Miscellaneous desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	Current desk >

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

February 22[edit]

Camp names for Camp 9-15 for Italian Wars of Prisoners in India from Second World War - urgent help needed[edit]

There was a camp at Sihore district in village DELAWADI (ABOUT 45 KM FROM BHOPAL), Madhya Pradesh, India. It housed Italian Prisoners of Wars (POWs) of Second World War for a few years.

After searching and speaking to British Library I managed the find that the ‘Camp number 9-16 housed Italian Prisoners of Wars’ in Bhopal, In India, but there is no information on camp number 9-15. We know that camp number 16 was hospital in Bhopal.

The Wikipedia confirms the above - https://wiki.fibis.org/w/POW_Camps_in_India

I would be grateful if someone from the community can help or direct me in the right direction to obtain the answer to below question:

'''camp names and/or location for camps 9-15 within Bhopal or which camp number represents the camp at Sihore district in village DELAWADI (ABOUT 45 KM FROM BHOPAL), Madhya Pradesh, India.'''

I look forward to receiving the community support on the above.

Yours Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOW63 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer for you I'm afraid, but I just wanted to point out that the link you posted above is not from Wikipedia. Rather, it's from a wiki maintained by an organization called the Families in British India Society. It just looks like Wikipedia as it uses the same software. Good luck in your search. --Viennese Waltz 11:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the camp in question, the last photograph has an old sign in Hindi (?) which may help, but I haven't been able to find any information about numbering or the location of other camps in the area. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I hope someone from the community know something or direct me in the right direction. It seems to be a nightmare to get the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOW63 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karsten Creek Drive, Five Forks, SC[edit]

I am doing some research on Scuffletown Road in Five Forks, SC. Karsten Creek Drive is connected to Scuffletown Road. There are many creeks in the area with roads named after the creek. However, I can't find any reference to a creek named Karsten. I'm trying to find the source of that name. There is a water runoff alongside the road, but it did not exist until the housing development was created. It is just a water collection route. I've asked the reference desk here and looked at maps of the area in the reference area, but I haven't found anything.97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topographic map and the OpenStreetMap show an unnamed watercourse intersecting Scuffletown Road very near Karsten Creek Drive and flowing southward into Gilder Creek. The Geographic Names Information System has nothing for a Karsten Creek in South Carolina, but it's possible that that watercourse is–or was, if it no longer exists because of the development in the area—locally known as Karsten Creek. Not much of an answer, I know. One possibility would be to contact the company that developed that subdivision (it's usually the developer that comes up with the street names) and ask them for the source of the name of Karsten Creek Drive. Deor (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I just missed him. The roads in that subdivision are named after popular golf courses. I wonder if the reference desk is directing people to this reference desk. If so, there needs to be a way to relay the answers back. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be This golf course in Oklahoma. --Jayron 32 20:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2-22-22=Tuesday[edit]

Today, 2-22-22 (in month-day-(two-digit year) format without leading zeroes) consists of all twos (hence "Twosday") but also happens to be a Tuesday. Well, what a coincidence!

In the next nine centuries (still in the same millennium), February 22 will be on a Sunday, Friday, Wednesday, Tuesday, Sunday, Friday, Wednesday, Tuesday, and Sunday in 2122, 2222, 2322, 2422, 2522, 2622, 2722, 2822, and 2922 respectively. The day of the week goes back one day from the previous century for 2422 and 2822 because 2400 and 2800 (divisible by 400) are leap years, while the day of the week goes back two days from the previous century for the other years because 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, and 2900 (century years not divisible by 400) are not leap years. Clearly, the Gregorian calendar repeats every 400 years, so the next "Tuesday, 2-22-22" would of course be in 2422.

The year 2222 will be even more special considering that all four digits of the year are twos, but the day of the week for 2-22-2222 is not Tuesday, but Friday.

So, is this "Twosday=Tuesday" situation really special? There is even an existing draft for the special day at Draft:Twosday.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using the current rules for leap year, 2/2/22 falls on a Tuesday in the years 1222, 1622, 2022, 2422, 2822, 3222, 2622, 4022, 4422, 4822, 5222, 5622, 6022, 6422, 6822, 7222, 7622, 8022, 8422, 8822, 9222, 9622... every 400 years. So, if you consider the average person can experience approximately 100 years of dates, that means that only 25% of the population will ever experience 2/2/22 on a Tuesday. Of course, most people don't live to 100 and as you go back in time, it was far less than it is today. So, I'd ballpark it around 20% of the population. Today, right now, it is 100% of the population. But, everyone born between tomorrow and about 2/22/2322 won't experience one. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"everyone born between tomorrow and about 2/22/2322 won't experience one" (emphasis added) statement seems flawed to me. While most people don't live to 100, some people do. Indeed nowadays centenarian is the sort of thing which while fairly unusual isn't so rare to be shocking, our article says 'In 2012, the United Nations estimated that there were 316,600 living centenarians worldwide.' and 'According to the UK ONS, one-third of babies born in 2013 in the UK are expected to live to 100.' both sourced and I verified the second [1]. At least to me, "about" doesn't save this statement, while death rates are fairly high at that age, it's not like in 2 years they're all dead. (E.g. our article also mentions how at least two countries send congratulations at 100 but only start yearly at 105.) Based on how things are at the moment, a reasonable cut off where we can much more safely say "everyone" is 125 years, since it's generally accepted the oldest verified age is Jeanne Calment's 122 years and 164 days, and she's also the only person who we can say with some degree of confidence lived past 120 years List of the verified oldest people. Maximum life span suggests an absolute maximum of 150 or maybe 160 is probably safe barring major medical breakthroughs or other weird things like brain "transfers" and arguably extreme high speed travel (since while this won't increase lifespan, it may allow someone born on 2297 to be alive when it's 2422 on earth). Likely by the time of e.g. 2296 we'll have a better idea of whether we can still safely say, to someone sorry but there's almost no chance you're going to see 2422. Nil Einne (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constructions like "everyone will not..." are often used to mean "not everyone will...", not "no one will." --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compare "All that glitters is not gold". --Lambiam 10:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old scoreboard Hampden Park, Glasgow[edit]

Hi, looking at this scoreboard you can see that there was enough space to put just the teams and the score with the minute of play on it. The match in question is the 2002 Champions League final between Real Madrid and Bayer Leverkusen in Glasgow. The question is this: Three goals were scored in this match; is it possible that when the goals were scored, only then did the names of the scorers appear on the scoreboard for a moment? Thank you very much. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.97.42 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked the same question in October and nobody knew then. You may be better asking at a Scottish football forum like this or this. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]