Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 12

Using silicone rubber to create a mould

I've spent 30+ minutes browsing all over innumerable cast/ mould/ silicone rubber articles trying to find something on using silicone rubber to create a mould. I have seen a video of someone applying a silicone rubber paste to an object to create a detailed mould, but I just cannot see anything on Wikipedia about this use. Am I going blind, or is it really missing? (unlikely) Scarabocchio (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of places on the internet to find instructions for how to use silicone rubber to create a mould: [1]. Per WP:NOTHOWTO, Wikipedia is not really designed to tell people how to use silicone rubber to create a mould. At best, I would think that a single sentence or less, referenced to a reliable source, to indicate that creating moulds is a use case for silicone rubber may be useful. --Jayron32 15:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't interested in the how-to bit at all, just intrigued by my inability to find anything within Wikipedia on taking casts of items in-situ. This cannot be a rare requirement or process. Scarabocchio (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We have an article Molding (process) that lists twenty methods, most with an article on their own. In stark contrast, all we have on the process of making molds is an article Moldmaker that states that a moldmaker fabricates molds for use in casting metal products and only mentions machining processes generally involving use computer-controlled equipment. This is too narrow.  --Lambiam 20:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Plaster cast. It's in the right area -- how do we make a copy of something -- but again it's narrow, restricted to a single technique, now out-of-date. Lost-wax casting is about mould making, but not from an original. There doesn't seem to be anything that specifically addresses the work of the cast department of the Louvre Museum or the British Museum, or making replicas of the Parthenon frieze .. etc etc. Scarabocchio (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is neither complete nor consistent (and never can be both); if you can improve Wikipedia, then you are more than welcome to do so! 136.56.52.157 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

As noted, Wikipedia is not expected to be complete. The way it becomes more complete requires two conditions. 1) A person who is interested in a topic notices that Wikipedia doesn't cover that topic adequately 2) so that person decides to edit Wikipedia to improve Wikipedia's coverage of that topic. You seem to meet condition 1) from my reading of your questions and comments here, that makes you uniquely well positioned to meet condition 2 as well. --Jayron32 11:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

April 15

Detail of the 1999 Champions League final

Hello guys. A small and perhaps peculiar curiosity; the social colours of Man. United and Bayern Munich are the same, red and white. If the Germans had won in 1999 in Barcelona, would the winning team's ribbons, which are traditionally wrapped around the 'ears' of the Cup, have remained the same or would they have been a different colour? My question arises from the fact that Bayern was drawn as the visiting team, and therefore played in an away uniform that was grey/blue and amaranth at the time. Thank you very much. 93.41.96.86 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Baseball, basketball and US football in Britain and Ireland

Besides soccer, cricket, rugby and Irish hurley, why can there never be baseball, basketball and/or American football in Britain and Ireland? And does the United States have cricket and rugby? 86.131.245.189 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The premise of your question is spurious. Please see Baseball in the United Kingdom, Sport in the United Kingdom#Basketball, American football in the United Kingdom, Cricket in the United States and Rugby union in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

See also Baseball Ground. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are soccer, cricket, rugby and Irish hurley the major/main sports in Britain and Ireland? 86.131.245.189 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Because they were invented there? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Philadelphian cricket team played an important part in 19th century cricket. Our article History of United States cricket includes this interesting nugget (my gloss in square brackets):

In spite of all this American growth in the game [to the middle of the 19th century], it was slowly losing ground to a newcomer. In many cities, local cricket clubs were contributing to their own demise by encouraging crossover to the developing game of baseball. After the United States Civil War the Cincinnati Red Stockings brought a talented young bowler from the St. George's Cricket Club in New York to serve as a player and manager of the team. Harry Wright applied the "scientific" batting and specialized placement of fielders that he had learned in cricket to his new sport. This development was instrumental in creating the Cincinnati team's undefeated 1869 season. It also helped to secure the place of baseball as one of the most popular sports in the country.[14]
It may have been during the Civil War that baseball secured its place as America's game.[14] An army making a brief stop at a location could easily organise a game of baseball on almost any clear patch of ground, while cricket required a carefully prepared pitch. Baseball began to poach players and administrators from the world of cricket. Nick Young, who served for 25 years as the president of the National League, was originally a successful cricketer. It was not until the Civil War that he took up baseball because "it looked like cricket for which his soul thirsted."[15] It has been suggested that the fast-paced quick play of baseball was more appealing to Americans than the technical slower game of cricket.[14] This natural tendency toward baseball was compounded by terrible American defeats at the hands of a traveling English side in 1859, which may have caused Americans to think that they would never be successful at this English game.[16] By the end of the Civil War, most cricket fans had given up their hopes of broad-based support for the game. Baseball filled the role of the "people's game" and cricket became an amateur game for gentlemen.[14][17]

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess everything is relative; in a modern context I've never heard anyone describe the bucolic game of baseball as anything approaching "fast-paced quick play". Compared to something like 5-day length of Test cricket, the 3-4 hour baseball game must seem to be positively racing by; however compared to something like basketball or ice hockey, the game can drag a bit. --Jayron32 12:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I love cricket and I've enjoyed watching baseball too. Of course the length of the baseball game is much shorter, but my unscientific reaction is that in cricket, the ball is actually in play a far higher proportion of the scheduled hours of play - time does not race by during frequent cessations in play. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC) (PS I love ice-hockey, too.)

And it's quite possible to tune in to Test Match Special and enjoy it for half an hour or more before realising that play has been rained off.-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 13:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Baseball has about 18 minutes of play in a typical 3-4 hour game, including every time a player and/or the ball is in meaningful motion. This is the best information I can find on Cricket. It doesn't seem to mention a specific time, but does bemoan the general "non-action" time in the game. --Jayron32 13:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

In the old days, ball games took a lot less time. The longest game by innings was 26, in 1920.[2] It took less than 4 hours to play. That's an average of less than 9 minutes per inning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

In Test cricket, teams are penalised for bowling fewer than 15 overs (90 times the ball is in play) per hour. In other forms of the game, the rates vary - usually stipulating that the rate is faster. In the English championship (for example), it's 16 overs, so 96 times. These are minimums, and although some teams are penalised for going slower, sometimes you'll see more, particularly when spin bowling is in progress, which doesn't require much of a run-up. Cricket fans who are longer in the tooth bemoan modern over rates - they've been getting worse for decades. I can remember 18 per hour being the standard. Apparently in the 1940s, there would be 21 overs per hour (126 times the ball was in play). --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

References

In MLB, each team throws about 146 pitches per game, making roughly 300 pitches total (both teams): [3]. Baseball averages just over 3 hours per game [4], thus there are probably a shade under 100 pitches per hour. So it seems that this is on par with cricket in terms of how often a ball is "put in play". Baseball also has additional time "in play"; the time the ball is traveling towards the plate is miniscule, but the ball doesn't have to be hit to be live. The rules for "live ball" are explained at Live ball (baseball). Generally, the ball becomes live once all four of the following persons are in a position to play: Pitcher, batter, catcher, and umpire. It remains live until one of the conditions listed at Dead ball (baseball) is met. The "8 minute" calculation above is based on when something is moving, like a player or the ball. I'd argue that "live ball" time is a better measure. Sure, maybe a runner doesn't try to advance and so everyone is basically standing around, but any time a runner could do so should be considered "live action" for baseball. A much greater proportion of the game time is spent in live ball situations than in the way it is devised in the study I cited above. Dead ball#Cricket says "The ball, referring to the cricket ball, becomes live when the bowler begins his run up" Which says to me at least that, if the two games feature as many "deliveries" per hour, roughly speaking, Cricket is going to feature more "dead ball" time, since a bowler standing around holding the ball and figuring out what kind of delivery to make is not live ball time. In baseball, this is live ball time. Any runner can advance at any time once the pitcher has the ball in his hands and is ready to pitch. The pitcher doesn't have to even start their motion, they just have to be in position to do so at any time. --Jayron32 16:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it just felt to me that there's a lot of dead time in baseball because I'm not knowledgable (I did say it was unscientific!). In cricket, a huge proportion of downtime is in bowlers/captains adjusting the position of the fielders, trying to second guess, bluff etc the batter. Enjoying that is limited to the cognoscenti, or those with access to commentary. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's similar for any sport. You miss a lot of a baseball game by only paying attention to when a ball is delivered by the pitcher or hit by the batter. There's a lot going on with positioning of defensive players, with baserunners and the leads they take off base, etc. I can actually think of any sport, and there's a lot of what goes on "away from the action" which is necessary to fully understand it; in basketball and soccer/football it's important to keep attention on more than just the player handling the ball, for example. Baseball and cricket are each no different. --Jayron32 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the American sports themselves. I'm asking why Ireland and Britain can't have these as the main sports. 86.131.245.189 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Why would they want to? They already have different main sports, to which they are far more accustomed and devoted, and which reach throughout society from top professionalism to primary schools. They are also multi-billion £/$ enterprises, probably to an even greater greater extent than the American sports in America. While the American sports are played and watched in Ireland and Britain to a much lesser extent, they simply do not have as much appeal in those cultures. It would be a very boring and bland World if all cultures were the same. {The poster formerly known as 87.81..230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

86.131.245.189 it's not just the UK and Ireland. It's most of the world has little to no interest in the American sports you mention. A better question would be to ask the opposite. But it's still a question that's easily answered - because of history, culture, and the resulting interest of the people in different nations. But these things aren't set in stone. Interests can change, even on national levels. Maybe one day the USA will have a strong cricket team and a team from Dublin will win the [so-called] World Series. Who knows? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

When I was a child in North Carolina, soccer was pretty much just something I knew that "foreigners" played. When I reached high school, it was beginning to be played by girls teams. Shortly after that kids leagues became common. Then MLS started, but was mainly in the Northern areas of the country. Now there is an MLS team in Charlotte, NC, and at least some people in the area actually care about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 11:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

American hot tea & Irish hot coffee

Is there hot tea in America and hot coffee in Ireland? 86.131.245.189 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course, anyplace with a sufficient population will have some of both. You're presumably interested in some sources with data and statistics, e.g.:

• DeSilver, Drew. "Chart of the Week: Coffee and tea around the world". Pew Research Center.
• O'Connell, Jennifer (March 24, 2018). "Caffeine hit: The rise and rise of Irish coffee culture". The Irish Times.
• "Tea Drinkers Vs Coffee Drinkers? 19+ Statistics & Facts - TeaCoffee99". 20 August 2022.
• Gunter, Melissa (6 October 2022). "15 Tea Statistics and Facts to Know in 2023: Fascinating Data!". Coffee Affection.

There are plenty more. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Almost every single sit-down restaurant in the United States will be happy to serve you a little pot of almost boiling water, a teacup, and a teabag, your choice of something like Lipton, English breakfast tea or an assortment of herbal and mint teas. Admittedly, hot tea is less common in the US than hot coffee, and less common than in the UK, but it is far from unknown. I have enjoyed hot tea countless times for over 60 years. I had a large mug just a few days ago. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

side discussion which does not address the OP's question --Jayron32 18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"...happy to serve you a little pot of almost boiling water, a teacup, and a teabag" That's NOT how to make a decent cup of tea! HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Well then. HiLo48, please feel free to fly to the United States and set out teaching 333 million people that they are doing things all wrong regarding tea. We have a long tradition of gurus coming here for various promotional purposes. Maybe you can start a tea purism cult. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC) The tourist industry wants its visitors to be happy, I assume. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Speaking as an elderly Brit, I can assure everybody that what Cullen328 describes is exactly how tea is often served in British cafés etc. The ideal is for the teapot to be brought filled, having already had boiling water poured on to the teabag(s) (or better loose tea – "one spoon/bag per person and one for the pot"), and the separate pot of water is used to top up the pot after pouring the first cup(s), so that the teapot contents do not become too concentrated ('stewed') for the second/subsequent pourings. (A further refinement is to pre-warm the teapot before the boiling water is first added, to minimise the temperature drop of the tea-brewing water.) A slightly sub-optimal pot of tea is infinitely preferable to a badly made cup or to no tea at all. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) I blame the Boston Tea Party. Dropping tea into seawater isn't right either. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Further to the above, what Cullen328 and I describe above is how tea is served in middle-to-upper-class, or at least genteel, establishments, which will also use porcelain crockery. In a proper 'greasy spoon' cafe (pronounced "cayf"), which I often frequent, the tea will be brought in a large china mug having been tapped from from a permanently simmering tea urn. Tea as well as speech comes in different registers. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Perhaps a regional thing, but I haven't seen a tea urn for years. Most greasy spoons here in the south of England put boiling water into a mug with a tea bag in it. A teaspoon is provided for the extraction of the same when the tea reaches the required strength. Manual workers traditionally favour a stronger brew than their more effete white-collar counterparts; this is known as builder's tea. Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

April 17

Need sources for the citation

Good afternoon, need sources for a citation. The most important position was that of Maryland, because it was from this state that the district of Washington, D.C. was at one time designated as the capital. If Maryland had sided with the Southerners, the U.S. capital would have been inside Confederate territory. As events unfolded, the threat was very real: after a bloody skirmish with the 6th Massachusetts Regiment marching into Washington from Boston, the Baltimore people destroyed railroad tracks, threw locomotives off a slope and burned railroad bridges, thereby cutting Washington off from the rest of the Union. In response, Lincoln inserted troops into Maryland, which ensured that the state was forcibly part of the Union until the end of the war. Thanks in advance. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Where did you find this text passage?  --Lambiam 20:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyhow, try The Hub: Boston Past and Present p. 125. Alansplodge (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Or in more detail: Six Days in April: Lincoln and the Union in Peril. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

http://militera.lib.ru/h/burin_sn/index.html --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering that the first sentence is an inaccurate description of the origin of DC, there can be no citation for this.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, see this. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't wrong, except by perhaps rounding too much. The part of DC that existed when the Civil War started was entirely Maryland territory when the district was created. The original district had been created from land donated by both Maryland and Virginia, however in 1847, some 13 years before the events described in the paragraph above, it had been returned to Virginia. To describe the entire process of DC being created and some of the land being retroceded to Virginia is outside of the scope of the narrative above. It is, like many things, at once both true and irrelevant to the discussion. It is not the history of how DC was created that is relevant to the narrative, it is the physical location of DC wedged between Maryland and Virginia, that matters. The reason that Maryland could not be allowed to consider seceding from the U.S. is that the capital city of the U.S. would then become an exclave within the Confederate States of America, a situation that plainly would be bad for the Union side of the war. The entire rest of the paragraph is correct, and the first sentence could be made more clear perhaps with a few wording tweaks, but it isn't wrong. --Jayron32 12:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you all so much for your answers! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

April 19

Add picture of Qamar House

[5]https://share.icloud.com/photos/0d1tp-g_jPqVyN_4TAq4Cg5BQ Iqbalqamar (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Qamar House. A photograph of which this is a clipping can be found here. I cannot figure out from the information provided whether this image is in the public domain.  --Lambiam 06:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

high end fixtures and hanger racks in san francisco where to buy

Where can I buy a high end fixture or hanger rack for clothes online or in specifically the San Francisco Bay Area whom sells them? 12.203.100.92 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If IKEA is "high end", there are IKEA stores in Emeryville and East Palo Alto. You can probably find such stuff online at Amazon.com and if you hurry at BedBathAndBeyond.com.  --Lambiam 06:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Evolution of length of copulation time

All joking aside, in the Chimpanzee article it says: "Copulation is brief, lasting approximately seven seconds". How and why did human copulation evolve to longer and longer lengths of time for adults? Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It does? --Jayron32 13:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

In all seriousness, there's an incorrect premise in your question. Humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees, Chimpanzees and Humans evolved from a common ancestor which was a species that lived somewhere between 13 million and 4 million years ago (speciation is a process, not an instant, and there are rather large error bars on the data we do have). Unless we know the copulation habits of that common ancestor, we don't know if human copulation time got longer, or if Chimpanzee copulation time got shorter, or if both happened. --Jayron32 13:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the pedantry, but I’m aware that humans evolved from a common ancestor, not from chimps, which is why I asked about the evolution of human copulation, particularly in adults. Looking into this, it turns out that the average time of human copulation has been measured at five minutes, while orangutans can go for fifteen minutes on average. What explains the large differences in copulation time between the three great ape species? Viriditas (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if it's linked to social group size. the three orangutan species are basically solitary, chimpanzees (and bobobos) tend to live in groups of a few dozen, while humans (sapiens, neanderthalensis, etc) seem ancestrally to have lived in extended families smaller than typical chimpanzee troops.

Environment may also be/have been a factor. Orangutans mate up trees in forests, and are unlikely to be disturbed while so doing. Chimpanzees typically mate on the ground (I believe) and may be disturbed by predators, or by other chimps. Ancestral humans may have typically mated in caves (yeah, cliché) and/or other semi-safe situations, with others on watch for predators, and being more social and intelligent likely interrupted each other less.

Lastly: chimpanzee females exhibit obvious signs of oestrus; humans less so if at all, but females could indicate their willingness to mate in other ways; orangutans do not have obvious eostrus signals, and forced copulation is quite frequent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)