Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of miscellaneous.

Welcome to the miscellaneous reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

April 21[edit]

Anime in Japan[edit]

Is anime in Japan made for children? I was told by a friend that anime is childish and for children but when I watched some the plot was about a man who activates his magical suit of armor by groping his mentors breasts. This doesn't seem like something that would be aimed for children, at least not in the Western world. I know Japan has some weird ideas regarding children like "lolicon" and incest fetishes. AnimeQuestion (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of Japanese anime and manga meant for adults. Likewise, My Little Pony has a larger fanbase in the US amongst adult men than little girls. It's nothing to do with fetishes. They are simply escapist stories. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 12:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not sure that any reference is likely to provide a straight answer to the question, so speaking strictly from Personal Observation: no, anime is made for all ages, just as live action films and printed fiction is made for all ages – that is to say, some is made for children, some for young adults, some for adults, some for all ages: I've certainly seen examples of all of these. In addition, of course, there is (*cough* so I'm reliably informed *cough*) pornographic anime (see also Hentai).
I would expect our article on Anime (there, I knew we'd have one) to provide links that will lead to examples of all of these (with the possible exception of the porn). {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I lived in Japan for ten years, and saw a lot of manga which was definitely directed at adults - mostly horror manga, and you know it is directed at adults and not children because of the kanji used, most of which is not taught at university level, never mind primary school level, and of course, the content of the story. Manga and anime is big in Japan, with both children and adults alike. It's not like Disney. It's a massive industry, but aimed at people from all walks of life. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
A nice quote from our article on Anime -
Analogous statements apply to Akira, Trigun, Cowboy BeBop and many other popular anime. Culturally, the otaku stereotype has made its way to the USA, in spirit if not in name - many people see interest in Anime as a childish, nerdy, socially inept signifier, but those people are just ignorant ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Some Japanese anime is clearly designed for children, even if some adults enjoy it - but seen through western eyes, Japanese culture is often surprisingly different in many respects and adult anime is very common there. A huge number of Japanese adults enjoy manga and some comic books/graphic novels are read as voraciously as daily newspapers. Some people who have imported japanese manga into the US have been accused of importing child you know that at least some of them are clearly not written for children. SteveBaker (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Whole wild boar[edit]

I'm fairly sure that for most people in northern, western and central Europe, most of the ideas of eating wild boar come from Asterix comics, where Asterix usually eats one whole wild boar, and Obelix eats several. Then when these people go to Parc Asterix in France and order wild boar at a restaurant, they are disappointed because they are only served a small part of the whole boar.

Now is eating a whole wild boar in one go even possible or feasible? How much meat would it contain? Are there any people in the world who have managed to eat that much meat in one go? And how much would such a dish cost? JIP | Talk 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Our wild boar article reveals that an adult boar carcass should yield about 50kg of meat. Our human body weight article reveals that the average human weighs 62kg. The graph in meat suggests that the average American eats 16.7kg of pork products a year. So not only can no-one eat that in one sitting, a typical American would take 3 years to do so at normal rates. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply that it's physically impossible to eat a whole wild board in one sitting. However, you say that the average American eats 16.7 kg of pork products per year. Surely the average American eats other meat too. Suppose a hypothetical American or European person who only eats pork, not other meat. And that hypothetical person would eat as much meat as it's possible for a real-life person. I've heard of people who can manage eating almost 4 kg of meat in one sitting, but that's at the top level of meat eating championships. I can manage almost half a kg myself easily, provided I haven't eaten earlier during the day. So how much time would such a person require to eat a whole wild boar? And how much would a restaurant dish consisting of a whole wild boar cost? JIP | Talk 20:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
At 544calories per 340g, 50kg of meat would be 80,000kcal, which is a month's worth of energy for an adult. (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they have a breed of really small wild boars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The boars depicted in Asterix are actually fairly small (may be the size of a large turkey or something), but not that small that many are likely to eat one let alone many in a single sitting. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It's like pizza, a man will gladly eat six, even eight, at one sitting, a woman usually one, and at most two. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Someone eats two pizzas at a sitting? Reference? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
That would all depend on the size of the pizza. In this example, 2 pizzas is the normal serving size: [1] (see nutrition info for serving size). StuRat (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The correct number of those to eat in one sitting is zero. When they have to say that it is real cheese! And I thought pizza was an Italian or Italian-American dish, so what is the point of "French" bread? This [2] is a bit more like actual food. Next time I'm in Detroit I will pop over and cook one for you. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, I meant slices of 18" pizza, although I am quite sure my father would eat two smaller pizzas at one sitting, if they actually made such a thing near Philly. This hearkens back to a previous thread. I asserted men normally eat six slices (and later confirmed from my father he expects six) and will eat eight if given the chance. Keep in mind he's 6'2" but only 190lbs. On the occasion I eat pizza with my parents, we order two 18" pies, and there will be 4-6 of the 16 slices left, since mother and I prefer the broccoli and white cheese, but if I eat two of his slices he won't eat any of hers. So the question is, given these are small wild boars, how many pizzaweight are they each. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't find any boar/whole pig eating records but just this week Molly Schuyler ate 6kg (13.5lb) of steak (plus additional sides) in 20 minutes. So she could possibly polish off a smaller whole wild boar at a sitting, since this website advertises sizes starting from 15lb, and this one starting from 30lb (I assume the meat yield will be smaller still). Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
To us in England, we are quite familiar with the idea of eating suckling pig on high days and holidays, usually at country fairs and things like that, and I have seen newborn piglets advertised on menus as a sharing dish. But no, we don't normally eat a whole one. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Around my part of England – Hampshire, whose emblem is the Hampshire Hog – it's not uncommon to have a hog roast at country pubs or at events such as County Fairs, Steam Fairs, Music Festivals and suchlike, where a whole adult domestic pig or 'wild' boar (*) is roasted on a spit. Meat is carved in slices from the roast carcase, but the carcase likely weighs in excess of 100bs and no-one in their right mind would expect to be able to eat a whole one by themselves. Asterix is a cartoon and exaggerates things for humorous effect.
(* Wild boars - as a species distinct from domestic pigs, became extinct in England centuries ago but are farmed here (the stock being derived from Continental animals). Some have escaped (or have been released by Animal Activists) and formed feral colonies, certainly in the Forest of Dean and probably in Hampshire's New Forest (I've seen evidence of rooting).) {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Asterix's boars don't look all that small to me, even if Obelix can carry one under each arm (I think that's an exaggeration too). Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the depiction, but I wouldn't exactly say they are large [3] [4] [5]. (The cooked examples are particularly illustrative, consider that their length often appears less then the width of Obelix's chest with arms. Obelix is an obese and large man, so it's not as small as it seems, but it still doesn't seem that large.) I admit though small, is potentially misleading, when I wrote the above I was under the impression wild boars were closer to 200kg average, it seems in reality it's they're often average less than 100kg and 50kg isn't uncommon. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


What do Africans use for bicycle innertubes instead of air since Africa has massive thorns everywhere and they would get punctures all the time with air that they couldn't afford to fix since they make like only $50 a year total? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThickRopesOfLove (talkcontribs) 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Guess they just use their common sense and keep to paths that are not strewn with thorns (many run around in bare feet – how do you think they get along)?(see a venomous snake ahead – then don't tread on it).--Aspro (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think that Africa has massive thorns everywhere? Africa is a very diverse continent, with many different climates and vegetation. Oh, and roads - I nearly forgot the obvious one, sorry. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
As the previous posters point out, the premise of this question is somewhat questionable, but historically people have used wooden bicycle tires in times when rubber was scarce. Where thorns are a big problem, this would be a cheap and effective solution, though not very comfortable. Outer tires can also be made very puncture resistant by adding e.g. a kevlar layer. - Lindert (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Or you could just use solid rubber. It's a bit less effective than air-filled, but punctures wouldn't be a problem (although eventually the rubber will still wear away). StuRat (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Pneumatic tyres. (Damn US/UK variations in spelling!) --TammyMoet (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I once got a really bad review from a proofreader once after pouring my heart over a translation, and I'd written 'tire' instead of 'tyre', and the proofreader wrote 'either the translator doesn't know or doesn't care about the correct spelling'. So my counter-comment was 'The proofreader doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of international forms of English.' I got paid, she got fired. Job done. Being impolite in business is never a good idea, no matter how frustrated one may feel. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 10:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I grew up in South Australia where the Three Cornered Jack always gave me punctures. There were thorn proof inner tubes which had thicker rubber on the crown but these weren't that effective. Dad fixed the problem permanently by replacing the inner tube with some thick walled hose. It rode like a tube, never needed pumping up and was puncture proof. A friend had thorn sweepers on his bike. These were loops of curved wire which ran across the tread. The theory was a thorn was picked up but wouldn't cause a puncture until the wheen had turned a couple of times, and the wires would knock the thorns out. On the subject of Africa, I remember reading that motorbikes there were prone to punctures in the rear wheel, due to the extra weight. Some riders had a long mudflap attached to the front mudguard, which brushed the ground and swept thorns out of the way. Perhaps cyclists could try that too. TrogWoolley (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Africa Overland by Siân Pritchard-Jones has some suggestions such as thorn-resistant tubes, airless tubes and tube protectors, but they are all a lot more expensive than a standard tube. I suspect that a puncture repair kit is the cheapest solution. London cyclists have the same issue with broken glass. Alansplodge (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Police destruction of evidence[edit]

The latest incident of police misconduct in the US seems to be a Federal Marshall destroying the cell phone of a woman attempting to record their actions. I'm wondering if police have ever been charged with destroying evidence for such behavior, since it's quite apparent it's an attempt to ensure that there is no evidence that can be used against them. The tricky bit is that they destroy the evidence before any charges are brought against them. StuRat (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

He may have smashed it but the memory chip may well have survived. It has happen with a compact camera where the chip was still intact. Can't remember off hand were I read this. Still, as it was reported on /. recently, authorities steer clear of hiring policemen that show too much intelligence. --Aspro (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's still intact, then I suppose that would be attempted destruction of evidence and malicious destruction of property. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stu, there are cases of police and forensic officials tampering with evidence, usually planting or faking it, and where scores of cases have been vacated on that ground. When I lived in a certain precinct of the Bronx, it was common knowledge that there were only two cops who weren't on the take, but this was back when people had beepers, not camera phones. Given all the lynchings throughout history we can assume plenty of evidence has been destroyed.
My father tells the story of witnessing a distant cousin who was a cop in the early fifties accosting and beating a black man for being in the wrong neighborhood (my dad put a stop to it) and I have seen the same, as well, personally, from various perspectives, dozens of times.
The day Giuliani was first inaugurated, the precinct held a parade of paddywagons at a traffic-stopping crawl during rush hour, and cops in riot gear walked down the street banging every door and storefront window (all owned by taxpayers and guilty of no crime) with their billy clubs.
But you haven't given us a link to a specific case (don't, because then we'd be giving a legal opinion), so we're just left, based on obviously true speculation, but speculation nonetheless that such things do happen. I think we can read this as read and agree more filming will mean more accountability. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in this case we only know about it because there was a 2nd cell phone video of the Federal Marshall destroying the first cell phone. Eventually they won't be able to destroy all of the cameras aimed at them. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The question wasn't whether police ever destroy evidence, or whether they did in the case Stu has in mind, but whether police have ever been charged with destroying evidence. And here is one news media reference to such a case. -- (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I implied as much in the first sentence of my response, but didn't really think googling "police officer convicted""destroying evidence" for StuRat was necessary--it gets 16khits. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Original Railroad Tracks[edit]

Someone told me that the original tracks for the first railroads were made of wood instead of iron or steel. Is this correct and if so how long would a set of tracks last before having to be replaced. Thanking you in advance for your response and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogleg2 (talkcontribs) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They could be protected from the weather by coating them with something like creosote, which is commonly used on railroad ties. They would wear a lot faster than metal, but presumably those trains were much lighter then. I'd also suspect the ties would need to be placed closer together, to support the wooden rails better. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
We have an article on Track (rail transport), as well as on Permanent way (history) - which details wooden tracked systems. See also Wagonway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(creosote was first discovered in 1832, by which time wrought iron rails were in use). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
In 'Stephenson's Britain' by Derrick Becket (ISBN 0 7153 8269 1), he states 'Initially, coal was carried to the river in panniers on horses' backs and subsequently in horse-drawn carts. It has been recorded that in about 1630, wagons with wooden flanged wheels running along wooden tracks were in use. Subsequently, strips of iron were attached to the top of the wooden rails to prevent wear, and later various shapes of iron rail were designed to replace wooden rails. The Wylam wagonway which passed the cottage in which George Stephenson was born, used wooden rails until 1807'. Widneymanor (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that those "first railroads" did not carry locomotive-hauled trains, because steam locomotives did not exist until the early 1800s. They carried wagons that were typically pulled by horses, or (as in this old picture) they rolled downhill with loads, to be brought back uphill by horse. Metal rails were in use by the time locomotives appeared, so it does appear that even with with relatively lightweight early traffic, wood was found not durable enough; but I don't have information about his long the wooden rails lasted. Incidentally, in the US, early passenger railroads often used those wooden rails with metal strips on top what Widneymanor mentioned; it was called strap rail. But this proved dangerous because when it could fail in such a way that the metal strap pierced the train cars with fatal results. -- (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
As our article on the Johore Wooden Railway demonstrates, steam engines could run on wooden rails without 'straps'. The Johore tracks were apparently made of teak, which is naturally rot-resistant as well as being wear-resistant and relatively easy to work with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A slight digression, but note that Richard Trevithick had the misfortune to invent the first railway locomotives before anybody had invented rolled-steel rails. Trevithick used the cast iron ones employed on mine tramways at the time and they continually broke under the weight of his engines. By the time that steel rails had been introduced, Trevithick had given up on the idea and eventually died in poverty. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 22[edit]


Are there any statistics or surveys which tell us how most Americans feel about the fact that their government has invaded roughly half a dozen countries since the start of the millennium. Plus they have plans to invade more. Hhplactube (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

See Here. I'd implore every other person who wants to answer this question to likewise provide references and avoid giving opinions or speculation. --Jayron32 13:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple of articles that might give you a start on this are Public opinion on the Iraq War and International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan. Also take a look at the references for each of the articles which should help you to find some further reading. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what type of numbering system the OP is using, but two (Iraq + Afghanistan) is hardly half a dozen as we learned it in primary school. Half a dozen would be 'six'. 'Roughly half a dozen' would be 'five, or six, or seven'. 'Two' doesn't even get close to that. Evidence by the OP for the supposed US plans to invade more would also be welcome, as we know of no such plans. Bear in mind that countries do not usually release plans to invade other countries - for obvious reasons, so I have no idea what website you have got your information from, but it is very definitely wrong. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 13:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, besides the formally declared ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has also conducted military operations in Pakistan, Yemen and Libya. That's just five I can name off the top of my head, without digging deeper. See Drone strikes in Pakistan, Terrorism in Yemen#US air attacks, 2011 military intervention in Libya. I'm sure there are more countries the U.S. has conducted military operations in since 2000. So the OP's premise is perfectly sound: The U.S. has been involved militarily in about a half-dozen countries. The tenor and tone of his post indicates that he has feelings about this, which we should neither confirm nor deny the legitimacy of. But demonstratedly, the facts hold up. --Jayron32 14:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
An air attack does not constitute an invasion. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Now, you're just splitting hairs just for the sake of debate. Again, I am not affirming the political stance of the OP or his feelings about such events. But it's certainly true that the U.S. military has been involved in about a half dozen locations around the world. The word invasion may be inflammatory, but all you're doing is being inflammatory in the other direction by denying that a military action is not military enough for your own definitions. Rather than engage in the heated political debate the OP wants to get you involved in, it would be best to dispassionately report on the facts. --Jayron32 15:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not trying to debate anything, as I know the OP's question is designed for us to fall into that trap. I am merely saying that air attacks do not constitute an invasion, with the inevitable occupation thereafter, whilst a change of government and training of local troops takes place. Military intervention, yes, but not an invasion. Would you call the air attacks against IS in Iraq an 'invasion'? Certainly not. Hey, I'm on your side for once. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 08:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Define "invaded". Also, review which politicians have supported such, and how they have fared at election time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Here [6] [7] [8] [9] are a few news articles that report on polls and the views of Americans on the topic of military action in various non-USA countries. Here are a few that are specific to drone strikes [10] [11] [12]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocking in the back[edit]

I am looking for highly technical clarification for what "blocking in the back" means in American Football. As they state it during the games, it is illegal to push someone from behind. Is that for everyone or only certain players? Is it only for offense or only for defense? Does it have to happen in a certain area of the field? Can you avoid getting pushed simply by turning around so the other player has to run around you to push you? (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Block in the back - we have an article but it is very short. Rmhermen (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
And it's close-kin, Clipping. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting question to ask in April. The three major professional sports being played in the United States in April do not include American football. I see that your question has been answered. I will also note that questions about sports are often asked at the Entertainment Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Defensive players do have less restrictions than offensive players, but not none. Defensive players are not blockers, so cannot be called for "blocking in the back", but the can be called for unnecessary roughness for a number of penalties, including hitting a defenseless receiver in the air. There are also penalties against defenders grasping the face mask, making contact with a player's head or neck, illegal "horse-collar" tackles, and the like. --Jayron32 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A block in the back and clipping are both often called on kick returns. (The nature of play on a normal run from scrimmage is such that blocking in back is unlikely and difficult.) On a punt return, in particular, the team that had been the offense becomes the "defense", but is still subject to the restrictions on blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Offense/defense is determined by who is in possession of the ball. Prior to the kick, the punting team has possession, so is subject to offensive penalties. During the return, the receiving team is in possession, so it is subject to offensive penalties. The same is true on all changes of possession, so, for example, on an interception, offensive blocking penalties can be assessed against the intercepting team. --Jayron32 12:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, so, highly technical. You want the NFL rulebook and casebook (which provides examples of play and the rulings associated with them), available at Block in the Back is in rule 12-1-3 (b). There are several technical exceptions, including kick coverage, "close-line play" (which is a region of the field defined by its proximity to where the offensive line began the play, and is particularly relevant for run blocking), loose-ball recovery, the defending player turning his body to make a legal block into an illegal one, and so forth. The casebook has at least four block in the back examples, A.R. 12.8 - A.R. 12.10.a. Note also that rule 12-1-1 is a more comprehensive list of various illegal blocks, including chop blocks, crackback blocks, low blocks, cut blocks, peel back blocks, blindside blocks, and more -- none of them are technically blocks in the back, but several are close enough to be of interest to basically anyone who's not at the level of an official. — Lomn 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Driving age in California, USA[edit]

I remember ten years ago there were a proposed law to delay the driving license age to 18 in California stating that individuals born after the year 1990 would not eligible to get a drivers license until the age 18. Were there a proposal to delay the permit eligibility? Did they plan to delay the permit to 16 or 17. Because at that time some people told me the permit were going to stay the same, just instead they wouldn't receive a drivers license until the age 18. If they did propose to delay the permit is it 16 or is it 17. Is license age still 16 in California, USA?-- (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

See Driver's license in the United States. Dismas|(talk) 01:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In California, if you are under 18, you can get a driver license. But this license has certain restrictions for the first 12 months that you have it (like you can't drive certain hours or people of certain ages, and so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:7B01:BB34:9D03:FE46:2D34:D7EF (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

subsides by state goverment[edit]

in INDIA is a state goverment is allowed to give subsides on CHINA agricultural pumps rather then giving subsides on same products produced in india ?

Is there any law to stop it ?

NOTE:- CENTRAL GOVERMENT GIVE SUBSIDES TO STATE GOVERMENT FOR THE LOCAL MANUFACTURERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Answering this question definitively would require a good knowledge of India's constitution, which I lack. Because India is a federal state, unless the constitution gives the central government the power to restrict this kind of state government spending, then the rules on this kind of subsidy could vary from state to state within India. According to this document, however, "India’s public procurement regime, except for a limited degree of preference for micro and small enterprises/public sector enterprises, maintains non-discrimination between domestic and foreign suppliers." India's National Manufacturing Policy outlines a government policy of promoting domestic manufacturing, but no requirement that government expenditures be limited to domestic manufacturers. So, if the central government has a policy of limiting subsidies to domestic manufacturers, it does not seem that state governments are required to observe those limits. However, as I say, I am not an expert, and for a definitive opinion, you should probably consult an Indian constitutional attorney. Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note in the case where the federal government is giving money to the states, as the OP's final statement seems to imply, then unless this is money the government is required to give, or there's some constitutional issue preventing the government from restricting how money they voluntarily give state governments is spent, then there's a fair chance the government would not need explicit constitutional allowance for them to limited how it's spent. The states could reject the money if they aren't happy with the restrictions, or accept it with the restrictions. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What you say makes sense in a case in which the state government is merely distributing a central government subsidy, but this is not clear from the question. To me the question suggests that there is a separate state subsidy program, part or all of which ends up subsidizing pumps made in China. It is plausible that the central government gives states money to support manufacturing within each state, while a state may have a separate program giving money to farmers to help them purchase pumps, some of which end up coming from China. But your scenario is also plausible without further information from the questioner. Marco polo (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

knowing which pages we edited.[edit]

I created an account with Gpavlou in july 2014 and can't find which pages we edited - I want to use this for an assignment as evidence of helping the public (by uploading academic information) can you show me which pages i edited please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:608C:4C03:F800:B495:8EF3:BAEF (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There appears never to have been an account created on the English Wikipedia under the name Gpavlou - and without the name, finding edits is going to be difficult. Can you remember any particular article you edited, and approximately when? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There is one, see Special:Contributions/Gpavlou. Sjö (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops - I must have mistyped or something. Thanks, Sjö. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Who is "we"? You and who else? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the baby chicken come alive when you are boiling the egg?[edit]

Mommey hen sits on the eggs to give them heat to give them life. When you boil the egg it also gets heat. Does that make it come alive for a bit before it boils to death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The eggs we eat are unfertilized, so there is no baby chicken inside (perhaps you noticed that when you broke open the shell). We don't boil baby chickens to death, only lobsters, and only adult lobsters. ―Mandruss  15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
True, although it is possible for a rooster to sneak into the hen house and fertilize an occasional egg, especially on small, organic farms. However, the "baby chicken" is unlikely to make it past an embryo, as it's growth would stop as soon as the egg is taken from the hen and (in the US) refrigerated. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, oysters and clams are most often cooked alive as well. Unless you're eating them at a raw bar, at which point the oysters are merely numb. --Jayron32 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
To be pedantic you missed out crabs, prawns, langoustine, then there are fried ants, locus, scorpions etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspro (talkcontribs) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And witchetty bugs. Yum. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And of course octopus.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
For Mr Pseudo-Pedantic Aspro: Locus is what the link says. I think you were meaning locusts. Lesson: If one cannot be exactly, precisely, bone-crunchingly, mind-destroyingly correct in one's pedantry, one may as well not even try, because there's a conga line of people like me, just itching to out-pedant the try-hards. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
People like I may succumb to such temptations, as well. Of course, Jack's usage of the objective case would arguably be acceptable in general, but strict pedantry is vital in this genus of posting. :) Tevildo (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This genus of posturing, more likely.  :) According to Point 9, "People like you and me should have no problems with grammatical case". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
One should point out that it isn't the heat of the mother that gives them life. It maintains the already-existing life. Mingmingla (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That, and yolk. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, April 24, 2015 (UTC)
What about balut (food)? The embryo is alive prior to cooking and I'd imagine this is more in line with OP's question. Justin15w (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I needed that. (not)Mandruss  15:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No need for them to develop as far as balut. I have laying hens and a rooster. I know that some of the eggs that I take from the nest boxes are fertilized and would develop if allowed to. Dismas|(talk) 15:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
NB, every time you cook a fresh fruit or vegetable, it is also alive prior to cooking... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, originally Thomas Harris's book was going to be about a girl who grew up on a sweet potato farm, The Silence of the Yams. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Fun Horror Fact: Contrary to popular music, some eggs also bleed. If you find an egg with a beak, best to let it be. Or just quickly bite its head off, if you're a monster. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Beatle finales in America, this invasive female carries mites which eat fly eggs from corpses, clearing room for her own, continuing the good kind of revolution, not the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
It's very likely that any chick inside an egg will be dead anyway, due to being refrigerated for several days before being boiled.KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 09:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought A) that you lived in the UK and that B) people in the UK don't normally refrigerate their eggs. I have a friend who lived in Ireland for a number of years and she said that many people in that area don't store their eggs in the fridge. Dismas|(talk) 12:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
While not everyone in the UK always refrigerates their eggs (which, by the way, are not usually kept on refrigerated shelves in the shops/supermarkets), especially if they're going to use them within a few days and/or they have a non-refrigerated but cool larder, most people often do. I don't recall (in half a century) seeing a fridge in the UK that didn't have a door shelf with a row of hemispherical holders for eggs. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Weird, I know what you're talking about in the UK (I'm a Brit, living in Texas) - but here in the USA, I don't think I've ever seen a fridge with those egg-holder dimples - and our eggs are ALWAYS kept refrigerated in supermarkets. SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
In order to hatch, chicken eggs need to be kept at around 99 to 105 degF and with reasonable humidity for 21 days. So unless you leave your eggs out of the refrigerator and live in a hot place with no airconditioning, it's unlikely the chick would survive for long anyhow. Chicks also die if the egg is kept in a vertical position (like it is in a carton of eggs) or if it's not rotated every hour or so. It's REALLY unlikely that an unhatched chick could last more than a day without being cared for properly - and once it's dead, re-warming it wouldn't revive it. But as everyone has already pointed out - eggs intended for human consumption are not fertile - so no chick is involved in the first place. So the answer here is a very clear "No!"...don't worry about it!
If you suspect that there MIGHT be a developed chick inside an egg, you don't need to crack it open to find out...the light of a close-up candle flame is enough to shine through the shell...see Candling for more details. SteveBaker (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Or a narrow beam flashlight/laser pointer. Has to be dark in the room, though. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
They also weigh more with a baby on board, and you can't hear a liquidy sound when you shake it near your ear. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
Weigh more? On the face of it, that doesn't strike me as very likely - any weight gain would have to occur very early in the egg-forming process, since the weight isn't going to change once the shell is formed. I'd be glad to be proved wrong though - do you have a source?
I agree that it doesn't seem likely that the egg/chick combo would gain significant weight after it is laid, but it is possible, say if it absorbed moisture from the air. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the science or a source offhand. But I have chickens, and that's how I tell the difference. My mom told me about it long ago. But yeah, not exactly solid reference desk work. Possibly untrue. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
To be clearer, though, I'm not talking about early detection of tiny embryos. I'm talking about not plopping a half-formed fetus into your cake. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
Trying to find a source to back me up, but Googling words like "heavy", "dense" and "egg" overwhelmingly finds results about dense groups of heavy-laying hens, not their eggs. Also a lot about whether eggs are healthy for human hearts (still maybe, it seems). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
According to this blog post, eggs lose mass as they grow, but the transformation from liquid to solid may create a fake heaviness. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
The eggshell isn't an impermeable barrier...if it were, then it wouldn't be necessary to control humidity and ensure adequate airflow around eggs in an incubator. Oxygen, CO2 and moisture can pass through the membrane - so the egg could possibly either gain or lose mass over time. SteveBaker (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

The Little Man in My Fridge[edit]

For some reason the door on my refrigerator no longer turns out the light when it is closed. To help it out, I've had a paperclip taped to the switch to lengthen the switch which assures that the door will turn the light off. Due to the cold and moisture and such, tape wears out every so often. Would Superglue work to hold the paperclip? I'd rather not buy some to find it's not going to work and I'd like to find a more permanent solution. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 12:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to use Epoxy adhesive than superglue. The latter does not like smooth surfaces nor shear, both of which I anticipate would be factors in fixing the Homunculus Fridgidus. The former is expressely a structural adhesive, and you are creating a structure. It will not be affected by the cold & damp. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The obvious question is how you know the light is still on when the door is closed. If you are judging based on when it's almost closed, that's not really good enough. I suggest you put a video camera in there, turn it on, and close the door. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless the fridge is rather new and has LED lighting, you can tell if there is a problem by shutting the door, waiting an hour then opening it and immediately touching the bulb to see if it's hot. But as StuRat says, setting your cellphone to record video and placing it inside the fridge when you close the door may just be easier. If you really have a problem, then unscrewing the bulb might be a good idea until you can get it don't want the heat from the bulb warming up your food (that's potentially dangerous!) and you'd be pushing your electricity bill up - because the bulb uses energy - but much more importantly, the fridge uses MUCH more energy to remove that heat.
If this is a more modern fridge with LED lighting - you may not need to do anything - just let them stay on. LED's don't consume much energy because they are so efficient - and that's because they generate very little waste heat.
The obvious fix is to replace the switch - but if extending the lever on it is a viable work-around then perhaps the only problem is that the screws that hold it in place have worked loose...or perhaps the part of the door that's supposed to push on it is worn or damaged.
If you're quite sure that you just want to lengthen the arm, then I'd recommend a fast-cure two-part epoxy glue - but realize that you'll have to leave the door open for quite some time to give it time to set.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather than lengthening the switch, it might be easier to enlarge the cam(?) on the door that pushes it in. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the answers. As far as telling if it's on, it's easy to see at night when all the other lights in the house are out. The door seal has a tendency to glow. And there is a small gap (Maybe 1/32") near the top of the door where I can see the light come through at other times in the day. Dismas|(talk) 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That gap sounds like a problem. I'd expect moisture to form on the gasket and to see a black mold growth there. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any grime that is out of the ordinary. We've been in this house 9 years and it's been here since we moved in, so the gasket is dirty but not moldy. Dismas|(talk) 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
StuRat is right though - that seal is supposed to snap magnetically onto the frame of the fridge to produce an almost airtight seal...if there is an actual gap, then it's REALLY not a good thing - you may not have visible mold there yet (maybe you clean it often enough to remove any superficial buildup) - but you eventually will. Also, if your fridge has a freezer section, the humidity getting inside will cause ice to build up (possibly in places you can't see) - and that reduces the efficiency of your fridge and may also cause it to go into more frequent auto-defrost cycles - which is bad for energy consumption AND for the safety of your food.
However, the plastic that the door seal is made from may be somewhat translucent so it may be that you can see the light without there being an actual gap.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(Oh, and the reason the magnetic strip isn't sealing tight is probably that the soft, rubbery plastic of the seal has hardened with age and isn't bending to conform with the door frame very replacing the seals would be a very good idea.) SteveBaker (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


My economic activity is currently zero. I don't even receive income support. My bank balance says zero. Does this mean i'm below the underclass? (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No. All the best: Rich Farmbrough19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC).
  • See the page guidelines at the top. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As your link states, the underclass is the "lowest possible position in a class hierarchy". Therefore, there is nothing below it. However, also note that your class doesn't immediately change as your income changes. Indeed, many wealthy people may lose millions of dollars in a given year, or even lose all their wealth and go deep into debt. That doesn't automatically move them into the underclass, as friends, relatives, business associates, etc., may well "keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed". One example of this is Kwame Kilpatrick, former criminal mayor of Detroit who pleaded poverty when he claimed he couldn't pay back the citizens of Detroit all the money he stole from them. The court agreed, but then he was found to be living in a mansion, supposedly on money he had borrowed from friends. Well, that was a violation of the settlement, as he was supposed to disclose all income, including that. (He is now in jail, for that and/or other crimes.) StuRat (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Google Destructive Scanning Work, Volume 120, Part 16[edit]

Is it that the people paid by Google to do the scanning object to the process? Or is this hacktivisim? Or both? All the best: Rich Farmbrough19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC).

I suspect that "Destructive Scanning" refers to Book scanning#Destructive scanning. I don't know how that ended up in place of the actual title, but I seriously doubt it was done maliciously. -- BenRG (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Does anyone know what the name of the place is in the United States where 1 in 25 people use ASL as their only form of communication?

Thank you,

Sandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Rochester, New York possibly. Dismas|(talk) 23:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

Carol Channing[edit]

Why doesn't the Wikipedia science reference desk come up when I typed in "science desk" in the search? Sucklechimp (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason it doesn't work for the other desks. The desks are in the "Wikipedia" namespace. The search doesn't automatically search that namespace, so it doesn't come up in the search results. This is probably so that casual readers of Wikipedia don't get a bunch of policy/guideline results if they search for an article that doesn't exist.
If you want to quickly reach one of the desks, type in "WP:RD/" followed by the correct abbreviation. WP:RD/S will get you Science, WP:RD/M will get you Miscellaneous, WP:RD/MA will get you Math, etc.
And finally, what does Carol Channing have to do with this? Dismas|(talk) 01:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think they came here to ask a question about Carol Channing and then changed their mind at the last minute. ―Mandruss  01:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, they're blocked now, so I guess it doesn't matter. Dismas|(talk) 01:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well at least we got one good edit out of them. ―Mandruss  01:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've created appropriate redirects for most of the desks. For RD/C, we already have an article Computer desk about the item of furniture, to which I've added a hatnote. Should Computing Desk redirect directly to RD/C, or to Computer desk? Tevildo (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how appropriate it is to redirect across namespaces, but if we're going to do it, I don't think computing desk is a term much used in English at all, unless there was some kind of situation where the desk itself did the computing. Be bold. :) Matt Deres (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
See Category:Redirects to project space. A rather heterogenous collection, but fairly well-populated. Language reference desk (etc) were already on there, so I'm just filling in the gaps. I've redirected Computing Desk to RD/C. Tevildo (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how appropriate it is, either, but it doesn't seem very desirable to introduce the possibility of accidentally throwing a reader into a talk space when they may have no idea what a talk space is. I used Wikipedia for years without any awareness of what was going on beneath the surface. Wikipedia:Community portal has a nice prominent button for Reference Desk near the top, so one needn't know anything about namespaces to get here. ―Mandruss  14:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, anyone who can find "Community Portal" will be able to find the reference desks (and probably Lord Lucan) without assistance. I think it's reasonable to offer some assistance in finding things to users who aren't as familiar with our labyrinthine structure. Tevildo (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Except for the fact that there is a link to Community Portal in the left sidebar of every Wikipedia page, but none for the Refdesks (or Lord Lucan). ―Mandruss  17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll note that although the OP has been blocked, the question is a relevant one. Even if the name of a WP: page doesn't show up in autofill, it should show up as a did you mean WP:EXAMPLE at the top of the search page. I am sure this drives newbies batty, and I still find it frustrating after two decades here. Would this be a matter for the Village Pump? μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Probably. WP:VPR if you can make a specific proposal for change, or WP:VPI if you wish to bat some ideas around first - issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). ―Mandruss  17:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pennsylvania watershed.[edit]

Why are there (almost) daily references to the Pennsylvania watershed in your "did you know" section? Today there are multiple references and I, am very puzzled. Why not Wisconsin? Or New South Wales?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This question would be better at WT:DYK. See WP:DYK for the general rules applying to the section. Tevildo (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Drooling in my sleep[edit]

Whenever I decide to take a nap during the day, I wake up at about an hour afterwards, and always find myself having drooled on the pillow. This only seems to happen during naps at daytime. When I actually go to sleep for the night, I don't drool. I know this because although most of the time I sleep for six to eight hours until early morning, some times I wake up during the middle of the night and then go back to sleep. I have never found myself having drooled during the night. Does anyone have any idea why this happens? JIP | Talk 19:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The obvious suspect would be your sleep position. Do you sleep on your back at night ? If so, that would tend to prevent drooling. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what position I sleep at night. I lay down on my back, but I think I change positions several times during the night. As I mentioned earlier, I lose all connection with my body when I fall asleep. I regain it when I wake up. During naps, I sleep for so little time that I think I lay down on my back for the entire time. And I always lay down on my back, whether it's for a nap or for the entire night. JIP | Talk 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)