_2017. Around 2017 April, the ÖVP started to grow and grow. --Hofhof (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The obvious reason would be a reaction to European terrorism from ISIL and immigration from the Middle East, as a result of the current wars there in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc. Supporting the native religion is a predictable response to a perceived threat from outside religions. Note that the chart seems to show them drawing support away from all other parties. See Austrian People's Party (their English name). Note that this is just a recent uptick in an overall downward trend, with their National Council of Austria vote percentage dropping from 49.8% to 24% since 1945. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Most of the increase came after the resignation on 10 May of Reinhold Mitterlehner as chairman of the ÖVP and the take-over by the young and popular foreign minister Sebastian Kurz. Shortly afterwards the date for the next (snap) elections were announced. One of Kurz's conditions for accepting the chairmanship was that the ÖVP's campaign was to be very much focused on him. All this happened in the wake of the election of Emmanuel Macron in France, so I think the ÖVP's current success has very much to do with the person of Sebastian Kurz and a perceived duel with chancellor Christian Kern. After some ten years of grand coalition government (SPÖ/ÖVP), this finally signals some movement in the centre of Austrian politics. The upturn seems to have started a little earlier, though, which I can't fully explain. Some fairly harsh statements by interior minister Sobotka may have contributed, to the detriment of the right-wing FPÖ, usually the go-to party for Austrians worried by migration or anything else. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

U.S. Olympic sponsors[edit]

I know sponsors of the U.S. Olympic Team tend to come and go. One was Kodak (worldwide), another was AT&T (domestic). Pan Am Airlines was their official carrier during the 1984 Winter Olympics. Delta Air Lines was their official carrier during the 1996 Summer Olympics and the 2002 Winter Olympics. But it's understood United Airlines has been, and continues to be a proud sponsor of Team USA. Still, I get confused on how many sponsors (worldwide and/or domestic) are there to stay. Anyone know?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen Rojomoke (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Why was the Grenfell tower in Kensington?[edit]

If the Grenfell tower was subsidized accommodation for poor people, why was it in a wealthy neighborhood like Kensington? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipname (talkcontribs) 19:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There's housing projects in a pretty expensive part of New York at 10th Avenue and 61st Street. But yes, this kind of thing isn't the norm in some cities. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It's on the Lancaster West Estate in North Kensington (what most of us would call Ladbroke Grove), not the neighbourhood/area of Kensington (a mile or so to the south east) where all the really posh bits are. Both are in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Most council areas, no matter how affluent, have to provide social housing in their catchment area. Lancaster West has approx 1000 other council owned houses/flats apart from Grenfell. The tower itself was a mix of social and private tenancies, with some private flats being rented at up to £2000/month[140] Average rent for flats in the immediate area being around £1500/month and average house prices are approx £220,000 which is around half the average London house price of £471,000 but around the national average of £232,530. Nanonic (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Even the most wealthy areas need people to do the poorly paid and less pleasant jobs. Someone has to empty the dustbins in Kensington - hence the need for subsidised social housing in such an area. People on low wages cannot afford to commute into the city from less expensive areas a long way out. Wymspen (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there really no affordable areas within a reasonable Tube commute of Kensington? Do Tube fares have no bulk discounts or unlimited monthly passes or (since Britain's left of America) low income discounts? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
London Transport Travelcards are unlimited travel passes for a fixed flat fee and are available for 1 and 7 days, 1 month and 1 year durations.[141]. Free bus travel is available to London residents over 60. Blooteuth (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I see. The senior fare's $1.35 in New York and the age is 65. Also the day card is discontinued and there are no year cards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Historically, North Kensington was a deprived area, and the Lancaster West Estate was built to replace slum housing; the construction of social housing therefore made sense. The Right to Buy has led much former council housing to enter the private market, and in some cases to become gentrified, but a fairly run-down tower block is not a very desirable place for tenants to buy, so many of the flats remained as social housing. Warofdreams talk 00:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

London (and for all I know other British cities) is full of places where ultra rich and very poor live cheek-by-jowl. I don't know to what extent this is due to town planning or accidents of history, I suspect more the latter, but government policy on social housing and the amazing work of housing associations, which between them own a staggering proportion of the homes in this country have had an impact, and, for my money, prevent ghettoisation and no-go areas. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

And historically, each borough council in the UK had a duty to clear away slum housing and rehouse the inhabitants in affordable accommodation (the Housing Act 1930 is the legislation). Our article, Public housing in the United Kingdom gives the full rundown. Alansplodge (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
On one view, making rich and poor people live in adjoining buildings prevents ghettoisation and no-go areas; on another, it creates ghettoisation and no-go areas in every borough, especially when council and charity housing is clearly visually marked, e.g. by exposed corridors and standard issue plaques, and especially in areas where council housing is large scale and poorly maintained. An alternative solution that has been tried is to give the former slum-dwellers the opportunity to move to proper housing in the outer suburbs, and it is debatable which solution has been more successful. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Iceland compared to American internet usage[edit]

How to Icelanders use the internet as compared to Americans? (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Does Internet in Iceland help you?--Shantavira|feed me 07:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Internet in Iceland" somewhat helps. I'm more interested in how Icelanders spend their time using the internet--- what sorts of information they are interested in, the demographics of the heaviest internet users, as opposed to how Americans spend their time using the internet. Thank you. (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This would be a good place to start, except that Iceland isn't included. You might extrapolate from how similar Icelanders may or may not be to, e.g. Danes, Finns or Norwegians. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Southern pride[edit]

What's the deal with southern pride in the US? I'm from the north, and never heard northern pride. What are they proud of? CTF83! 02:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Being racists.--Jayron32 02:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
LOL while true, I was hoping for a better answer. CTF83! 03:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
They lost the war, and southern pride is a way to try to feel better about themselves. However, southerners are more known for being expressive anyway, while northerners are stereotypically more stoic. (JFK quote: "Washington DC is a city of northern charm and southern efficiency.") Northerners don't talk about being proud to be northerners, they talk about being proud to be Americans. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Lots of people are proud of their heritage or region. (Try telling a native New Yorker that New York isn't the absolute most bestest wonderfulest city in this or any other universe.) That said, there's a certain identity to the South as a larger region that the "North" tends not to have. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This reminds me of a joke that to most of the world a yankee is an American, to Southerners a yankee is a Northerner, to Northerners a yankee is a Northeasterner, to Northeasterners a yankee is a New Englander, to New Englanders a Yankee is a Vermonter and to Vermonters a yankee is a Vermonter who eats his porridge cold in an unheated outhouse below 0°F with his long john flap open (or something like that, as a non-New Englander if I remembered wrong I wouldn't know). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sagittarian Milky Way -- the 1941 Heinlein story "—And He Built a Crooked House—" opens with a discussion about how the world considers Americans crazy, Americans consider Californians crazy, Californians consider inhabitants of LA County crazy, inhabitants of LA County consider people in Hollywood crazy, while people in Hollywood point to Laurel Canyon as the craziest. AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
So like the joke "Did you hear Clark County got a new zoo? They put a fence around Powell County! Did you hear Lexington got a new zoo? They put a fence around Clark County! Did you hear Cincinnati got a new zoo? They put a fence around Kentucky! (context: Powell County, Kentucky is in rural Appalachia. Clark County, Kentucky is between Lexington, Kentucky (300,000 people) and Powell County, Cincinnati (2.1 million) is a Northern city across the river from Kentucky). Apologies to Kentuckians. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there was one more level where a yankee is any rural Vermonter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It might be considered a sub-culture, based on the Confederate States' secession from the United States on ideological grounds. Look for the iconic image of the flag of the Confederacy, which has been compared with the swastika's having been banned in post-WWII Germany. An essential difficulty is that the Confederacy was racist at its core, and its loyal descendants in our time don't seem to reconcile this with equal status for African Americans. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
CTF83! -- We have a long and detailed article Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Insofar as it was a movement to prevent Southerners from feeling that their ancestors were fools and traitors who had died in a bad cause without accomplishing much of anything worthwhile in the end, it was a natural and predictable reaction to the aftermath of the Civil War. Unfortunately, the resulting ideology contained certain elements of historical falsification, and nostalgically glorified things which involved flagrant violations of modern standards of human rights. AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested in Shelby Foote, an American historian interviewed in the Ken Burns film, The Civil War. He said the Civil War is more important to who Americans are as a people than the War of Independence. But seriously, you're from the north, and you don't know this? Isn't it something you feel viscerally in the US? Like we in Australia feel the situation of Aboriginal people, either the politically correct side, the racist side, or (if you happen to be Aboriginal) the actual difficulties? Just surprised, that's all. You might also like Gone with the Wind, which is of course about the same thing. But Jayron's answer probably still sums it all up in a single take. IBE (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
If you want a real answer to this question you should ask a real-life Southerner. If you don't know any, there are lots of articles online written about Southern Pride by people who recognize its historical racist elements but are capable of articulating other elements too. Here's one: Staecker (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You've never heard of Northern pride? This question is Northern pride. You are bashing an entire region and claiming that your personal region is better. That is pride. But, for the answer you appear to want, it has to do with being put down. If you want to portray someone as stupid, give them a Southern accent. If you want to find an example of racism, just point to anyone from the South. If you want to poke fun at someone being behind the times, pick any small town in the South. Over and over, the South is the butt of jokes and, for the most part, it is unrealistic stereotyping. Any group (South, black, women, gay, etc...) that is continually put down will eventually form a cohesive pride about their identity. Some will become assholes about it and do something stupid like wave a Confederate flag at a basketball game. Most will politely say "That's nice" as you brag about how proud you are to be Northern. (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
How long did it take for South Carolina to get rid of the rebel flag on state property? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
54 years. Is there a point or are you stereotyping? (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
By keeping it there so long, their own actions reinforced the stereotype. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a wider point here namely that the idea that "Some will become assholes about it and do something stupid like wave a Confederate flag at a basketball game" which seems to suggest only a small minority who's "cohesive pride about their identity" includes embracing a flag with clear racist history is questionable. Clearly in at least some areas it's a significant proportion. This is not to suggest that those people are racist themselves. This isn't a problem unique to the Southern US of course. It's well recognised that certain figures embraced as heroes by many in the US, especially from the time of US independence, had histories now considered highly questionable. Post WW2 Germany was mentioned above, the way Japan treats their history and historical figures is quite different from Germany and is fairly contentious especially in other East Asian countries. Of course Japan's actions, beliefs and activities during WW2 may not have been quite as bad as Nazi Germany but it's unquestionable there were many atrocities. Then again as much as the Allies may like to present themselves as the good guys, and as much as they may have been better, some of their actions were likewise questionable, e.g. the internment whatever a certain president thinks of it. (Turkey would be another example.) In other words, people often like to gloss over their history and historical figures but the problem for those southerns who embrace the Confederate heritage as a core part of their southern pride is how bad part of that history was and perhaps also how recent it was. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, the South went through some genuine problems such as atrocities under Sherman's March to the Sea (though reading our article, it certainly downplays any such thing; I don't really know enough about it to say), and exploitation by carpetbaggers. They were not always the bad guys in every way, and so they had some genuine assaults on them that they felt they had overcome to form a genuine basis for some sort of feeling of solidarity. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so bottom line, they're snowflakes, and are mad they lost the war. CTF83! 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
My parents lived in a few different areas (VA,GA,LA) in the south and expressed that there was not uncommon hostility to them as Northerners and Catholics. This was just after the end of segregation. Northerners might have contempt for the stereotype, making jokes of the Southerner, the Midwesterner, or the Appalachian, but I have never witnessed actual personal contempt in the concrete.
(People in NYC often asked me if I was a Southerner due to my South Jersey accent, specifically due to my o-fronting. But there was never hostility, and I got rid of the accent within a few months, so now I code switch.)
The Pineys of the NJ Pine Barrens are an interesting case; they are like displaced Appalachians, with a distinct accent. I was asked at a bar I stopped in to have lunch where I was from, due to my accent, and did not feel well-treated. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In Columbus, OH everyone seemed to talk Southern. (but still Midwesternish) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
From South Park: "It's time that we retire our outdated, racist flag, which is particularly embarrassing, as we live in a Northern state." StuRat (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the woman who was using this computer yesterday, but I want to point out that I was born in New York. I lived there for just over 18 years before I was drafted into Vietnam. After I was discharged, I moved first to DC, then to North Carolina, and then to South Carolina. I've lived in South Carolina over 40 years if my math is right. In the nearly 20 years that I lived in New York, I experienced far more racism than I've experienced in twice the time living in South Carolina. I strongly disagree with the claim that everyone in the south is racist. (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cave art in France[edit]

Why France has so many prehistoric cave art paintings, seemingly more than other countries (perhaps aside from Spain)? Was it because the majority of prehistoric European people settled there? (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of factors. Partly patterns of settlement - it was a fairly easy area to live in. Partly geology - not all areas have accessible caves, and prehistoric painting in more exposed areas will simply not have survived. Partly tourism - there is a mass of such art in Africa, but caves have not been explored, preserved and sold as tourist attractions in the same way. Wymspen (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It may also have been a dry climate, thus affecting the preservation of these paintings. There are plenty of similar caves in the UK without such paintings, and probably more due to them not having been preserved, rather than paintings never having been made there. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Most such cave art was painted during the last ice age, when France and Iberia were glacial refugia and Britain was under the ice. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Seek and ye shall find... Unprecedented Ice Age Cave Art Discovered in U.K. (2004): "For many years the total lack of cave art in Britain dating to the same period perplexed researchers... Now more extensive surveys undertaken this year reveal that the English caves may hold the most elaborate Ice Age cave-art ceiling ever discovered. Up to 80 carvings of animals, dancing women, and geometric patterns have now been discovered". Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Our Eartham Pit, Boxgrove article doesn't mention cave art, but our article on the other site mentioned above, Creswell Crags, does. Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread that National Geographic article, the cave art was at Creswell Crags (not Boxgrove) and is already mentioned in our "Cave art" article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting to the Holy Land during the Crusades[edit]

Crusaders who couldn't afford or didn't want to go by sea to the Holy Land faced an enormous trek across Europe and Asia Minor in days when signposts were presumably few and far between, maps were very rare and extremely expensive and basic knowledge of European/Middle Eastern geography was presumably poor. So how did they find their way? I think the wiser Byzantine emperors were keen to keep things moving and may well have provided guides to get people past Constantinople, but what about the rest of the journey? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're greatly underestimating the reach and effectiveness of the European trade network, and of the infrastructure underlying it (in terms of people, roads, vehicles, horses, inns, and knowledge). A thousand years before the crusades, the Romans had an extensive international trade network (map). The Silk Road has been reopened and running for hundreds of years by the time of the First Crusade, interconnecting with an extensive land and sea trade network (map). A Frankish crusader gets to the Levant the same way trade goods do - he rides or walks on the same trade roads. Every town has a road and everyone in that town knows where the road goes; every crossroads of those main roads has either a village or at least an inn, and there is no route in Europe or Asia Minor where he won't find somewhere to sleep and eat and refresh his horse every night. If he's confused as to the best route, he can ask someone in the inn at night - and a couple of silver coins and a grasp of latin can find some priest or trader who will translate. And the crusader is travelling with lots of friends, who will pool knowledge. The crusades are a package holiday, not a wilderness trek. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec) The assumption that knowledge of geography was poor needs some reasoning. By the time of the first crusade, the Roman Catholic church stretched from Italy to Britain. The church had no problem getting money from the shores of Britain to Italy. The Greek Orthodox church covered land from Southern Italy to Turkey. They had no difficulty moving money from city to city. The path many of the original crusade followed was simply a road to Rome (all roads lead to Rome). Then, they went to Greece to get to Constantinople. They obviously knew that Constantinople was the gateway to the Holy land. Then, after reaching Constantinople, they just headed south to take over the cities, one by one, until they got to Jerusalem. There was a group that followed the Danube instead of the road to Rome. From what I remember, they mostly starved and were inconsequential to the whole crusade. Now, after Constantinople, I said they just headed South - and that is exactly what they did. They first took Nicaea, which is a stone's throw from Constantinople. It was an easy battle. Then, from there, they took the main road south that ended in Dorylaeum. They took that. The road out of there went Southeast to Antioch. I believe they used a siege on that town, took forever. From Antioch, the road South goes straight to Jerusalem. So, as they did to get to Rome, they just followed the main road in a Southward way. (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Dweller -- I wonder about your presumption that a land journey would be much cheaper than a sea journey. Until the rise of railroads in the 19th century, transport of commodities by water was almost always much cheaper than transport overland outside of a small local area, when distances were comparable. There are various examples of importing grain into a landlocked area to relieve famine being economically quite infeasible, though it would have been practical if the area had been accessible by seaport or navigable river or canal. In the early Christian era, there was a kind of special relationship between Christians in southern France and Christians in Egypt, which was made possible by ship journeys, and only cut off by the Islamic conquest of Egypt... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Correct. By the third crusade, King Philip and King Richard took port cities between Italy and Jerusalem to aid in transport. However, they were still very weak when they finally landed. That is commonly attributed to the siege of the port of Acre. (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
There were stories that the first batch of crusaders, the People's Crusade, did not know where they were going and thought every city they came across was Jerusalem. But that is probably not true, and in any case, they knew where they were going because Europeans had been travelling to Jerusalem for centuries already. Some of the crusaders may have even been there before. Robert II, Count of Flanders, who was one of the leaders of the crusade, had not been there, but his father had; Bohemond of Taranto and some of the other Italian Normans had not been all the way to Jerusalem but were quite familiar with the Byzantine Empire. There was also a large German Pilgrimage of 1064-1065 only a generation earlier. Once the crusade reached the Byzantine Empire and Asia Minor, they knew where they were going because they had guides (a Byzantine general named Taticius, among others). Asia Minor all the way up to Antioch had been part of the Empire only 20-30 years earlier, it wasn't a mysterious wonderland. And as mentioned, sea travel was the preferred method of transport once it was feasible - but they had to conquer some ports and islands first, so they couldn't travel by sea for the First Crusade anyway. Later crusades were largely, or only, conducted by sea. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell fire: how many survived/escaped?[edit]

Death toll is currently at 79 dead or missing. The article infobox says that there were an additional 74 non-fatal injuries (although I can't see the source for that), and that the building housed "up to 600 people". What I haven't been able to find, either in the article or any of the news reports, is how many people are known to have escaped (or even how many are being rehoused). Has anyone seen this information given anywhere? (At the very least, it would give an indication of how accurate the casualty figures are). Iapetus (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If anyone knew this it would already have been publicised, because everybody wants to know. There are several inter-related problems, including:
(a) the Local Council's Emergency Plan (or whatever it's currently called) was either poor, or badly implemented, or both (to the extent that some of those responsible were forcibly replaced by Whitehall in the aftermath);
(b) in the circumstances of such an event it's difficult to compile centralised and complete records, because some lesser- or un-hurt victims will undoubtably have dispersed to friends or relatives and not reported to an appropriate authority;
(c) while the Council probably knows the names of those who were officially living there, some of those individuals will not have been present, while an additional number of others will have been living there unofficially, being homeless and in some cases being unregistered illegal immigrants. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Even if people were living there perfectly legitimately, they might not be known to authorities—or not all known to the same authorities, so it might take time to gather the information. For example, voter records will not show immigrants who cannot vote because they are not yet citizens; school records will only show people who are of an age to be in school; income tax records will only show people who have (or have had) taxable income; the landlord's records may not show family members sharing an apartment unless the tenant is required to disclose them all. I'm not familiar with the details of any of these things in England, so I can't cite references on the subject, but the general principle will apply in any country that doesn't have a requirement for all residents to keep the government informed of their residence, and I don't think England has that. -- (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
See also Mayor of London Sadiq Khan backs amnesty on illegal immigrants who lived in Grenfell Tower at time of fire. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Democrats changing their stance on illegal immigrants[edit]

Has anyone proposed that the Democrats change their stance on illegal immigration in order to win more votes?Uncle dan is home (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Be harsher on illegals? The "more votes" they might gain, would be at the expense of votes they lost due to a more hard-line approach. CTF83! 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless it's reverse psychology. If the Dems start taking a hard line on immigration, the Reps might decide to soften. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Such a sudden shift would be great news for the Green Party.
But sure, lot's of people have said things along those lines. here is a couple of articles roughly like what you want. ApLundell (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a good long-term strategy, as the percentage of Hispanic voters is steadily increasing, many of which were once illegal immigrants, have family members who are illegal immigrants, or may have, in the future. Also, being stopped and asked to present their papers by police or immigration agents is annoying, even if they have such papers. (There are some Hispanics who are Republican/support tough actions against illegal immigrants, but that's a small percentage.) StuRat (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as "the Democrats" in the way there are, say, the Mammals, or atomic gold. Certain politicians who run on the Republican or Democratic tickets and caucus with those nominal parties vote differently from their colleagues on different issues, and the typical party line varies over time. The parties have even pretty much given up having or promulgating platforms. The fallacy here is treating loose, non-uniform coalitions whose real purpose is to obtain office by getting the votes of disparate constituencies as real things such as cars which can either move in reverse, rather than the cumulus clouds they are. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Lord Milton[edit]

Who was 'Lord Milton' in early 19th century? Say, before 1820, and who were his children at that time? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In that period, "Lord Milton" would probably have been a reference to Charles, Viscount Milton, only son and heir of the 4th Earl Fitzwilliam, who was styled by that title by courtesy between his birth in 1786 and the death of his father (whom he succeeded as 5th Earl Fitzwilliam) in 1833. Our article has details on his children. There's also an outside chance it could be a misspelled reference to the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Earl of Milltown. Proteus (Talk) 20:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, excellent (got another one coming up). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The other possibility (depending on the context of the reference) would be George Damer, 2nd Earl of Dorchester who was styled Viscount Milton until 1798 - though that is a bit early, perhaps. Wymspen (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

3 per cent reduced[edit]

I'm looking at a (UK) Will dated October 1820. The Will refers to "...I give and bequeathed to my two sons ... all of the money which I may be possessed on at my decease, which said money is now principally in the 3 per cent reduced, together with the interest and profits arising therefrom...". What is the '3 per cent reduced'? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • This [142][143] sounds as if it may be related, apparently some type of government bonds? Fut.Perf. 20:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This dictionary gives as a meaning of the word percent: "[pl.] Brit. securities bearing regular interest of a (stated) percentage: the four percents". Not in wiktionary... AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right, a government bond issued by the Bank of England in 1757, usually referred to as 'three per cent reduced annuities'. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Second World War[edit]

Our article Phoney war relates that there was virtually no action until the spring of 1940. The winter of 1939/40 was the coldest since 1893/4. Was this the underlying cause of the inactivity? (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason for some idea which the article about it does not consider at all to be in any way relevant. Why should anyone be keen on escalating a war so soon after the first world war? Chamberlain for instance was keen on finding some peaceful agreed solution. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was certainly a factor but a) the campaign in Poland had shown up some weaknesses in the German forces, and much equipment had been lost or damaged,. Rectifying these issues took time in an economy not yet fully geared-up for war. b) The Allies, the UK and France, planned an offensive in the west in the spring of 1941 when they would have built up their forces somewhat. In the meantime, it was hoped that the British naval blockade would weaken the German economy. The Germans were good at finding ways round the blockade, chiefly through Scandinavia, hence the Norwegian Campaign of April 1940. Although there was considerable naval activity, see Battle of the River Plate, the RAF's large bomber arm limited themselves to dropping propaganda leaflets, for fear of provoking German retaliation against British cities. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the article is pretty clear: the French and the Germans spent eight months staring at each other from two massively fortified lines, the Maginot and Siegfried. World War I had ground down to a virtual stalemate in its day, and now they had deluxe trenches that had been built up for decades. So I doubt anybody was all that eager to blow the whistle and send their men into the kill zone... they might need them later. Then on May 10, you have two separate things happen: a) Churchill takes over from Chamberlain, and b) the Germans invade via Belgium. I don't know which prompted which, but after that there was no longer any diplomatic no-go zone keeping the armies apart away from the trenches. Wnt (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The resignation of Chamberlain and the appointment of Churchill are unconnected with the start of the Battle of France, the former lost the confidence of Parliament over the failure of the Norwegian Campaign. Nobody in the west knew about Case Yellow until the day it happened. The Siegfried Line was much less formidable than the Allies thought (propaganda photographs of the fortifications were actually taken in Czechoslovakia), but even so, they lacked the wherewithal for a full-scale offensive in 1940 and thought they could just bide their time.
For the Germans, Hitler had wanted to attack France on 25 October 1939, but it could not be organised in time. Various plans were considered by the German OKH (general staff) between October and January 1940 but on 10 January 1940, part of the plans fell into Allied hands (the Mechelen incident) requiring the whole thing to be re-planned. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems like a remarkable coincidence that Britain would switch to a hard-liner on the same day as the Germans attacked. I have to be suspicious that in some way, someone had to know something was up, even if they didn't want to admit they had foreknowledge of the coming attack to avoid recriminations. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Results of French legislative elections before 2002[edit]

I'm beginning a project to clean up and correct old French election articles and have been having some trouble locating results of old elections. Right now I'm attempting to locate results of the 1973 legislative election; has 473 out of 490 constituencies, with the source being the CDSP. These numbers also correspond to the totals on the france-politique archive (hobbyists). The National Assembly also has published results for the 1973 legislatives which differ from the above, but I can't find the original source it cites. What is more, neither the French nor English articles on the topic seem to cite sources for the numbers they use (inserted into their articles in 2006) – which differ from both of the previous. Any help locating complete results (by nuance, with seat numbers, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. Mélencron 12:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Literary device like a nested metaphor[edit]

I remember reading about a type of writing that is like a nested metaphor but I can't find what it was called. It was sort of absurd and there was an example on the Wikipedia page where the first layer was like: "her eyes were an ocean." Then the second layer might have been: "her eyes were an ocean, glittering sapphires of azure" then the third absurdist layer was like: "her eyes were an ocean, glittering sapphires of azure draped around the neck of a middle aged Manhattanite whose nicotine stained fingertips combed through her platinum blonde hair like the whiskers of a manatee delicately prodding the seafloor.

Maybe they weren't metaphors? Anyway I just remember that they kept going deeper to the point where it was effectively nonsense.

EDIT: Figured it out, it was a pataphor. (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

190 Personnel LLC[edit]

I'm looking for sources on the company "190 Personnel LLC". Benjamin (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not contact the owner? His name and address are listed on just about every business listing, such as this one [144]. (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

How well is Qatar preparing for invasion?[edit]

Today's list of demands in the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis is truly remarkable - things like allowing the Saudi Arabian bloc to censor all the country's media, control its foreign policy, and demand open-ended reparations. These seem like demands far outsized for any blockade, however serious, and more like a call for unconditional surrender.[145][146] Understandably enough the Qataris don't seem interested.[147]

So the question is, how does a country in this day and age prepare for an imminent invasion, when it has some hope for support from external powers? I mean, the obvious thing is to mobilize the army; I found one item about them abruptly pulling out 450 peacekeepers, presumably to have them ready elsewhere.[148] But the Saudi Arabian hegemons seem primarily known for systematically starving the Houthis, so is the Qatar government effectively stockpiling for a siege, caching large amounts of food as well as weapons and explosives in distributed locations? Are they arraying people with cameras on the border to establish the facts when an incident is claimed, recruiting or even drafting soldiers? Are there reviews of everything a modern regime would do to prepare? Is Qatar following it? Wnt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The main thing that Qatar will be doing is trying to make sure that its opponents do not discover what it is doing or planning to do - so any answer to this would be guesswork. Wymspen (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
That's not necessarily true. Qatar could also want to publicly suggest that their enemies threatened actions will be fruitless / ineffective. For example, Qatar is proudly announcing new imports of food from both Iran and Turkey to replace food shipments loss from Saudi Arabia, et al. Dragons flight (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
What they are announcing may not necessarily be true either! If they did have a serious food crisis, they would not want to reveal that. Wymspen (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
An interesting aspect is that the entire military power that Qatar can summon is probably less than what the US has in their own country: the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US air base outside of the USA. This base is used by 11,000 US troops and flights leave or land every every 10 minutes [149], so, military activity around it (it's on the path from Saudi Arabia to Doha) that was not supported by the US would seems unlikely. Basically either the US support Qatar and the Saudi will not dare to invade, just continue the blockade, or the US joins on the side of the Saudis, in which case Qatar does not stand a chance. But the US won't just let fighting happen around the base. IF the Qatari think they are in danger they could demand that the base be abandoned (major drawback for the US as it is heavily used for bombing ISIS), and then the US would have to breach Qatari sovereignty to keep the base. But that would become nasty, there is also Qatari military personnel inside the base [150], and they might fight to defend their country's sovereignty. --Lgriot (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


June 16[edit]


looking for antonyms of "control" (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You've been provided links to thesaurus websites in your prior questions about antonyms. Are these sites not giving you the answers you want? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Louis Pierre Vossion[edit]

Recueil. Îles Hawaï. I. Histoire. Documents iconographiques rassemblés par Louis Pierre Vossion, Vue 62.jpg

Can someone help me translate the handwritten texts in this image? Please place in the image description as well. Is Louis Pierre Vossion in the assembled group?--AlohaKavebear (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

- Îles Hawaï - Mgr Gulstan Ropert, des Sacrés-Coeurs de Picpus, est depuis 37 ans dans les îles. Il fut l'ami du R.P. Damien, martyr. - L'évêque catholique d'Honolulu - le doyen des Missionnaires (58 ans dans les îles). Le chef de la Division Navale du Pacifique et l'Etat-Major du Croiseur Français Duguay-Trouin, Nov. 1898 - (L. Vossion (?) Consul de France (?). Akseli9 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Wrong ship - must be French cruiser Duguay-Trouin (1873) for which we have no article. Rmhermen (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No, Louis Vossion is not on the picture. Perhaps he's the one who took the picture? Akseli9 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The name of the file is "Documents iconographiques rassemblés par Louis Pierre Vossion", i.e."pictorial documents assembled by Louis Pierre Vossion". So, the picture may simply have come into his possession in his role as French consul. --Xuxl (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"centralized" antonym[edit]

i often hear "decentralized" computing etc. but isnt there an antonym to "centralized" without using a prefix? (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Distributed"? Fut.Perf. 10:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
"Dis-" is a prefix. Rojomoke (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Not in its English usage. Distribute comes from the Latin distribuere, where the dis- is a prefix (meaning "asunder"). But in English you can't knock off the prefix and have a sensible verb - to tribute, anyone? Phil Holmes (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
How about "localized"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Or regionalized. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
See: Distributed computing2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8C81:A23:E9F2:E55E (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "eighth"[edit]

In everyday speech, we simply say it to rhyme with faith. However, a few Wikipedia articles say that this word is property pronounced with a t+th. Any sources saying that this is still the standard pronunciation?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have sources to hand, but I can certainly report that I pronounce it /eɪtθ/ even in fast speech. --Trovatore (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Ditto on pronunciation. I checked four dictionaries, all giving /eɪtθ/, none giving /eɪθ/. I'm not sure I've ever heard /eɪθ/. -- Elphion (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
(added) American Heritage gives both pronunciations. -- Elphion (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary gives both for the US but not for Britain. Loraof (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The only pronunciation I have commonly heard in England has the t+th sound. If I heard it as ryming with faith, I would assume that someone with a lisp was trying to say "ace" Wymspen (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Must be a regional thing. I only pronounce it to rhyme with faith. (I grew up in upstate New York and upstate South Carolina.) Loraof (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The only pronunciation I have ever heard in America has the t+th sound (U.S. south central, southwest, midwest, west). —Stephen (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Here in the UK, only /eɪtθ/ is correct (per OED). No-one would rhyme it with faith unless they had a speech impediment or possibly were speaking very quickly. Dbfirs 20:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
(Detroit) I also pronounce it the "t+th" way. However, note that it may not be easy to hear the diff, so that if somebody hears it in childhood as just "th", they may start to say it that way, especially before they see how it's spelled. Same with similar words, like "heighth" (although "height" is more formal). StuRat (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no such word as "heighth". Height is not simply formal, it's the only version. Unless you're an American, and then anything goes. Akld guy (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, some Cockneys say ""heighth" - it's used in A Clockwork Orange (the book): "dressed in the very heighth of fashion" [151]. But you're correct, it's incorrect. Alansplodge (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Being from Detroit, that would make me a 'merkin. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you even comprehend what you were attempting to do? That is, mislead the unwitting reader not proficient in English that "heighth" is merely an alternative to the correct "height". You are either an uncaring idiot or one of those Americans bent on perverting everything in the rest of the world to the American way. I strongly suspect you are not an idiot. So stop with the misleading. There are rules in English. Your localized perversion used by a tiny fraction of the world's population is no substitute for what the rules of English say. Akld guy (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
So Americans may make up a small percentage of the world's population — but something close to two thirds of native English speakers. That said, "heighth" is not standard in American English either, so even if we did want to make the world speak AmE, it wouldn't include "heigth". --Trovatore (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I did not include all Americans in "tiny fraction of the world's population". Did you take the time to read what I wrote and ponder it for a moment or two, or just jump to a kneejerk defensive reaction? Akld guy (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It may not be standard in the UK these days, but the OED gives it a British history going back to the 13th century:
c1290 S. Eng. Leg. I. 266/190 Fram þe eorþe heo was op i-houe þe heiȝþe of fet þreo.
Later examples cited:
1667 Milton Paradise Lost viii. 413 To attaine The highth and depth of thy Eternal wayes.
1673 J. Ray Observ. Journey Low-countries 76 Stakes or Poles of about a mans highth.
1809 J. Roland Amateur of Fencing 22 It depends on the person's heighth.
1890 J. D. Robertson Gloss. Words County of Gloucester Hecth, height.
--Antiquary (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
And on checking the British Newspaper Archive I find they break down the number of hits for heighth like this:
1700-1749: 58
1750-1799: 685
1800-1849: 1101
1850-1899: 1310
1900-1949: 610
1950-1999: 23
Difficult to draw statistically meaningful results from that without knowing how many newspapers they looked at in each period, but at any rate it looks like heighth was not too uncommon in British English up to the early 20th century. --Antiquary (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
And I find over 5 million Ghits for heighth. Far less than height, but still rather significant usage. That, along with the historic usage, would seem to qualify it as a "variant, now chiefly AmE". StuRat (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Am I correct in saying this is the only English word where "th" is pronounced /tθ/? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't know, but no counterexample comes to mind. Actually I can't even think of another example of the /tθ/ cluster, with any spelling. Seems like it ought to be spelled eigtth. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If you mean with minimal departure from current standard spelling conventions, it should be "eightth"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, right. I thought something looked funny but couldn't find it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Naughth?--Wikimedes (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
While the words width and breadth are spelt with -dth, I think the pronunciation is /tθ/. —Stephen (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Where I come from, the "d" in those words is enunciated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, who says "with" and "breath" for those words ? StuRat (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Probably the same ones who say "strenth" instead of "strength". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, even if these words were spoken that way (which they're not), this would not be a counter-example for my question. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
True. For that matter, how many English words end in "hth"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The answer appears to be 13, with 9 of them being words ending in "eighth" and the other 4 being non-standard spellings as discussed earlier.[152]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Joining the chorus: We do not rhyme it with faith in Western Canada, either. t-th is it. Mingmingla (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Midwest: we say eight-th, although we've heard eigh-th in some regions. We also sometimes hear height-th rather than height, but that's considered a hick expression. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I, an AMERICKAN, and say eight-th, but I have heard eith. 14:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, "eighth" is pronounced as if spelled "eightth", while "Matthew" is pronounced as if spelled "Mathew"... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Now, that is an interesting observation. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The origin of Matthew/Mathew may help.[153]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"Here in the UK, only /eɪtθ/ is correct (per OED)", says somebody above. I don't think that the OED is designed to be, or should be, used in this way. The OED doesn't purport to be a guide to how all non-trivial British groups of L1 English speakers say words both deliberately and rapidly. I think I say /eɪtθ/ but I wouldn't be at all surprised if an analysis of my actual output revealed that I sometimes said /eɪθ/. As for other words with the /tθ/ cluster, I suspect that my commonest pronunciation of "width" is /wɪtθ/. I'm not even sure that a true [wɪdθ] is possible for monoglot L1 English speakers; but the distinction (if any) between relevant allomorphs of /t/ and /d/ can be problematic. More.coffy (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The OED gives the standard pronunciation. If there was a widespread alternative, it would be stated there. I agree that there are wide regional variations in pronunciation of many words, and that consonants might often be omitted in rapid speech, but the OED is generally considered to be the authority for those who wish to use standard English. I don't use OED pronunciations for my local dialect, but I do for more formal speech. Like you, I struggle to pronounce width as /wɪdθ/ (though I do try). The OED does allow /wɪtθ/ as an alternative for those of us who tend to unvoice the plosive. Dbfirs 08:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

"pendejera" (Venezuelan slang?)[edit]

  1. 2017 June 16, “Parecemos, pero no somos, y si fuimos, no somos más”, in El Nacional[154]:
    Así se hace cómplice necesario y responsable del intento desesperado para engañar, confiando en que esos millones de ciudadanos hambreados, maltratados, gaseados, apaleados y reprimidos, incluidos los pocos maduristas que reverencian sin cavilar, síntoma clarísimo de pendejera vocacional, van a tragarse semejante fábula retorcida sin aviso ni protesto.

What does this mean? "Pendejera" is the name of the plant Solanum torvum according to es.wikipedia but that doesn't seem to be the meaning here. DTLHS (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This source translates "pendejera" as: cowardice, unmanliness ... lack of character, namby-pambiness2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8C81:A23:E9F2:E55E (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder whether that source applies to Venezuelan colloquial Spanish though. Obviously, pendejera is derived from "pendejo". That Wiktionary entry lists various meanings, and "coward" is attributed to various countries, but not to Venezuela which is specifically listed for only one meaning there: "dickhead (stupid person)". Similarly, Spanish Wiktionary only mentions Venezuela for the meaning "falto de inteligencia, entendimiento o astucia".[155] In this Chilean article the Venezuelan linguist Maylen Sosa explains the Venezuelan connotations of "pendejo", "a mild insult to disqualify someone". Perhaps I'd translate "pendejera vocacional" as "vocational stupidity" or "vocational dickheadery", but not "vocational cowardice" ---Sluzzelin talk 09:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

German translation of a Kennedy quote[edit]

Could somebody give me a good German translation of the following phrase from this speech by Kennedy: "yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand mankind's final war" — What would be the most literal equivalent to hand here?--Erdic (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

First thought: I do not think it will be done with just translating "hand" here....the whole sentence would be something like "stay your hand, knave" e.g....with the meaning of "am Handeln gehindert sein, werden". Lectonar (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
One translation found in several books [156] has "das den Ausbruch des letzten Krieges der Menschheit noch hemmt" (for "that stays the hand of mankind's final war"). This seems a fairly decent translation. What makes the phrase difficult to understand (to German non-native speakers of English) is maybe not so much the meaning of "hand", but the transitive use of stay in the sense of "keep sth. back". Fut.Perf. 20:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I found it difficult to understand too, but the JFK Library confirms that you've lost an "of" in that quote; "stays the hand of mankind's final war" makes more sense. Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all very much — now I do see the sense! Best--Erdic (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Job descriptions[edit]

In the last century, the Surveyor of the Fabric of Westminster Abbey was Doctor Donald Buttress, while the Archbishop of Manila was Cardinal Sin. Do people's surnames influence their choice of occupation? (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

See Nominative determinism. Rojomoke (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Translation from Arabic - 'sabih'[edit]

What does it 'sabih' (or something like that) mean? I don't know how it's written in Arabic. I know it can be a given name, but it should also have meaning as a word. -- (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably Sabeeh. HOTmag (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This wikt:صبيح.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Danish or Norwegian?[edit]

I have a citation as follows:

Indberetning om en stipendierejse til England for at studere Gouins metode for undervisning i sprog (Quousque Tandem No. = Norske univ. og skoleannaler, 1894

Google guesses the the first part to be Danish, and the second ("Norske univ. og skoleannaler,") to be Norwegian. Assuming the question makes sense for an 1894 text, which language are these really? Thanks, HenryFlower 12:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm Danish. "Quousque Tandem" is Latin. "No." is not a Danish abbreviation but may in some contexts be used instead of "nr." (number, Danish: nummer). Everything else including "Norske univ. og skoleannaler" is valid current Danish (univ. must be short for universitets). I don't think it's valid current Norwegian but I don't know about 1894. Norway was Danish for centuries until 1814 and the languages are very similar. See Languages of Norway#Norwegian language struggle. "Norske" means Norwegian which may be why Google guesses Norwegian. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
No. may not be a Danish abbreviation, but it is a perfectly good Latin one for numero, which makes sense as part of the Latin phrase. Wymspen (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Also see Numero sign. Lectonar (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all (especially PrimeHunter) -- that's very helpful. :) HenryFlower 15:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

what's the rule?[edit]

Do you say

Do the same things that the parents do.


Do the same things as the parents do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Both those expressions are valid but both are rather clumsy. It is not necessary to repeat "do". It would be better to say "Do the same as the parents". Also "the parents" sounds rather odd as it is not clear whose parents are being referred to. It would be more usual to hear "Do the same as your (his, her) parents".--Mrs Wibble-Wobble (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a matter of opinion; I prefer the original versions. I don't have a source for this, but I have the impression that British people are more likely to prefer the shorter versions. -- (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with your last comment. Check: The grandparents "do the same as the parents". HOTmag (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you are trying to combine two phrases, each of which is quite clear, and thereby causing some grammatical confusion. Either say "Do the things that your parents do" or "do the same as your parents do" - you don't actually need to say "the same things" Wymspen (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How to pronounce the word "Jesuism"[edit]

I was just reading the Wikipedia article called "Jesuism" but can't seem to find out in any of my searches how that word is pronounced. Just wondering if that info could be included, please. Or, would you happen to know of any other site where the pronunciation is given?

Many thanks! ~ Coleyna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coleyna (talkcontribs) 22:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A non-IPA representation might be written as "JEZ-you-izm". Wictionary's entry lacks a pronunciation, and the word isn't in my (paper) copy of the OED. Anyone? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If "Jesuism" refers to the "Jesuits", the corresponding pronunciation should be "JEZ-oo-ism". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
... but it doesn't. That would be Jesuitism, pronounced /ˈdʒɛzjuːɪˌtɪz(ə)m/ according to the OED. Dbfirs 15:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
So "Jeez-u-ism" after the pronunciation of Jesus? That doesn't sound right to me. DTLHS (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that this is a word that could be eligible for Trisyllabic laxing, so it would not be surprising if the first syllable were /dʒɛz/. However, there are exceptions to that rule, so it could also be /dʒi:z/, or both pronunciations may exist in free variation.
In the UK, "JEZ-you-izm" is normal, but given the American tendancy for yod dropping, "JEZ-oo-ism" might be acceptable over there. Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But very unlikely to be "JEEZ-you-ism". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I've never heard of that one. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

"Spare oneself sth"[edit]

Hello, would you say "You could have spared [or saved?] yourself that!" or rather "You could have spared that yourself!"? Best--Erdic (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In the sense that you need not have put yourself through some difficulty, you would say "You could have spared yourself that." The other phrase is perfectly correct grammar - but means something quite different: you have something that you don't need and could have done without it when it was needed, but chose to hang on to it rather than letting it be used. Wymspen (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Wymspen! But wouldn't you then rather leave out "yourself" for the second meaning?--Erdic (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes; in that context yourself more likely means ‘you rather than (or as well as) someone else’, rather than a reflexive sense. —Tamfang (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You could leave out the "yourself" in the second example - but it perhaps serves to emphasise the selfishness. It seems to imply not just that you could have provided what was required, but that you required someone else to provide it even though you could have done it yourself. I accept that the distinctions are rather subtle - as a well educated Englishman I accept that I may read things into a text that not everyone would spot, or even intend in writing it. Wymspen (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your clarification! Kind regards--Erdic (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Erdic, when a ditransitive verb is followed by two arguments without a preposition, the first is the indirect argument (recipient, or beneficiary) and the second the object; so "spare that yourself" cannot have the required meaning, as Wymspen says, Usually there is an alternative form with a preposition and the arguments reversed ("give me the book" = "give the book to me"), but ditransitive "spare" doesn't have this alternative: there is no *"spare that to/from/for yourself" --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, too!--Erdic (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Translation from German needed[edit]

Hello everybody! Since I am admittedly a bit stuck here with my recent investigation, I would like to give it a try and ask you for a nice translation of the sentence "lass dich von seinem Gerede auf keinen Fall zu irgendeinem Unsinn hinreißen!". I marked the parts that matter to me most. Hoping for your kind support,--Erdic (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: Please feel free to also correct my enquiry as such if you find any mistakes. Thanks a lot in advance!--Erdic (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a native speaker, so someone may correct me, but a translation would be something like "Don't under any circumstances let his gossip draw you into doing something stupid". --Xuxl (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Native speaker: The above suggestion is perfectly valid. My version would be: 'Don´t let yourself (or: don´t allow yourself to) be tricked into some nonsense by his verbiage. Depending on the context there may be better alternatives. Clearly, this is direct speech in a fairly colloquial mode where vocabulary & semantics are both subjective and fuzzy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

German–American-English online dictionary?[edit]

Hello, I have a somewhat fundamental question: Is there any German–American-English [online] dictionary on the market? What do professional American translators use? I'm asking here because up to now, I couldn't manage to find anything of that kind yet. Best--Erdic (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

American translators use specialist dictionaries almost exclusively. Which ones depends on your specialty; medical, aerospace, chemical, legal, financial, business, petroleum exploitation, mechanical engineering, and so on. I have always used print dictionaries, and occasionally research some difficult words online. I don't know of any good online technical dictionaries. The only ones I find online are small technical vocabularies. —Stephen (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You could try an online forum, for example this one: [157]. (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Try the Collins German Dictionary online. It has both US and UK English definitions indicated. (e.g. "tap" EN>DE). I use the Collins German Concise Dictionary dico, 3rd Edition (treeware), for independent study as it provides much idiomatic context. There are a number of online DE dicos. Our Austrian interns like which is crowdsourced. I prefer leo online, especially for its usage forum. As for the AE vs BE aspect - if you aren't entirely fluent in one or the other version of English, just check the suggested translation in your preferred English-language dictionary. I (= professional Hebrew>English translator) use Merriam-Webster's online for my native US English. For British I used to use a CD version of MS Encarta's dico that came bundled with the treeware World English Dictionary, otherwise I don't know what online options are available. Hope this helps. -- 15:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

V NP = V P NP[edit]

Either (A) "The strike lasted two weeks" means the same as "The strike lasted for two weeks" or (B) the difference in meaning is so subtle that I'm not consciously aware of it.

For can't always be used with LAST: "Those shoes should last for till you're 50", for example, is ungrammatical. But most of the time, for seems optional.

It's hard to come up with verb-plus-preposition combinations* where the preposition is similarly unnecessary. FORGET about is one. (When I skimread examples of "forget about" at COCA and mentally remove the "about", the resulting sentences are good and mean the same; similarly, when I skimread COCA's examples of "forget the" and mentally insert "about", the resulting sentences are good and mean the same.)

I can't think of any reason why anyone would compile a list of verb plus preposition sequences in which the preposition is, usually, entirely optional. So there probably is no such list. But does anyone here know of one, or can anyone think of a way in which I could generate such a list without laborious introspection?

* Such a description of course doesn't reflect the structure (PP versus simple NP), but I'm trying to avoid technicalities that aren't needed here. More.coffy (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fairly common with certain time expressions: "I did it Tuesday" vs. "I did it on Tuesday".
"Forget" (transitive) and "forget about" do not always mean exactly the same thing. "I forgot the coffee" has a fairly strong implication that you forgot to bring the coffee with you, while "I forgot about the coffee" doesn't. AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
One thing which puzzles me is that when Americans say "through Thursday" they mean "up to" and possibly "including Thursday" while the British use this expression to mean "during the course of Thursday". They would say "through to Thursday" to express the first idea. So why do Americans omit the preposition, and how would they translate the British expression "through Thursday" into American English? (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't recognise this as a British expression. Do you have an example? HenryFlower 15:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the ideas, AnonMoos. But I think my idiolect differs a little from yours. Arriving back from shopping: "Here you are: bacon, coriander, avocados, beer, pineapple juice, soy milk." / "Ah good. But the coffee?" / "Damn, I forgot (about) the coffee." Either would sound perfectly idiomatic to me. However, I do detect differences elsewhere. Wondering whether to make a return visit to a particular restaurant: "The meal was superb, remember? The antipasti, the risotto.... Even the house wine was excellent." / "Well, yes, but what they called 'espresso' was pretty awful." / "Ah yes, I'd forgotten (about) the coffee." Here, omission of "about" might sound slightly strange to me. More.coffy (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I've heard 'should last for till' but it does sound clunky and unnecessary. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Neither "last for till" nor "lasted for till" appears in COCA. Merely a performance error, perhaps? More.coffy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Or just speech compared to writing, for instance how often do people use 'till' in writing compared to 'until'? Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Reference: see this book, found on google scholar, for a detailed discussion. Don't know if a single-sourced article is permissible, but this might be a good starting point for an article on optional prepositions. Some of the factors in play are cognitive complexity, tense, rhythm, and the involvement of time expressions or causality. (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to say that "forget about" something means "to forget the existence or relevance of something", whereas "forget" something means either to forget to bring something, or to forget the details of something. Compare for example "I forgot my password" vs. "I forgot about my password". Iapetus (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your pointer to Google Books, Mr/Ms Not-logged-in. Unfortunately Google Books won't serve this up to me, but maybe I can find a PDF somewhere. More.coffy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that your suggested difference is too simple, Iapetus. However, I can't immediately come up with anything better, and your example is very good: certainly the version with "about" would sound very odd to me. More.coffy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Couple more examples in Zero-marking_in_English#Zero_prepositions. (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The "about" version could make sense if for example I told someone to use my computer for some purpose, but had forgotten that they would have needed a password to do so. Iapetus (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ... but Wikipedia's treatment of "zero prepositions" is horrible! It starts
In Northern Britain some speakers omit the prepositions to or of in sentences with two objects.
"So, she won't give us it." (She won't give it to us.)
There are so many confusions (or misunderstandings) within this. More.coffy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't have much to do with "omitting prepositions". "Give me the coffee" and "Give the coffee to me" are variants in English, and these dialects extend the first construction to cases when the direct object is pronominal... AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Turning stops into fricatives[edit]

When we correspond stops with fricatives, we usually go with p=f, t=th, and k=German ch. We even sometimes go with s=sh even though they are both fricatives. Naturally, however, the corresponding sounds are p=wh, t=s, and k=h in huge (a voiceless y.) If you don't believe me, try making a stop sound and try to hold it for as long as you can and then if it turns into something different, find what it turns into. Is there any reason the first 2 sentences in this paragraph are true despite the naturalness of the third sentence?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you talking about finding which stops are made at the same places of articulation as various fricatives? What are "corresponding sounds"? In which of its various and nebulous senses are you using the word "naturally"? More.coffy (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The first 2 sentences talk about how fricatives developed from other stops (and one fricative that's not the same as the fricative that developed from it) in the languages that formed fricatives. To understand the third sentence, try making a p, t, or k sound and hold it for a few seconds and guess what different sound it turns into. A p will turn to the wh sound in white. A t will turn into an s. A k will turn into the sound of the h in huge, which is a voiceless y. Try it if you don't believe me. Georgia guy (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Georgia_guy -- First off, a change from a stop to a fricative at or near the corresponding place of articulation is usually called "spirantization". Second, it would be nice if you would use some system of phonetic transcription. IPA or Americanist phonetic notation or whatever, I don't care, but ordinary unmodified English orthography simply doesn't work for this particular discussion. Third, the fricative with the same place of articulation as [p] is [ɸ], not [ʍ]. The [ʍ] sound is an approximant, not a fricative. Fourth, a change from [s] to [ʃ] is usually called a "palatalization", most definitely not a "spirantization". Your "22:37" comments are quite strange, but if they have any point, it's that slightly different points of articulation are often preferred for stops and fricatives. So, for example, bilabial [p] is preferred among the stops, while among the fricatives labiodental [f] is more often found than bilabial [ɸ]. A change of spirantization affecting a [p] sound will often end up with [f] as the result for this reason... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

"sports fielded"?[edit]

Considering e. g. the article Big Ten Conference, what exactly does the term "sports fielded" in the infobox refer to? I have to admit that I'm German and that I couldn't really find an appropriate translation. Best--Curc (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

How many different sports you can play there, by the looks of it. So both men and women can play 28 different sports. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
If you look in the section "Sports" you'll see the list. Note that not all sports are played by both men and women. Some are just men, some are just women. But it adds up to 28; 14 by men, 14 by women. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


June 16[edit]

Is it even feasible for one to think that both expansion both teams in all of the amateur, semi, pro leagues can win the ultimate prize at the end of their first season[edit]

Just look at far we have come from the beginning, until now, and future. I mean both what it takes and what involved in it. Especially during the off season as well. This also includes the ones that have won in their couple to few seasons in last, couple, few decades, generations..--Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup) 02:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talkcontribs)

Are you referring to something specific? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The answer to this really vague question is that, yes, as the combination of talent, determination, resources including money and luck and the tendency of some toward bottomless optomism can, indeed, cause someone to think that this may be possible. Britmax (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The OP could look at expansion team. See also this article [158]. Knowing if there is a specific sport or geographic area he is interested in would also help us provide a better answer. --Xuxl (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW, Jessica is probably a "she". Rojomoke (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
And, technically, if you can think it, then it's obviously feasible to think it. Whether it has even a remote chance of happening is a different question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

“David the King” by Bishop Barron - Trailer Soundtrack[edit]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I was wondering, whether someone here knows what music is played in the video "“David the King” by Bishop Barron - Trailer" (

Thank you for your answers

Kind regards--2A02:120B:C3FD:6760:20BA:9B80:2BF2:9239 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

One recent Robert Barron production, Catholicism, had its own music for the series, composed by Steve Mullen, but I couldn't find any credits for David the King yet. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Why is Mark Wahlberg holding an otter in an AT&T ad ?[edit]

[159] talks about it, but doesn't explain why. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Some sort of SNL-reference? [160] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure it's an otter? Some sources are claiming it's a prairie dog. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a musteline AT&T connection: Otter Media. From an article in Multichannel News: "The deal Wahlberg follows a recent agreement between AT&T and Taylor Swift on an exclusive VOD service called Taylor Swift NOW, and an ad-supported VOD channel with Reese Witherspoon, called Hello Sunshine, that also involves Otter Media (the AT&T/The Chernin Group OTT joint venture) that will that debut later this year for customers of DirecTV and DirecTV Now." ---Sluzzelin talk 16:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Possibly, but it seems odd that they assume everyone knows about this. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, you gotta launch your mascot at some point. Even the Gecko had to be introduced 18 years ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
They did that rather more straightforwardly, by having a gecko answer the phone and inform the caller to call Geico, not Gecko. (At some point after that, the company hired him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If someone offered to pay you to hold an otter, wouldn't you jump at it? —Tamfang (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Depends what kind of otter you're talking about. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was a reference to the dramatic chipmunk meme: OldTimeNESter (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

help finding BGM[edit]

It sounds like something from a video game, final fantasy? I'm not sure, any help appreciated it. (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

"Mama Africa" by Kids United[edit]

I've been looking everywhere for the lyrics, but it seems that every single page/video that has the lyrics has missed the first two lines of the second stanza, and it doesn't sound French to me. Any idea what language and what was said? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This site - - gives those lyrics as "Min dé lè tin bo dji djan yin, Bomin dé lè fon do nou wa wè" (though, knowing some African languages, I think that may have artificially separated the syllables within words) with a later chorus repeating the single word "Nishèo". The original appears to be by Angélique Kidjo - full lyrics are here: Her article says she sings in Fon and Yoruba, and also in a personal language. Wymspen (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

which actress is this?[edit]

which actress is this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the source of the picture? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
That's about like saying to someone that John Smith is from America... It only narrows it down slightly. The article that the image seems to be drawn from is here. The author has replied to comments on the article though it's from 2012, so I'm not sure if he still contributes to the site or not. You might try contacting him. If he's still a writer, for Gizmodo or freelance or whatever, you can probably track him down. †dismas†|(talk) 20:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not the original source. Using TinEye [161] you can find hundreds of pages using that photo (including quite a few gizmodo pages), and if you select the "Oldest first" sort, you can see that TinEye has been finding it since 2008 on what seem to be some Polish and Russian pages. The earliest one they show is still available—I don't think it's appropriate to link to it from here—and let's just say it's not the sort of page that shows people's names. I'd be surprised if it's possible to find an answer unless you can recognize the same woman in some other photo. -- (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you can note that most of the hits on TinEye have "porn" in the URL or page description. Therefore, it is reasonable to guess what kind of video that screenshot came from. (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Noting that the other TinEye query I did recently in response to a question on this desk (see below) also showed 2008 as its earliest results, I think that's likely the year when TinEye got started. So we don't even know that the porn in question was produced in 2008; it could be older. -- (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is Bob Kane largely credited as the sole creator of Batman if he (supposedly) didn't?[edit]

Everything I've read has been very heavily biased against Kane, and I was hoping someone could give a sort of neutral analysis as to why Kane's co-creators aren't given any credit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

See the article Batman. It goes into great detail about creation and credit for creation, including an explanation that Finger is now credited. (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
(E/C) Bob was a sharp man whose family had a background in art (his father was an engraver and artist) and had the skills and knowledge to know how to exploit his value to an employer (contrast Jerry Siegel, who was in a similar position but with an utterly different background). It was in his best interest to promote himself as the sole creator, so he did so. Bill Finger, who probably should be listed as the sole creator IMHO, had no head for business or how important he could have / should have been. I highly recommend Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book by Gerald Jones for a well-referenced and engagingly written early history of comic books, including the creation and development of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, et al. Matt Deres (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Jug band[edit]

Would somebody like to help me out with that? Best--Erdic (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As it says in the lede to the article, "The term jug band is loosely used in referring to ensembles that also incorporate homemade instruments but that are more accurately called skiffle bands, spasm bands, or juke (or jook) bands (see juke joint) because they do not include a jug player." Wymspen (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks! So, it's the looser meaning that is applied here, right?--Erdic (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Erin Hanson, Australian poet[edit]

I'm actually looking for a country music song, sung by a woman, that set the poem that contains the words "What if I fall? Oh but my darling, what if you fly?" to music. I found that these words were written by Erin Hanson, who is an Australian poet, and for whom we don't seem to have an article yet. It's not her I'm looking for, but this song. I remember hearing it about 10 years ago on the Terry Wogan programme on the BBC. Any ideas please? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've had no luck finding this country song, but I think it must be much more recent than 10 years ago. The poem is called "Fly", and it appears in Hanson's The Poetic Underground 2: Voyage (2014), which consists of poems first published between January and November 2014 in her blog The Poetic Underground. It was set to music on an album called Zoax, released last year by a rock band of the same name, but that doesn't fit your description at all. --Antiquary (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

With some help I found a version online. It seems to have been written by Chely Wright, and the version I have is by Emma Mae Jacob. Thank you.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC) No it wasn't - it was by Tia Sillers and Mark Selby --TammyMoet (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[edit]

the what i think i do is from what movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I was going to immediately answer Tron Legacy, but the colouration is not quite right. Will keep looking; it's familiar to me. Matt Deres (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks like its from Hackers but more likely from just a stock image website. uhhlive (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's from Hackers. Near the end, when they're hacking the Gibson, they keep cutting to shots that look like this. here is an example on YouTube. ApLundell (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
By way of additional supporting evidence: I put a screenshot of that image into TinEye ([162]) and asked for the oldest matches. They were from 2008 (I'm guessing that was when TinEye was started), which was before Tron: Legacy but after Hackers. Several of these early hits had filenames like "hackers.jpg", "hackers5.jpg", "hackers_small_1.jpg", etc. on the pages where TinEye found them, and one actually had the word Hachers  [sic] superimposed on the image. -- (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Bandy in stead of ice hockey in America[edit]

Will ice hockey be replaced by bandy in North America? Some people [according to whom?] say it is likely. With larger arenas, you can take in more people – more paying audience – and get more money. Arenas of the appropriate size are already in place in America, for football and soccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is not for speculation. -- (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
North American hockey fans already aren't selling out smaller arenas, probably half the NHL operates at 70% attendance or less. See List of National Hockey League attendance figures, there's no needed to build larger ones. Building bigger stadiums of a waste of resources if no one buys tickets.--Jayron32 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Especially considering that the average American has probably never heard of this sport called Bandy. One thing about hockey is how fast the action is. I doubt that a slower version of hockey would be a big seller. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Bandy is even faster than ice hockey. So the argument about speed is not valid. That said, I also don't think Americans will just easily change to bandy. Aaa men ändå (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
With an extra hundred feet to cover, how is it faster? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The blade of a bandy skate is longer than the blade of an ice hockey skate, more like that of a speed skate. A bandy player can therefor go the distance of the bandy rink in about the same time as an ice hockey player covers the distance of an ice hockey rink. The ball is also faster than the puck, I think. Aaa men ändå (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Here in Canada, hockey is the official national sport (or more exactly, the national winter sport) and a veritable religion. It ain't going anywhere. --Xuxl (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Title of horror movie about a door swallowing people when a guy plays his guitar[edit]

At some point I watched a horror movie (probably a B-movie, a bad movie) that was more or less like this:

Inside the basement of a house, a guy finds a door that is closed shut. He discovers that when he plays his guitar, the door opens and pulls/swallows whatever is close to it like a black hole. He uses the door to kill people, by making them stand close to it and then playing his guitar.

I probably watched it in the 1990s, but it could have been 2005 at most. Any idea what movie is this? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds related to the episode "The Tale of the Dark Music" (1992) from the Are You Afraid of the Dark? series, though the music activating the creature behind the door comes from a radio, not a guitar. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


June 18[edit]

How many treaties with Native Americans has the United States broken?[edit]

The book, 'Custer Died for Your Sins," states that the United States has broken over 400 treaties with Native Americans. Thanks! (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Our article is at List_of_United_States_treaties and there are lots of references to follow up on. Matt Deres (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a hard question to answer because it assumes that there is universal agreement on what it means to break a treaty. While there are instances in which the U.S. clearly broke a treaty, there are others where it depends on how you read the treaty. For example, what does "west of the Appalachians" mean? Then, you also have treaties signed that were not represented properly. At best, those are broken promises, not broken treaties, but it makes sense that some view them as broken treaties. In the end, the count of broken treaties is a matter of opinion. (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The "instances in which the U.S. clearly broke a treaty" must provide a lower bound. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Another "grey" case is where a subsequent treaty (possibly a result of a war) superseded the first. If the new treaty was "signed under duress", it could be argued that the original, more generous treaty should still be in force. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an exhibit at a Smithsonian museum [163] that features many original (broken) treaty documents. Unfortunately you have to pay for a full catalogue of items in the exhibition. NPR says "More than 370 ratified treaties have helped the U.S. expand its territory and led to many broken promises made to American Indians." SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
That wishy-washy language makes it hard to nail down if a specific treaty has been broken. If I promise you something verbally and then we sign a treaty for something else, then I broke my promise, but the treaty is not broken. Broken promises were common. But, it wasn't just the U.S. government. When it best suited the government to treat a group as individuals, they did that. When it best suited the government to treat one person as the head and decision maker for a group, they did that. So, if we have a treaty between me and a large group including you, then I pick one person in that group and ask, "Can you make a decision for the group?" He says, "Yes. I can." Then, I work with him to change the treaty. In my opinion, I didn't break the treaty, but since you weren't part of the decision making process, you see it as breaking the treaty. More wishy-washy language. (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, probably because NPR also knows this is hard to put an exact count on too. Mainly I wanted to put out some actual references on the topic, rather than provide OP with (yet another) list of people earnestly discussing the question and how it is hard to specify and hard to answer, without anyone providing references.
Honestly, I don't know the book OP mentions, it's probably a fairly reliable source on its own, though if it had good footnotes and references, they'd probably not be asking here. This book [164] may be a good resource, it discusses Trail_of_Broken_Treaties and land agreements between the feds and natives up to about 1985. I don't think there's going to be a reliable list online saying "here are 327 specific treaties explicitly and clearly broken by the USA". If anyone wants to help OP further, I respectfully suggest that finding good books and reliable sources is the best way. I think that we've already done a great job at pointing out why this question is subtle and complicated, and that there probably won't be an easy and obvious reliable answer. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest, SM, that the relevant distinction is not "specific treaties explicitly and clearly broken by the USA", but "specific treaties unilaterally and clearly in bad faith broken by the USA". μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There were plenty of cases of outright confiscation or abrogation by the US. The problem area you run into from the Indian side is where an attack on settlers, (whether real, as pretense, or by impersonators) was used as grounds for saying the Indians broke the treaty. A large number of the 400 treaties number will fall under that second category. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Lisa Simpson: "My favorite Rose Bowl Parade float is the Native American one, where all the paper flowers are made up of shredded, broken treaties." StuRat (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
From this website, and which James Whitmore used to cite in his one-man show as Will Rogers: "[President Andrew Jackson] sent the Indians to Oklahoma. They had a treaty that said, 'You shall have this land as long as grass grows and water flows.' It was not only a good rhyme but looked like a good treaty, and it was till they struck oil. Then the Government took it away from us again. They said the treaty only refers to 'Water and Grass; it don't say anything about oil'... Now they have moved the Indians [again] and they settled the whole thing by putting them on land where the grass won't grow and the water won't flow." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

What did Jay Sekolow mean when he said PreidentTrump wasn't under investigation?[edit]

Sekolow said one thing and then said what sounded like the opposite. But he said he wasn't contradicting himself, so what is the explanation? (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Are up referring to the Fox News interview? If so this has a transcript [165]. If that doesn't work, try [166] (about the middle of the page). He says "He -- Chirrs, let me be clear, you asked me a question about what the president's tweet was regarding the deputy attorney general of the United States. That's what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be." I'm not aware that Sekulow (correct spelling) has commented more on the Fox News interview so it's unlikely you'll get any more explaination of what he means. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from unsourced comments and speculation regarding (multiple) WP:BLP(s)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(1) He's been exposed to too much Agent Orange too soon. He hasn't had time to acclimatize yet.
(2) The TV signals were crossed with broadcasts from Bizarro World, where BTW World President Trump has been reelected for life in a bigly landslide. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(3) It was fake news. Didn't happen.
(4) As others have speculated, the interview was conducted in Schrödinger's box and Trump's status is in a state of quantum superposition or maybe quantum superconfusion.
(5) It's all Obama's fault.
(6) It's all Crooked Hillary's fault.
(7) It's all Obama and Crooked Hillary's fault. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the confusion. The order of events: The Washington Post reports that President Trump, himself, is under investigation for firing FBI Director Comey. Next, Trump tweets that it investigating him is a witch hunt. Next, Trump's lawyer says that nobody has told Trump he is under investigation. Next, Wallace tries to get Trump's lawyer to say that the President isn't under investigation. Next, Trump's lawyer says that they haven't been told his under investigation, but that doesn't preclude someone from doing an investigation without telling them. Next, someone jumps on Wikipedia to ask what Trump's lawyer meant. (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This kind of thing might be why Trump's lawyer has hired his own lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The comments above are guesses, much bordering on snark, with no citations, and violate WP:BLP μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
μηδείς, how does any of what you've hidden violate BLP, which is about "adding information about living persons". What information has been added? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems clear cut BLP violation to me. Yes it may have been a joke but a fairly pointless one and given the BLP violation there was no reason for it (although deletion would have been better than hatting). Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I see Clarityfiend's comments as a joke, but mine were not. The Washington Post did report that President Trump was under investigation for firing FBI Director Comey. They claimed that they had unnamed sources to back their claim. It wasn't just one line in one article, it was a series of articles with titles such as "Trump is now under investigation and he has no one to blame but himself." So, it makes no sense that that claim is considered guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Next, Trump did tweet that he was under investigation after reading the Washington Post article and he claimed it was a witchhunt. His exact tweet was: "I am being investigated for flying the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director. Witch hunt." So, that is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Trump's lawyer, Sekulow, then was interviewed by Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Wallace tried to get Sekulow to say that Trump was under investigation, but Sekulow repeated that nobody has told them they are under investigation. Not being told about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Wallace went on to ask other questions. That is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. Finally, someone did ask here on Wikipedia what Sekulow meant. It is just a little higher up on this page. So, that is not guesswork or a joke or a violation of any policy. It appears that my comments are being hidden for political reasons. Since my comments don't support or attack Trump, I'm not sure what the person who hid them found that offended his personal political leaning. (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Clarity's comments were on the border between political satire and BLP violations. I say that because it's the same kind of thing that the late-night comics say. The difference is that they are expected to be satirists. Wikipedia is supposed to be serious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Questions & Answers[edit]

Is there a Doctor Who website/site to ask questions and get answers? (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many fan forums. Here's a Doctor Who wiki:[167]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Try this - Or just put "Doctor Who Forum" into Google (other search engines are available) and pick one from the long list that comes up. Wymspen (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

shoe size[edit]

a mans shoe size of an 8 EEE what is the womans size equal to that size — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Shoe size. In the U.S., a men's size 8 will be either a woman's size 12 or a women's size 9 depending on method. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Why Shavers or trimmer blades comes under consumable items?[edit]

Generally Shavers or trimmer blades comes under consumable items – I just wonder why these items are comes under consumable.

I got this reply from one of the shopkeeper in Mumbai – he was giving logic that we don’t know how many times you are using these blades / which condition you are using blades hence it comes under wear and tear.

But my question is same can be applicable for motor used in trimmer – I can use the motor long period but companies are giving warrantee for it.

Can anybody guide me on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetan sk (talkcontribs) 12:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Because the blades are designed to be replaced quickly and easily, while leaving the rest of the product intact. They are disposable. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the blades can be replaced is only part of it. The motor is a sealed unit - it is either on or off, and it is therefore possible to test it and know how long it should work for without failing. That makes it possible to give a warranty for a certain period, knowing that if it fails before then there must have been something faulty. However, the blades can be used in different ways, and can be abused as well. How long blades last will depend on what type of hair is being cut, whether the blades get wet or greasy, whether they are cleaned properly, etc. They could also be damaged if used for the wrong purpose - I have known someone use a trimmer to try and remove the bobbling on a woollen garment. That makes it almost impossible to work out how long they should last - so no warranties. Wymspen (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Rutland, England[edit]

Rutland is a county in England, but does it have a WikiProject template, like Dorset does? See {{WikiProject Dorset|class=FA|importance=Top}}.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a long list of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes though it isn't kept up to date. There is one for Dorset in the list, but not one for Rutland. Wymspen (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)