Miscellaneous desk
< April 10	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 11

To Whelm

It is possible to be overwhelmed or underwhelmed. Can you ever just be whelmed?

Yes. The simple and past participle of whelm is whelmed. -Gwguffey (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is a totally different thing to the concepts of over/underwhelmed. Whelmed means "to be covered in water". So can one be whelmed in the sense that one is neither under- nor over- whelmed? In that it would be synonymous with "moderately satisfied"? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your original question simply asked if you could be whelmed, not whether you could be in a state of neither overwhelmed nor underwhelmed? ;) I agree with JackofOz below, I would like to know Arch dude's description of being whelmed. He has me concerned. If being in a state of "over" or "under" is notable, then it seems you could make a case that the normal state would be just "whelmed"....but if you use that particular word, people may just think that you are ~~all wet~~ covered with water. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to me to be completely subjective. I am whelmed by this question, so (on a sample size of one) yes, a person can be whelmed in the sense of your question. -Arch dude (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the original question isn't mine, although I believe it was in some teen film I've seen at some point. I think a cheerleader asked it. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arch dude, can you describe the experience of being whelmed, so that we can all look out for it? Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote comes from Ten Things I Hate About You (one of the more watchable teen rom-coms I've seen). The reply in the film (from an equally airheaded teen) is, "I think you can in Europe." Steewi (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to pour some cold water on this debate. Whelm is given in the OED as capsize or overturn. Whelmed, then, is capsized. Overwhelm is derived from whelm and means to be turned over, and has been used since c.1400. Underwhelm is a much more modern c.1956 word, rather as cluefull is to clueless .... an ironic sort of a neologism. So one can be whelmed in exactly the same sense as one can be overwhelmed, albeit the first of those words is not very much in common use. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words created in this fashion, because people feel there ought to be a parallel construction to a word that is already in use, are called backformations. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I thought that everybody knew that "underwhelmed" was a backfackformation, so I assumed that the OP was using "whelmed" as a backformation that splits the difference. The question did not strike me as stunning in any dimension, so I was not overwhelmed. It was not so inane that I was underwhelmed, Therefore, I remained in the neutral state between them: whelmed. I am gruntled by the interest in my response. -Arch dude (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is quite ane. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wise on Wikipedia, where our writings go into the archive cloud for who knows how long, to assume that "everybody knows" a certain fact. Refdesks are archived and need to be explicit in their helpfulness. I hope this is an ept description. BrainyBabe (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the people responding to this question are nocent of misusing the English language for their own amusement. StuRat (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for rendering this thread tact, but I feel the need to link to the article on unpaired words where you will find a thinkable amount of examples and links with countful more. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now the question is, can one be kempt? Pfly (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's one I actually use in everyday conversation. Perhaps we should be ruth and let this quietly die... 79.66.105.94 (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die not! Captain Nancy Blackett, tomboy hero of Arthur Ransome's beloved Swallows and Amazons series, was christened Ruth, but changed her name when her parrot-owning uncle told her that pirates were ruthless. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Whelp

If whelping is giving birth to puppies, what do you call giving birth to kittens ? StuRat (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Queening" apparently.[1] which makes the mother Queen for a Day. Σ:-) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. So, is this because real queens are always "having kittens" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and queen are the names given to male and female cats. I have no idea why. SaundersW (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The names given to un-neutered male and female cats :) 79.66.105.94 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny question, but curious since my wife said something about it

For some odd reason my wife and me got into a discussion on wiping ones behind. So the question in this case is: Wipe it while still sitting down, or wipe it standing up? --Nick910 (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could you wipe standing up? Surely that wouldn't work? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically if you bend over while standing up, i don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to --Nick910 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are quite possible. There are multiple issues involved, including hygiene, flexibility, space available and personal preference. I don't know of any particular surveys on the topic. If it's anything like the toilet roll controversy, it could lead to internet wars. Steewi (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What toilet roll controversy? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Over or Under" is the major controversy. "Crumple or fold" is the minor one. (I think.) And now we have "Sitting or standing". ---Sluzzelin talk 10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought there's a small possibility that direction of travel might also be in play. Where is the survey at http://howdoyouwipeyourass.com ? The intertubes are letting us down. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no controversy there. It's "over", obviously. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. and very dryJulia Rossi (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the three seashells? And some folks avoid the "which way to roll?" debate by mounting the toilet paper roll with its axis being vertical.

Atlant (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which way do they mount it? With the loose end wrapped towards the toilet or away from it? APL (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you go "front to back" it shouldn't matter.And why has no-one brought up using a swan's neck? hotclaws 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A swan's neck? What? Am I missing something here? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reference to Rabelais, Gargantua and Pantagruel, Chapter 1.XIII "How Gargantua's wonderful understanding became known to his father Grangousier, by the invention of a torchecul or wipebreech." (translation by Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty and Peter Anthony Motteux) :

"Afterwards I wiped my tail with a hen, with a cock, with a pullet, with a calf's skin, with a hare, with a pigeon, with a cormorant, with an attorney's bag, with a montero, with a coif, with a falconer's lure. But, to conclude, I say and maintain, that of all torcheculs, arsewisps, bumfodders, tail-napkins, bunghole cleansers, and wipe-breeches, there is none in the world comparable to the neck of a goose, that is well downed, if you hold her head betwixt your legs. And believe me therein upon mine honour, for you will thereby feel in your nockhole a most wonderful pleasure, both in regard of the softness of the said down and of the temporate heat of the goose, which is easily communicated to the bum-gut and the rest of the inwards, in so far as to come even to the regions of the heart and brains. And think not that the felicity of the heroes and demigods in the Elysian fields consisteth either in their asphodel, ambrosia, or nectar, as our old women here used to say; but in this, according to my judgment, that they wipe their tails with the neck of a goose, holding her head betwixt their legs, and such is the opinion of Master John of Scotland, alias Scotus."

Emir Kusturica visualized a variation in Black Cat, White Cat : Dadan falls into an outhouse's steaming pile, and uses a snow white goose to clean himself (It was a set-up involving drinks spiked with laxatives). Ending on a more mannered note, I recommend the article on European toilet paper holder. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people do not wipe. When I lived in a dorm in university, there were some Muslim students, and there was a watering can in the bathroom. It took me awhile to figure it out! Adam Bishop (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Islamic hygienical jurisprudence, although note that washing, as opposed to wiping, is not restricted to Muslims. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the over or under debate - over, at least if you have an artexed wall. :( -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wipe when you have this? --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the Featured picture of the day

Why are your locust getting it on? Don't you think who ever took the picture would give them some privacy.71.142.208.226 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

See privacy. Since they effectively lack self-awareness, most animals don't give a damn about privacy. (Except domestic cats perhaps.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, when I looked at my user page, I wondered the same – I felt like an intruder on my own userpage! The animals who most don't give a damn about privacy are humans with cameras, followed by my neighbourhood's domestic cats. *groan* Julia Rossi (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you see the two locust are trying to hide in the trees, but that dirty camera man found them. I wonder what the locust are thinking right now?71.142.208.226 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

"Was it a blinding flash for you? It was for me!" Julia Rossi (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No fly zone?

I was reading the article on the no-fly zone and was doing some thinking. The Iraqi no-fly zones were declared by Britain, the United States and France according to the article on the Iraqi no-fly zone. But can the United Nations declare a no-fly zone over a country or region of a country? Or as part of a Security Council resolution? --Blue387 (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but it's probably a matter of dispute. In any case the security council didn't pass any resolution on the matter. Algebraist 12:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Security Council could pass such a resolution if it acted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter during a war. A no-fly zone is a lesser measure than a full-scale armed conflict like in Iraq or Korea. The three nations contended that they were acting under such resolutions passed against Iraq. Most international jurists would probably say that they were stretching things, and as Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said, the no-fly zones were illegal. (I was the one who put that in that article btw.)John Z (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

departments of wilson airport

How many departments are there in Wilson Airport(Kenya),which ones are they and how does each one of them contribute to the smooth functioning of the airport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.49.82 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be nice if posters at least said 'please' !--Artjo (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if they signed, gave you a context, a link, googled a bit first, or... I was in a bank when a teller lost it and wouldn't help the customer until he heard the magic word! The fight went on for some time, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morse Code SMS notification

I suppose many people have noticed that the common SMS notification signal from Nokia phones (... -- ...) translates to SMS. However, I frequently hear another notification signal (I think also from Nokia phones) that goes ... ...- .- which translates to SVA. What's the meaning of SVA in that context? Google searches for "sva nokia", "sva cellphone", "sva sms" etc. have turned up nothing useful so far. -- Ferkelparade π 10:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the original tone they used may have been the morse for SMS, it's likely that now, with the advent of personalised ringtones and the general customisability of mobile phones, that the tone you heard was meaningless. I have to say that I'd never noticed the SMS thing until you pointed it out though, so thanks for the cool bit of trivia! Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housing the world

Years ago in high school a geography teacher told me that the entire world could be housed in the state of Texas, if everyone lived in 4 person houses, with enough room for everyone to have a garden, too. Is this true? If it's not, what's the smallest area that the entire world could be housed in? Thanks 81.96.161.104 (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas has an area of 268820 square miles, and the world population is about 6.6 billion, so if everyone lived in Texas, there would be about 105 square metres per person, or 420 per four-person house. That's easily enough space. Algebraist 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name is appropriate! Jørgen (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those not entirely fluent in both metric and U.S. measurements, 268,820 square miles is about 696 240 square kilometers or 6.96x10¹¹ square meters. At 6.6 billion people, that cooks down to 105 square meters per person or 420 square meters per four-person household. In U.S. measure, 268,820 square miles is 7.49x10¹² square feet; that's 1135 square feet per person or about 4500 square feet per household.

That's a square patch of land about 20 meters or 65 feet on a side—bigger than subdivision lots in many western countries. (A bit of quick Googling finds minimum residential lot size requirements anywhere from 3000 to 4500 square feet in various communities throughout Texas.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we use Alaska instead? We'd have twice as much space. Useight (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Alaska is either mountainous or ice-covered, thus reducing the available space. That is another factor that would need to be considered before we all put on our hats and saddle up for the ride to Texas - not all of the 268820 sq mi / 696240 sq km would actually be usable for living space. And then there's the space required for other things like power plants, sewage treatment, police and fire departments, etc. Teachers say a lot of things that don't bear close scrutiny. --LarryMac | Talk 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might fit 'em in, but imagine the traffic! --jjron (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such utilities can, with enough ingenuity, be built on top of the 4-person houses. However, I don't relish the thought of living inside one of the support pillars for a huge sewage treatment plant. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps building them underneath the houses would be more practical... Thanks for the answers though guys, I still can't really believe it. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks again for the answers, I'm mostly writing this to let people know that 81.96 is now Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A big issue would be water supply. A lot of Texas is quite arid. Many of those gardens would not be able to grow much. I suppose the water supply issue could be resolved by lining the Gulf coast with desalination plants. The gardens could get quite small after you deduct the space required for roads, services, and infrastructure. It would end up more or less an urban expanse. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar line it is said that the entire world population times 10 could be fitted into Loch Ness, Scotland (if it were emptied of water of course!).--Artjo (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World population 6.6x10⁹. Volume of Loch Ness 7.4x10⁹ m³. Average volume of human body say 0.1 m³. So, yes, that is approximately correct. Would be very crowded though. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can drain Loch Ness by piping all the water to Texas. Gwinva (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Texas wouldn't need the water anymore because all the people are now piled up in Loch Ness. --jjron (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible for an intelligent species to evolve in Texas after the disappearance of homo (smirk, lol, rofl) sapiens. For which dihydrogen monoxide is a prerequisite. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, I also heard that you can fit the entire world's population in Virginia. Also, I heard that you can fit (although for practical reasons this would not be good as everyone would be squished under one another and have no space) in a box, 1 km x 1 km x 1 km, and this box would fit in the Grand Canyon. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, the world's population could live in Texas, but wisely chooses not to. Pfly (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UK version of this is that the population of the world could stand on the Isle of Wight. Which probably isn't true anymore as the world's population is bigger than it used to be and the IoW is smaller than it used to be. -88.109.180.121 (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't need anything as big as Texas if you could stand the crowding. Matt Deres (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E numbers

I have perused our article on various E number, such as E420, E331 ect, but find it a bit uninformative. What I wish to know is why are these put into foods and drink? What are they? for example, E472 (if I remember clearly)is an emulisifier, or is able to cause oil and water to mix. But why is this put into my bread (UK Kingsmill) Surely bread should be a time tested recipe of wheat, flour, eggs, salt ect. thousands of years old. Why are these things put into almost every food stuff, includeing steak, bacon, redbull, bread, canned fruit. Has anyone tested these for cancer causing agents, ect, are these healthy? any relevant info would be greatly appreciated. Why is there so little info on these? who decided to add these to whatever? thanks, and stay healthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.34.51 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time I'd imagine it's a financial decision. If E120 is cheaper than the "natural" ingredient, it makes fiscal sense to use it. Some of the time it may be that people are actually used to the taste of the E numbers and so would rather have E-strawberry than real-strawberry. About the testing, as far as I know the problem is that many of them were not tested adequately when they were approved for human consumption and much of the data coming out now, while hardly damning, is indicating that there are probably side-effects, especailly among children. This article from a few days ago mentions that some e-numbers have been linked to aggression in children. I'm not sure but I think that much of the problem is that the results are still very debatable. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book Twinkie Deconstructed (ISBN 1594630186) explains how all of the ingredients in a Twinkie are made, and what their role is. Since it's a U.S.-centric book, it doesn't talk about E numbers, and many of the manufacturing choices are driven by government policy (subsidies, tariffs, etc.), but it will provide some insight into what drives the decisions. There are lots of other recent books concerning modern agriculture and diet (Omnivore's Dilemma, What to Eat, etc.) that may also interest you. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of bread, additives may be used to adjust the texture (my home-made bread is much denser at the bottom than the top), condition the crust (mine develops a hard, chewy crust if it's not cooled properly), inhibit mold (mine will start to grow moldy in less than a week), and other things. --Carnildo (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Carnildo says, emulsifiers are used in bread as dough strengtheners and crumb softeners. (In fact, I believe that's why the eggs are included in your "time tested recipe".) In commercial bakeries, they stabilize the dough during processing. Various emulsifiers are examined in this article. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they can't just make the bread with traditional recipes because you want your bread homogenous, fresh and long lasting. If you want fresh bread, and it's being mass produced, it's going to have to be treated somehow to keep it fresh long enough to make it to the shelf from the bakery/factory. You then want it to last for days without getting mouldy or stale, so that means more treatment. And you want every loaf the same, which means traditional methods aren't going to cut it. Also, bear in mind E-numbers can be used for fairly ordinary things like salt. It's actually a pretty common 'trick' to write out the full name of all your ingredients rather than putting the E-number, as people assume 'real names' are more healthy. E-numbers are just catalogue numbers for the permitted food additives in the EU; being an E-number or not is not what makes something problematic. 79.66.105.94 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Olympians

After reading this article about the IOC's stand on political protest during the Olympics, I wondered if there were any Tibetan Olympians. Competing for China, or of Tibetan origin but competing for another country. Anyone know? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The legal age for buying and drinking alcohol in Las Vegas Casinos - and for gambling?

What is the legal minimum age for buying and drinking alcohol in Las Vegas Casinos, and for gambling in them too? Thanks. 92.9.155.232 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21 192.45.72.26 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure 21 is standard everywhere in the US (except Indian reservations, I guess). Useight (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above answers. BUT - would a nearly 21 year old and mature looking UK guy be asked to prove his age on entering the casino? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.147.1 (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely you would. Even 25 year olds get carded. Guroadrunner (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the casino and who's on the other side of the conversation. Most times that I buy alcohol here in Vermont, I get carded. And I'm in my 30s. Most states have laws stating that "everyone" has to be carded because having the cashier "estimate" or "guess" that the person is old enough is not good enough. Dismas|^(talk) 13:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one time I worked as a mystery shopper and checked discount gas station chains for compliance. Since the cashiers always had a line the companies relied on the legal penalty for the cashier rather than its own policy of complying with the law. My job was to find people who were 21 or older but who looked younger as my rider. In all but 2 cases out of hundreds did the cashiers fail to ask for ID. In both cases the cashiers were newly hired and not well enough trained. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I'm 24 and I get carded buying M-rated video games. And you only have to be 17 to buy those. Useight (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really grateful for the above answers - very insightful - and thanks very much for them. My reason for asking was not for my benefit - I am 61 - and have never been asked to prove my age - not even though I frequently visit the USA, including LV - when buying and consuming alcohol! But I know a young guy who works in a local Nike Store here in Scotland UK who is visiting California in a few weeks' time with his 21+ friends, and he asked me the above question. It's a shame really as he really is a mature-looking and adult-behaving 20+ Physical Fitness Student and Instructor whose last thought would be to abuse alcohol. Not forgetting that here in the UK it is legal for him to drink and purchase alcohol from age 18 - and also to gamble in licensed gambling premises, though individual shops, supermarkets, casinos etc, may legitimately refuse to serve anyone who LOOKS to be under ANY age they decree, even 24, obviously to protect their servers from having to "guesstimate". But at least now I can advise him as to the likelihood of his apparent majority being challenged. Again, many thanks.92.8.18.90 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You get carded to buy an M-rated game? I know people who are barely teenagers who play M-rated games. Also I know someone who apparently knows or knows someone who knows or has heard of a six-year-old who plays an M-rated game. Are the regulations stricter in some places than others? Surely a 10-year-old or 13-year old is not going to look 17. Or maybe the game was produced years ago and being rated M then doesn't mean it's M now? Lots of teenagers play halo 3 for example. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have to prove we are at least 18 if we look under 21, just in case. Maybe it's like that in America too. HS7 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dimensions of a US $5 bill

In cm's or inches. Don't have one handy, and I can't find it anywhere, thanks! --Nathan12343 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bills are all the same size, you can measure any denomination. The $5 bill in my wallet looks like it's about 6" by 2.5". Useight (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some US money here. Most of the bills I measured are 6+1/8 inches long or just over, and 2+19/32 inches wide (that'd be 15.56 x 6.59 cm). There is some slight variation because of the effects of humidity and crumpling on the paper. I can't find official dimensions at moneyfactory.gov, where I would expect to see them somewhere, but the article United States dollar gives the dimensions as 6.14 x 2.61 inches (that'd be 15.60 x 6.63 cm). --Anonymous, in Canada, 00:44 UTC, April 12, 2008.

Wow, 6.14" by 2.61"? I was really close. Useight (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on United States dollar states " ...small-sized notes, introduced that year, measure 6.14 inches (156 mm) by 2.61 inches (66 mm) by 0.0043 inches (0.11 mm)." Consider using the search box for simple factual queries of this nature. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, that's what I said it says. Thanks for confirming. :-) --Anonymous, 22:10 UTC, April 13, 2008.