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

May 7

Statistical occurences of road signs.

Does anyone here have any statistical data on how often particular road signs are used?

I was considering what signs should be included as 'guide-book' common ones in driving guides at Wikivoyage.

My list includes some obvious ones like

• Stop/Yield signs
• Speed limits.
• No entry etc.

But it would be nice to have some statistical data for other signs which a traveller is statisticly more likely to encounter. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

you're going to have to clarify what you mean if there's any chance at people answering...what kind of statistics? as in ratio of 'stop' signs to 'yield' signs in the world? if so, this is very odd information...68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

See [1]. Within the past few days the government has asked local authorities to cut down the number of road signs in their area. Motorists have suggested that this will increase the number of prosecutions - for example if the number of speed limit signs is reduced. Currently local authorities follow a government manual of many years' standing advising on the placement of signs - the government say it will still be available for guidance. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

As in which signs occur the most often, the Sign resarch data linked by the other contributor is a good. Is there a comparative survey for road markings.

The manual you refer to is probably the Traffic Signs Manual IIRC, some of it's not been updated for some time ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wikivoayge article I was initally focusing on was voy:Driving_in_the_UK#Road_rules ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

but these are distinct signs, with different meanings...if there were two different kinds of signs that both mean "stop" then it might be of interest as to which style of "stop" sign you're most likely to run into...but otherwise, what's the point???68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

For more on this see [2]. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

For anyone inclined to assemble such statistics, don't forget that terminology may differ according to country. For example, in New Zealand, "Give Way" is the sign for "Yield", "Railway Crossing" is the sign for "Railroad Crossing", and "No Exit" may be called "No Through Road" or something else elsewhere. Akld guy (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

One way to find out could be if you could find a source for the quantities of these signs manufactured annually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the long lifespan of some signs, that might not help with knowing how many of each kind are actually still in use. For example, the old "HALT" signs in the UK were/are being replaced with "STOP" or "Give Way" signs - but speed limit signs dating back to the 1900's are still to be found on back roads. So if you were able to discover that more STOP signs were manufactured than (say) 30mph signs - that wouldn't tell you anything about the ratio of the two in actual usage. Conversely, in the USA, when the 55mph universal speed limit was imposed - and then rescinded - the manufacturing of speed limit signs mush have gone through the roof, while other sign types would not. SteveBaker (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The Road Authorities of some countries have databases that among many many other things, include every piece of signage on the roads. The Norwegian one even has a publically available API for extracting information. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 06:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Soap in hospital bathrooms in Beijing

Having lived in Beijing for a while something that strikes me as really bizarre is the lack of soap in the public restrooms of public hospitals. I've been to six public hospitals (these public hospitals are all considered among the best in the city) and not a single one of them had soap in the public restrooms. And for a prosperous location like Beijing I can't imagine complementary soap would be much of a financial burden.

This lack of soap in hospitals has struck me as maybe the most bizarre phenomenon I've seen in Beijing so I'm curious about this subject and would like to know the opinion of better informed. Is it that visitor hand hygiene isn't that important or is it bizarre negligence in a fairly well regulated and sophisticated city? Muzzleflash (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I often encounter a lack of lavatory paper in public lavatories, but that's not a fault on the part of the authorities - anti - social customers nick it. You'd be surprised at the variety of things that go missing from hotel rooms, including bathrooms. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

you could probably answer that as well as anyone...if you google, there's all kinds of culture shock stuff related to china and bathroom hygiene etc...I suspect there are sinks with soap in closer proximity to patients etc that doctors etc use....68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What? You mean complete bathrooms go missing from hotels? THats a new one.--178.107.62.251 (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hotels/galleries/Unusual-items-stolen-from-hotels/luxury-bathroom/ 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in Hangzhou, which is going to be hosting the next G20 summit (so, not Beijing, but certainly comparable). I don't think it's going to be just one single thing, but a combination of what everyone above has said and more. I could write a few paragraphs on this, but in short, most of the working folk I've seen generally don't live in the sort of conditions that would lead one to expect free soap ^{(yes, cities have a lot of rich people, but a lot of folks aren't rich)}, there is a general apathy regarding a lot of regulations, and most people simply just aren't concerned at all with the prospect of losing their jobs. I've also started to suspect that the understanding of germ theory is a bit different here than in the west ^{(and that's ignoring the people I've met who distrust "western" evidence-based medicine completely)}, and have concerns with how much style seems to matter more than substance ^{(though I had those in America as well)}. It's entirely possible that the hospital decided it was better to spend the money on trying to look clean than on actually being clean, or that whoever was supposed to put in the soap dispensers had enough Guanxi with a health inspector to not "need" to, or that everyone treated it the same as the various nominal smoking bans, or that there actually has been almost no demand for free soap dispensers. Probably a combination of all those. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between the 100 hospitals of a city (Beijing has 113 public hospitals) ignoring regulations to provide soap and the countless thousands of restaurants and bars of a city ignoring a smoking ban. The former would show a huge failure of the regulatory state in Beijing (that's not typical in the developed parts of China), the latter shows a lack of culture of obeying the law among restaurant owners and ordinary people (something typical all around China). So the lack of soap in public hospitals for visitors in Beijing and all of China is a product of central policy. That's the part that strikes me as weird. Muzzleflash (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your concern seems topical. I googled "hospital toilet hand-washing liquid" in Chinese and came across this article, which says that health authorities plan to require the 22 City-run hospitals in Beijing to start providing hand-washing liquid and toilet paper in toilets within the year. It also mentions that Chaoyang Hospital already had hand-washing liquid and has recently implemented toilet paper too! Going by this article, the main issue seemed to have been cost. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

May 8

Polish Government in Exile

the Polish Government in Exile had maintained its existence, but France on 29 June 1945,[6] then the United States and United Kingdom on 5 July 1945[6][27] withdrew their recognition. The Republic of Ireland, Francoist Spain and the Vatican City (until 1979) were the last countries to recognize the Government in Exile.

• What was the reason why the G.B. had quit their recognition of Poland?
• Why does countries like Cuba and Spain have still recognize the Polish Goverment? And did Cuba recognize them even if it has become communistic and "best friend" of Russia? What was the "benefit" for the country of Spain to recognize the Polish Goverment, was it because of the catholic religion, like Vatican did? --Ip80.123 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• You've quoted the Polish government-in-exile article; for background see Potsdam Conference and the earlier Yalta Conference, and generally Western betrayal, all of which should really be linked from the government-in-exile article.
• The holdout recognition countries were both Catholic and anti-communist. Poland was the largest Catholic country to come under Communist rule. Cuba must have switched recognition after the 1959 revolution if not before. Ireland's position was ambiguous after it joined the UN in 1955; formal diplomatic relations with Warsaw came in 1976, but recognition might have been in the 1960s.

jnestorius^(talk) 13:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry jnestorius I have really not seen any reason why the USA and UK stopped being "friend of Poland"... And about the other Countries there is no information in the Text only that Vatican has stopped the recognition..--Ip80.123 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The non-Soviet allies made a "deal with the devil" with the Soviet Union that they would withdraw recognition in exchange for the Soviet Union allowing free elections in those nations. The Soviet Union then betrayed the Allies by not holding free elections and instead maintaining puppet states in Eastern Europe. However, by that point the Soviet Union had executed the leaders of the Polish Resistance, and had nuclear weapons, so there was no way to force them out, therefore recognition of the government in exile wouldn't have accomplished much. (Might have still been a good propaganda move, though.) StuRat (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not possible to recognise two competing governments of the same country at the same time (which is why every country which eventually recognised communist China had to end recognition of Taiwan). When one government is actually running the country, and the other has no control at all within the country it claims to govern, there are many practical and economic reasons for recognising the government in power - whether or not you actually like its politics. You can only afford to recognise the government in exile if you have no significant political or economic ties with the country concerned. The western allies' agreements with Stalin may well appear unsavoury today - but we see the with the benefit of hindsight. During the war the choice was not between communism and liberal democracy - it was between communism and Nazism, and the Nazis were seen as the greatest danger, which had to be defeated at any cost. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In the case of the two Chinas, I should think Taiwan could be recognized as the legit government of the islands of the Free area of the Republic of China only, while communist China was recognized as the government of the mainland only. StuRat (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's called a two-China policy, and yes, from a western perspective, it seems like an attractive solution. However, the PRC would never agree to it; never having controlled Taiwan for even a single day ever, they nevertheless regard it as their territory.

Whether the ROC would agree might depend on who's in charge at the time; the Kuomintang is theoretically just as opposed to it as the Communists, whereas the Pan-Green Coalition might be expected to be more open to it. But it's hard to really know in either case, because it doesn't depend on them. --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan#Political_and_legal_status and Political status of Taiwan has some background, but basically, Taiwan, for practical purposes, is treated as a de facto independent state. If you look at how most corporations, foreign governments, and even at times the PRC, deals with them, they behave like an independent state; though the language used in such relations is always carefully parsed so as to maintain the legal fiction that Taiwan is a part of a single Chinese state. On paper, and in discourse, we say "no one recognizes Taiwan as independent" which is technically true, if we ignore the fact that almost everyone acts that way in their dealings with Taiwan. They basically ignore the issue, and then go on behaving as though it is. The U.S. even openly supports the state, since the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and renewed 35 years later with the Taiwan Relations Act Affirmation and Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2014, though the PRC has been openly upset about this, they've done dick about it. Which is how it probably will continue: people will publicly claim one thing or another, then everyone goes on and does what they will. --Jayron32 11:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

From the perspective of maintaining the status quo and the formal position that they are two governments competing to represent the one country, it suits the PRC government to allow the ROC government to function to some degree. This is the best situation for the PRC given that the prospects of actually absorbing Taiwan by force or by consent is either unpalatable or extremely unlikely. If for example the PRC eliminated the last 20-odd countries that recognise the ROC as the government of China, that would surely be a major boost to the pro-independent cause in Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the PRC position essentially allows that Taiwan would continue its separate institutions and economic system, i.e. as is done with Hong Kong and Macau. The text of the Anti-Secession Law codifies the One country, two systems concept as it relates to Taiwan, should Taiwan ever formally recognize the authority of the PRC. --Jayron32 20:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Much as the Soviet Union promised to allow free elections in Eastern Europe, China promised the same for Hong Kong, and also seem to have violated that promise, by only allowing voting between candidates that they choose (see 2010 Hong Kong electoral reform). Presumably, if they had the ability to do so in Taiwan, they would do so there, too. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The PRC's offer on the table for post-reunification Taiwan (stated some time ago, as for the last few years the PRC has avoided provoking Taiwan by talking about plans for reunification), is better than for Hong Kong and Macau: Taiwan would even keep its own armed forces, basically maintaining the status quo other than in diplomacy and acknowledging the formal sovereignty of the PRC government. But if anyone had ever been taken in by such promises, no doubt recent events in Hong Kong would have helped to disillusion them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Part of understanding why the original Government-in-Exile never returned to formal power comes in the Provisional Government of National Unity, when some of the leaders of the Government-in-Exile agreed to form a coalition government for the reconstruction of the Polish State after the war. The Government-in-Exile members were eventually pushed out by the Polish legislative election, 1947, paving the way for a Soviet-friendly state. --Jayron32 13:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I remember clearly from my international law lectures forty years ago that recognition is significantly different between the UK and the US. The US regards recognising a government as a political act, the UK regards it as a practical one (and explicitly repudiates any suggestion that recognising a government grants it legitimacy). Our article Diplomatic recognition doesn't explain this, but its discussion of de facto vs. de jure recognition is relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Which Satellite?

Can you tell me which Satellite has flight over the world for Apple Maps, Nokia Maps, Yahoo Maps, Bing Maps? It looks like they have not used the same satellite which has used Google for Goolge Maps.--Ip80.123 (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Apple Maps has a little bit of info, saying "The main provider of map data is TomTom, but data is also supplied by Automotive Navigation Data, Hexagon AB, Intermap Technologies, OpenStreetMap, and Waze." And according to this, "Google gets its data directly from its own satellite images and Street Maps data (more on that later), while Apple has struck up a partnership with the fledgling GPS maker TomTom to fill out their online archive of everyone’s houses, businesses, and street names." Dismas|^(talk) 14:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So, it looks like AM gets its map data from TomTom who acquired Tele Atlas to get their imagery. Dismas|^(talk) 14:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems rather weird for a source to call TomTom a fledgling GPS maker in 2013 or later. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you mentioned satellites, it sounds like you may be referring to photographic view rather than maps per se. If so, bear in mind that the imagery particularly high resolution ones aren't necessarily taken by satellite. They may be aerial photography. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What about Nokia, Yahoo and bing?--Ip80.123 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, what I said applies to all. Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Most large-scale online satellite photos actually use the same satellite source: Landsat 7. The reason that they look different is that they are processed by different companies (Google uses TruEarth, Bing uses TerraColor) which means that the colours will be different and some images may have been taken at different times or stitched together differently. Yahoo and Google also use satellite images from DigitalGlobe, who have quite a few different satellites. Smurrayinchester 08:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah - but landsat 7's resolution is about one pixel for every 15 meters in some kind of false-color and only every 25 meters in visible color. If you're zoomed in to where you can see individual houses - then you're looking at photography from an airplane, not a satellite. SteveBaker (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

May 9

Electric Golf Carts

Are all electric golf carts provided with speed governors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:43:4101:327B:2419:65F5:234A:1001 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a gas powered golf cart but it has lights so I suppose you could call it electric.Hayabusa golf cart] Goes of tangent at the start but then 7 minutes in it goes back to the cart for a test drive -really fast. Want one and I don't even play golf.--Aspro (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A quick search on the subject throws up lots of sites telling owners how to change the settings to over-ride the speed governor - which rather suggests that most carts do have one fitted. Confirming if they all do is rather more difficult - even if every model checked has one, that doesn't prove there isn't a model somewhere without one. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Several towns in Texas seem to have regulations concerning golf carts - and of the handful I looked at, most specify a top speed of 20 mph - and several insisted that be enforced by a speed governor. SteveBaker (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Golf cart racing involves revamping carts with new engines, suspension systems and tires. See U.S. goes crazy for 90 mph golf carts (a CNN report with a video that doesn't play). Of course sometimes having a speed governor could save embarassment (video). AllBestFaith (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Our house backs onto a golf course - one that provides gasoline-powered carts. Having seen the way some of some of the more crazy golfers drive these things, I'm definitely in favor of speed limiters! This is a fairly hilly course - and even at 20mph, it's quite amazing that they don't roll them over as they drive across the steeper parts on wet grass with half a dozen people clinging onto the outside them! SteveBaker (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

May 10

Earning money

what are the ways to earn money in india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.67.150 (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Economy of India would be a good place to start your research. --Jayron32 11:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The only way to earn money is by working. Anything you gain by other means is not earned. The verb "to earn" is defined as "obtain (money) in return for labour or services." 81.132.106.10 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That is one definition. There are other valid definitions which do not include labor. --Jayron32 14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The only other possible meaning which relates to obtaining money is about interest on investments, including property and pensions. That sort of income is, at least in the UK, usually described as unearned income. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

BUNTHORNE. Tell me, girl, do you ever yearn?

PATIENCE. (misunderstanding him) I earn my living.

BUNTHORNE. (impatiently) No, no! Do you know what it is to be heart-hungry? Do you know what it is to yearn for the Indefinable, and yet to be brought face to face, daily, with the Multiplication Table? Do you know what it is to seek oceans and to find puddles? — to long for whirlwinds and yet have to do the best you can with the bellows? That's my case. Oh, I am a cursed thing! Don't go. - from Patience, or "Bunthorne's Bride", a Gilbert & Sullivan comic opera. AllBestFaith (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What's with the giant funnel?

In this photo on today's front-page, I'm reminded of a question I've long meant to ask:

[[

File:East and West Shaking hands at the laying of last rail Union Pacific Railroad - Restoration.jpg|300px]]

Why does the locomotive on the left have that gigantic funnel for a smoke stack, where the one on the right does not? This seems to be a feature that's unique to steam engines of the Americas. European steam engines always seem to have the cylindrical design of the engine on the right. If the funnel-shaped design has advantages, why don't all locomotives use it? If it doesn't, then why were so many engines made that way? SteveBaker (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

See Chimney_(locomotive)#Spark_arrestors and Spark arrestor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec)That is a "bonnet chimney", a type of spark arrestor. Different fuels, especially wood, are more prone to generate sparks. They weren't common in Britain because a) British locos mostly burned coal; b) by the time the railway age began, Britain was mostly deforested and so lumber wasn't as cheap and readily available as in North America; and c) Britain is rarely dry enough for stray chimney embers to spark a serious fire. Presumably the loco in your photo with the conventional chimney is a coal burner. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah - I guess that makes sense since the photo is from the time when the east and west coasts of the USA were first joined by a rail line. It might make sense that the loco from the west coast was wood-fired and the one from the more industrialized east coast used coal. If that's true, then it adds a whole layer of additional "depth" to the image since it implies more than just a physical connection - it adds a layer of "industry meets woodsmen" (of course, knowing my luck, the photographer was standing to the North of the event at the time! :-)

Many thanks for a great answer! SteveBaker (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily to the north; the photo may be reversed. Hard to tell in such a small image with no lettering discernible. Akld guy (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, that was not the only photo taken that day, so we know it's not reversed. You can also confirm this by sunlight and shadows. According to multiple sources the ceremony took place around midday local time, so the sunlight was from the south. So from the shadows and non-shadows of the people in the front rows to the left and right of the men shaking hands, we are looking more or less northwest. And in the particular area where the events took place, the tracks were aligned northeast-southwest, not east-west, so that fits. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Talking now about the locomotive with the straight chimney, the Union Pacific Railroad was not, and still is not, an East Coast railroad; it's just that it was connected by other railroads to the East Coast. It originally ran west from Omaha. I had some trouble finding confirmation that Union Pacific No. 119 was coal-burning, but did find it in this 336-page PDF scan of a typewritten original document (from the US National Park Service, which the Golden Spike National Historic Site belongs to). See pages 14–17 (original numbering; pages 17–20 of the PDF). The UPRR's first 25 locomotives burned wood, but subsequently bituminous coal from Wyoming was available and #119 was built to burn that. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What did a piece of string around the wrist mean in the 1970's.

I was watching the film The Diary of a Teenage Girl (set in the 1970's) and noticed that the girl had a piece of string around her wrist in several scenes: first at around 11 minutes in the film when she is in the bath tub; and at about an hour in at the beginning of the acid taking scene; also in a bed scene with the lesbian. This reminded me of the cover of Sex to Sexty magazine #36 - a porn joke magazine also from the 1970's - where the man in front also has string around his wrist. Click here for that cover: http://www.comics.org/issue/524207/cover/4/

So what does this string mean? (Great film btw). Martin. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly a form of Friendship bracelet, which started to become popular in the 1970s. --Jayron32 14:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Some have a religious significance. Some are just a sort of good luck charm. Exactly what the meaning might be in each case depends on colour, braiding, country and the context. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a direct link, but see Kalava; Hindu mysticism was much in vogue in late 1960s and early 1970s, Guru Maharaj Ji and Hare Krishna for example. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong information provided about Kublai Khan under Genghis Khan

Under Genghis Khan it states that Kublai Khan was his brother, this is wrong Kublai Khan was his grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.108.57.165 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Where in the Genghis Khan article to you see this? The only references to their relationship that I can find say "grandson". Favonian (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Cube

I bought this Cube, not sure what it's truly called but its a fake made in china one; its smaller than the original one and white in colour rather than black.

1. Are all the colours situated similar to/exactly as the original?: Yellow opposite White, Green opposite Blue, Orange opposite Red.
2. What's the secret theory to put them all back to square one?

Apostle (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you are asking about a Rubik's Cube, then based on the one I have on my desk, the answer to your first question is yes, that is the colo(u)r layout. There are several articles linked from the main article discussing solutions. --LarryMac | Talk 19:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And based on the article you linked, the color layout varied from one cube to another before they settled on yellow-opposite-white etc. I remember seeing Rubik's Cubes with other color layouts back in 1981–82 when they were first widely sold in North America. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that only specifying which colors are on opposite sides gets you down to two possible layouts. For example, for the colors Apostle specified, if you position red as the front and white as the top, then blue could either be on the left or the right. According to Rubik's Cube (emphasis mine): "In currently sold models, white is opposite yellow, blue is opposite green, and orange is opposite red, and the red, white and blue are arranged in that order in a clockwise arrangement." This means if red is positioned as front and white as top, then blue will be on the right. --Bavi H (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

For question (2) if you mean how to solve it, see Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

According to the Rubik's Cube article, the patents have expired so there is no "real" or "fake" Rubik's Cubes anymore. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

the brand name is still owned, I'm sure...it's just that people can make generic versions but name it something else..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's true. I should say, there are no "real" or "fake" cube-shaped puzzle toys of the Rubik's design anymore. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact my understanding is that non Rubik's randed cubes are actually often more popular among the speed solving community see e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. While Rubik's do have their own speed cube [9] [10], it appears to have been fairly late to the game and for that and probably other reasons still isn't the most popular choice [11]. BTW, while your latest comment is AFAIK correct, beyond trademark/branding issues there may also be fake and real 3x3 Rubik Cube style cubes since it's possible some patents cover new speed cube designs. (One of the earlier refs mentioned something about patents although I didn't explore to see if it was correct and they were still valid.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot peeps, including the summaries. Regards -- Apostle (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaver's sweatshirts

It seems nowadays all the kids have those 'leaver's tops' with the year they left made up of the names of everyone in their year-I've seen them around for the last 4 or 5 years-but when was the oldest one that anyone has seen? Lemon martini (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This blog posting gets us back to 2007, and the wording suggests that it was already a well-established phenomenon at that date. I've not been able to find anything siginficantly earlier as yet, though. Tevildo (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's much older than that. I graduated HS in 1994, and had a shirt with my graduating class year on the front and the names of everyone on the back. They were very commonplace in the U.S. from at least the 1990s, if not much earlier. Here is one from 1990-1991. --Jayron32 16:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I know this is WP:OR but I graduated high school in '92 and the previous classes had been getting a shirt with everyone's name on them for years before that. In fact, my grade school did it in '88 though they were white shirts that everyone hand signed with permanent marker. It wasn't a large grade school class.

Also, this is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "leaver top". Dismas|^(talk) 17:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The essential feature of the UK garment is that the names of the leavers are arranged on the back in the shape of the year number. Does this also apply to the US equivalent? Tevildo (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Among other designs. It's quite common, and has been since I can remember, but not universal. --Jayron32 00:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

May 11

Refdesk giving more satisfactory answers

Why does the refdesk seem to give more satisfactory answers than yahoo answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.71.235 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not supposed to offer speculation, nor handle opinion-based questions. I mean this as an explanation for why we're not actually supposed to answer the kind of question you just asked, though I admit there might be other ways to take this response. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

But if you raise this at the Talk Page, you might get longer shrift. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Why have changes in fasion, hairstyles, and music slowed since the 90s?

I see some women's fashion a bit different now than it was in the 2000's, with more of an emphasis on higher waistlines, closed toe shoes, and a slightly more conservative look.

So it's not like total stasis since 1995 or anything.

But the question remains. Have you noticed that after a period of quite rapid fashion change from the late 1950's to the 1990's, the rate of change in men's and women's fashion (and music) has really slowed down since the late 90's?

Any idea as to why? Zombiesturm (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

the rise of digital existence may be something to look into..that is, people exist now more via social-networking, their smart phones etc than they do in the "real world"...fashion being a manifestation of living in "the real world"...studies suggest teens would rather have a smart phone than a car today...another manifestation of tangible/real world things declining...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

1995 music and whatever Tamla Motown is was before my time but maybe you're right about pop being better when there were more uninvented songs available. I'm in my 20s and know practically no music theory but I noticed that contemporary songs keep getting less and less novel the older I get. This must be cause much (most?) pop note progressions are very, very simple/predictable and lowest common denominator in an effort to make more money and you can only hear so many of those before getting deja vu. Now to make more money they've even discovered how to make songs that don't even bother with tunes/melody, real rhythm or intellectual simulation and just try to get low IQ peeps as amped up as possible (i.e. Shots - LMFAO, that ~2013 song with that ridiculously long rising drum glissando..) Before ~2008 chart music was light years behind electronic or classical music on some or all those 3 factors. Even something good for modern pop often still sounds like this. Repetitive, redundant, saying the same thing more than once, repeating long stretches over and over slightly transposed each time (or not even that) and just a vehicle for a hook basically. If you're going to build up to something make it good! (like some dubstep breakdowns) The first 9 notes of the hook (CGCGCGCGF with that rhythm and timbre) are awesome but there's much better ways to continue that than what they did here. My thoughtless idle whistling's way better than that hook, they should be paying me to write songs. #1 lyrics often sound retarded when read. Many people aren't open to experience or intellectual though which is why a completely awesome song by a popular artist can peak at #27 on a week that sudden bipolar shuttling ("sweet"/screaming) was #1. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a book I found online called Fashion Forecasting : [12], that based on some google searches through it, [13] may have the sort of information that will help you research the answer for your question. --Jayron32 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the 1990s, when the web was young ad The Onion was funny! It is a humor piece, but I think think you might find some interesting views in this story: U.S. Dept. Of Retro Warns: "We May Be Running Out Of Past". SemanticMantis (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is OR, but median wages have been flat or declining in most of the developed world since the 1990s. There has been a series of economic downturns followed by slow, weak recoveries and little long-term economic growth. In this climate, consumers tend to be conservative. Few can afford any more to buy a new wardrobe each year, so, aside from outlandish designer fashions aimed at the top 1%, mass-market clothing designers aim to produce "classic" and largely familiar designs that consumers can count on wearing for several years. Also, in a context of widespread job insecurity, many people, especially young people, who have set new fashion trends in the past, want to look staid and professional rather than avant-garde. Marco polo (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read a few articles also, when looking for the above source, which discuss the role of sustainable fashion is having on the industry as a whole; designing less changes into clothes so trends last longer. I don't know how much this actually happens, but it has been mentioned, see for example [14]. --Jayron32 18:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• To some extent, the telescoping effect. Our brains tend to exaggerate how long ago relatively recent changes were, while underestimating how old much less recent things are. The way history is remembered and taught also encourages us to think that there were bright dividing lines that didn't exist in reality – The Beatles didn't just appear, but emerged from the skiffle scene and gradually became psychedelic/prog – and to forget how long "obsolete" styles stayed around (according to our article big band, a style overwhelmingly associated with the 40s, there were actually notable performances right up to the 70s). I think as get into the 2020s people will start seeing how culture has changed (the first few posters for retro 2000s parties have started appearing around my town). I don't think there's much solid evidence that culture is slowing down. Looking at the popularity of different film genres for instance shows some significant changes in the best-selling films since 1990. In pop music, every genre has reinvented itself at least once (gangsta rap has been replaced by alternative hip hop, British soul has exploded into the adult contemporary gap that used to be filled by smooth R&B, Britpop and grunge gave way to pop-punk and indie, bubblegum pop has replaced by the much more earnest Taylor Swift/One Direction kind of pop, and so on). I can't say much about hairstyles or fashion, but certainly beards have made a big comeback. Smurrayinchester 12:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  Many elements of fashion still mark the early 2000s as distinct from now; chunky highlights, exposed thong underwear on women with ultra-low-rise jeans, tattoo chokers are all marks of the era for women, while certainly some of those styles are coming back around at times, and others are not, I wouldn't call any of those current fashion trends. For men, styles such as the man bun and the undercut with a full beard: [15] didn't really exist in 2002 let's say. There are many aspects of fashion from the early 2000s that would look out of place today, and visa versa. I'm nto sure the supposition of the OP is quantitatively correct, and as you note, may be due to misconceptions rather than anything. --Jayron32 14:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  At least everyone's hair doesn't look like they just got electrocuted (1980s). And all the girls don't look like 1970s Farrah Fawcett. And every female doesn't wear very short miniskirts like it's still 1969. And 60s beehives are not ubiquitous. And no one would mistake a 1950s crowd with the wide long dresses for anything after the early 60s. And the 40s had long hair and medium hemlines during the war. And the 30s had long skirts and short finger weaved hair. And the 20s had boyish haircuts and breast binding/figure hiding. And the teens had corsets — like the 1900s but more colorful. And the 1890s another fashion. And there was that figure showing period before that, the 1880s or 1870s. There was an artificial big butt period somewhere around here. And the 60s had skirts so big that they had metal hoops in them to hold shape. And the 1850s and 40s had a distinctive boyish short hairstyle. I think bonnets stopped being hot a bit before here. It seems fashion changed more obviously and frequently in the past. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Things that disappeared post-World War 2: men's hats (totally gone by 1965), buttons on the front of men's pants (the zipper replaced them), men's suspenders (aka braces in some countries - totally gone by 1965). They all disappeared in 20 years. We haven't seen any radical changes for men in the 25 years since 1990. Akld guy (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

May 12

Why is Australia considered a continent and not simply an island?

I know that continents are defined rather arbitrarily but there seems to be strong consensus that it's a no-no to describe Australia as an island. Who decided that? Is there any support for considering The Americas one single continent instead of two? Zombiesturm (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The same consensus that tells us what is and isn't a continent also tells us what is and isn't and island: "An island or isle is any piece of sub-continental land that is surrounded by water." - emphasis mine. One problem with that is then "what is the largest island on Earth?" becomes sort of malformed. If that is not satisfying, then please enjoy the world's largest island-in-a-lake-on-an-island-in-a-lake-on-an-island [16] :)SemanticMantis (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

apparently has to do with not sharing this with asia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Some combo of being big and having it's own tectonic plate (see Australian Plate), although having a plate alone isn't enough, since Europe and Asia share a plate, so should be considered the single continent of Eurasia. Politics seems to be the reason why Europeans don't want to share the continent there. Also, the North American plate includes western Asia, but people there aren't about to call themselves Americans. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Americas, well in English it is 2 continents and in many other languages it is one only (French "L'Amerique"). So, yes, the criteria is arbitrary, and not agreed on.--Lgriot (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

StuRat: are you sure the North American Plate includes Western Asian? The map in our article doesn't show it as being connected to the Middle East at all - which is shown as part of the Anatolian and Arabian Plates. Or have I misunderstood? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Continent#Number_of_continents discusses the fact that the Americas are considered a single continent in some parts of the world. Dragons flight (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• As the Wikipedia article Continent makes abundantly clear, the demarcations of what qualifies a specific landmass as a continent are abitrary and capricious, based on a convoluted history of the classifications that go back to Ancient times, and which do not necessarily match any reasonable geographically consistent definitions. The scheme is actually based on the concept of the Mediterranean Sea being the center of the world (that's what it means, after all "Medi" = middle "Terra" = world). Attempting to impose symmetry and order into geography, ancient geographers defined 4 landmasses which aligned to the 4 cardinal compass directions: North was Europe, East was Asia, and South was Africa. That there was a giant ocean, and not a landmass, to the west to balance it out led to the notion that there SHOULD be one there, so Atlantis was invented to fill the scheme out. When the scheme was devised, the boundaries between the landmasses were not well known; Asia and Europe were understood to be split by the Black Sea and Asia and Africa by the Red Sea, but beyond that the boundaries were not always very clear. Fast forward some 2000-3000 years, and suddenly new landmasses (the Americas, Australia, Antarctica) start to be found, and the old tripartate "Europe-Asia-Africa" division starts to fall apart. So the new landmasses were kludged into the system, with a "continent" being defined as roughly "A landmass Australia-sized or larger", though there is nothing particularly significant about drawing the boundary between "continent" and "really large island" in that way. The notion that a continent has it's own tectonic plate is basically a retcon; the "seven continents" were well defined well before plate tectonics was an accepted (or even proposed) theory. --Jayron32 15:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

To expand on that: the boundaries between Africa, Asia, and Europe have been redefined a number of ways. Herodotus, in his Histories considered the boundaries to be the Nile and (if I remember correctly) the Tanais. The Europe/Asia boundary in particular has been redefined many times, and is essentially arbitrary. Also, using tectonic plates to define continents would probably cause as many problems as it solves. Tectonically, most of Europe and Asia (including half of Iceland) are one plate. But the other half of Iceland would be American (as would parts of the Russian Far East), Turkey, Arabia, and possibly parts of Greece would all be a separate continents, and India would either be a separate continent or part of Australia. The boundary between Europe and Africa may also become a bit screwy, as according to at least some studies, the plate boundary actually gives parts of Morocco to Europe and parts of Italy to Africa. Iapetus (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much plates per se, I think, but continental shelves. If you take away all the water and political boundaries, a six-continent model (with Europe and Asia combined into a single continent) is fairly natural, not trying to come up with any rigorous definitions, just eyeballing it.

Of course no geologically-based definition is ever going to separate Europe from Asia. That one is pretty much nonsense. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• The answer scientists use is that Australia and New Guinea rest on the same continental shelf, but that Australia is the largest body--the "mainland" and is hence not called an island (noun) anymore than North and South America together would be called an island. You do hear "island continent", where the first word is used adjectivally. Note, there is a huge history of poltics in the name of those articles, which can be seen at the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  Because geography is largely political: How a culture (and the academic elite of that culture) get to define various terminology has a profound effect on the perception of that place. --Jayron32 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have some doubt about the premise. I distinctly remember learning in school that Australia was both an island and a continent — the largest island, and also the smallest continent. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Jazz_Jennings

What ethnic background is Jazz's descent of? Italian? Hispanic? Native? 50.68.120.49 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)