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

October 20

Tickets & free rides

Do we need tickets for Disneyland Paris and Harry Potter Orlando, Florida? And are all the rides free? 86.27.66.60 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Both Disneyland Paris and Universal Orlando Resort are resorts that require that you pay a daily admission fee. In the case of both resorts, you may either pay cash at the gate, or order advance entry tickets which you then relinquish at the gate to get in. It should be noted that each resort you named has multiple amusement parks, Disneyland Paris consists of Disneyland Park and Walt Disney Studios Park, while Universal Orlando Resort consists of Universal Studios Florida and Universal's Islands of Adventure. In each case, you have the option to purchase entry to a single park for the day, or to purchase entry to BOTH parks at the resort and travel freely between them. Once you are inside each park, however, all of the rides are individually free of charge, which is to say if you are in Universal's Islands of Adventure, you can ride the Hagrid's Magical Creatures Motorbike Adventure all that you want. The one trick with the Harry Potter themed areas of Universal is that only half of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is at each park; Universal Studios has Diagon Alley, and Islands of Adventure has Hogsmeade; if you purchase a single park entry, you can't go to the other half; you need to purchase a dual park entry to pass between the two areas (which also requires one to ride the Hogwarts Express simulated train ride). I hope that makes sense. --Jayron32 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

So all the rides are free? 86.130.185.255 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Food and souvenirs cost money, and there are sometimes "experiences" which cost extra money (perhaps like a special meet-and-greet with specific characters or something), but every ride is part of the cost of admission; you don't pay "per ride" for anything. You just stand in line and then get on when it is your turn. --Jayron32 15:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

October 22

Cutting sheet metal

I have a cordless drill and some drill bits (I think 1/4" is the biggest), a single ended hacksaw (like this, i.e. the blade is not under tension: is there a correct name for this tool), a cordless Dremel-like grinder, and some tin snips. I'd like to cut a 2.5" diameter hole in a piece of sheet steel, preferably without buying more tools since I don't do this stuff that often. The hole doesn't have to be precise. My idea is to drill some small holes connected together enough to get the hacksaw blade in, then use the hacksaw to cut a circle, then clean up the edge of the hole with the Dremel. I think the hole required will be too small to operate the tin snips inside, but I would try.

Does the above sound like a reasonable plan? I may want to do it twice but not more than that. It occurs to me that I can get hold of an electric jig saw and buy a metal cutting blade for it, which should be usaful enough to justify the small expense. The "right" tool would presumably be some kind of punch and die, or maybe a metal cutting hole saw, but either of those would going overboard for this one-off task. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Using a 1/4" bit to cut several holes close enough together to join up and allow the hacksaw blade to enter sounds quite tricky. I would go with the jigsaw blade since you can probably get one small enough to fit through one 1/4" hole. Also it may be hard to navigate around a 2.5" hole with a 1/2" wide hacksaw blade.

How thick is the steel? If it's very thin, you might want to sandwich the steel between two pieces of wood while you're cutting to prevent the steel from flexing while you're cutting it.

Alternatively, you can get a 2.5" metal-cutting hole saw for less than $10, probably not much more than the cost of the jigsaw blade. A hole saw would be much easier and would produce a cleaner and more accurate hole. CodeTalker (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Be vary careful drilling through thin sheet metal. If it isn't clamped down securely it can snag on the drill bit and turn itself into a circular saw blade. An easy way to lose a finger or two. Or worse... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both, good point about clamping down the sheet metal, I'll make sure to do something to keep it from spinning, and can also run the drill slowly. Unfortunately I don't have a vise, but will figure something out. The metal is pretty thin, maybe 0.5mm--I haven't tried to measure it. The thing about the hole saw is that I'm unlikely to have another use for it anytime soon, while the jigsaw blade would keep being somewhat useful. Maybe I can use some other material for this that is easier to cut. It doesn't have to be metal. I just happen to have a bit of sheet metal of about the right dimensions. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Nibbler tool? 136.56.52.157 (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I remember having had one of those ages ago, from Radio Shack. I looked on Harbor Freight and they only had pneumatic ones, but I should check other places like Home Depot. Good point, thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: Home Depot has lots of them but even the cheapest hand operated one is $65. Ace Hardware has none. I found a bunch on ebay that attach to an electric drill and are in the $15 range that look sort of interesting and are more in my price range, so maybe. I like the idea of keeping this project close to zero cost using scrounged materials though. Anyway, thanks for all the help everyone. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can use the tin snips as it will be a lot less work than saws or dremmels. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

October 23

The M1 helmet still un use in 1986?

If the M1 helmet was replaced by the PASGT in 1985, why in the Aliens movie (1986) do the marines still use the M1 helmet, even though they are in the future? thanks and regards176.83.55.167 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Aliens was released in 1986, but filming (in Pinewood Studios, UK) began in September 1985. Firstly, the props department may not at that point have been aware of PAGST or, if was, able to obtain PAGST helmets (which themselves began to be replaced from 2003) or replicas.

More importantly, however, the film is set in "the far future". It is wildly improbable that spacefaring military personnel will then still be using late 20th/early 21st-century US equipment, so any portrayed equipment is purely conjectural, and since the film is not primarily focussed on such details, Production probably did not think it necessary to expend effort on designing "futuristic" equipment. Maybe the far-future helmets are not really M1's, they just happen to look like them because it's a good general design. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.157.244 (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. According to the Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual, the head protection of the Colonial Marines is provided by an "M10 pattern ballistic helmet".^[1] While having a retro-look closely resembling the antique M1 helmet, it comes equipped with wearable technology that was unavailable in the 20th century, incorporating a tactical camera, audio microphone, IFF transmitter, a PRC 489/4 receiver/transmitter system and a passive infrared sight that flips down over the right eye and projects images from the thermal imaging facility built into the camera.  --Lambiam 09:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing the most important detail here. Aliens is a work of fiction. Fiction is a word that means "a story that someone just made up". That applies to every part of the story, including the clothing people are wearing. As to why the characters in the movie are wearing a certain piece of clothing, the answer is "Because someone in the costume department, likely in consultation with the director, decided to have them wear that." Directors and costumers will make artistic decisions that may or may not have any connection to historical accuracy. --Jayron32 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, I should think each of the earlier replies clearly implies the contributors are well aware that the helmets of the Colonial Marines in the Aliens universe are helmets in a fictional universe.  --Lambiam 19:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. For all question of artistic portrayal, the trivial answer is always "because the artist/director/whoever decided to" (or sometimes "because it didn't matter and that was the first thing on the shelf"). The interest lies in why the auteur (or a collaborator) made that choice: sometimes the choice is artistically significant to the work, and knowing its reason adds to one's appreciation of the work, or of the auteur's ouvre. "Why does the Mexican in Blazing Saddles say "Mongo! Santa Maria!" when he sees Mongo riding into Rock Ridge on a Brahman bull? Trivial answer – because Mel Brooks wrote it in the script. Obvious answer – because it advances the narrative appropriately. Interesting answer – because in keeping with all the other anachronistic jokes and references, it's an allusion to the Cuban bandleader Mongo Santamaria. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 90.212.157.244 (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The replies did not highlight the fictional nature of the story, and its implications for providing a reliable, factual answer for the OP. The OP seems to be under the misconception that fiction is bound to a consistency with the real world; which it is not. Fiction means things are made up; and sometimes the person or people making up the story try for a certain level of vérité in their story, and sometimes they don't. The expectation that a work of fiction should be expected to slavishly mirror any aspect of reality is the misconception I was trying to correct for the OP. The answers before mine were not lacking in their own way, except that they don't explicitly address the most important part of any answer for a question phrased this way: correcting the misconception that fiction is bound by rules. --Jayron32 20:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

So you think the OP is under the misconception that science fiction set in a future world is bound to be consistent with future reality?  --Lambiam 06:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The OP expressed confusion as to why a fictional element (the helmet worn by characters in a movie) was different than their expectations based on the real use of that model of helmet in the real world. I was trying to explain why that shouldn't have been an expectation in the first place. --Jayron32 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Need to check the data from the source

The article Old-age-security_hypothesis#Description says "The earliest mention of the inverse relationship between the birth rate and the level of the population's pension is found in Leibenstein in 1957.[2]" In source № 2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00172091?LI=true the only relevant reference is "Leibenstein H (1957) Economic backwardness and economic growth. Wiley, New York", but its text is not available online. Is it possible to check if this thesis is in this source? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to come near of a proof for "an earliest mention". Leibenstein confirms he was an "early contributor" [2] on the subject (human fertility). There is a review of 1960 confirming that: "Finally, he (H. Leibenstein) agrees that the behavior of the population in demographic matters is oriented in a direction favorable to sustainable growth, that is to say that the birth rate quickly marks a significant and definitive decline, at least in the densely populated countries." trad: Google Revue économique, article in French :[3] --Askedonty (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

At any rate (Indian Economic Journal, 1959)(IEJ: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/iej) "Leibenstein warns the reader at the outset that his book is a venture in the art of speculation", thus the "Old-age-security_hypothesis" article's "earliest mention" cannot not be reduced to a factual "mention of the relationship" in such an assertive way as presented - well, so it seems at least. --Askedonty (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Finally note that reference 4 in article, whereas claiming a strong affinity with Cigno (ref 2 author) is clearly dissociating Leibenstein (1957) from any focus regarding the question (ref 4, Introduction, p.4), thus excluding a definition so precise as stated in the quotation. I found a little bit more of the focus than according to ref 4 by exploring snippets from Google Books' "From inside the book" at https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=6XhEAAAAIAAJ, a 1960 edition of "Economic backwardness " identically titled, same editor, but not any clue however that the above assertion could be anything but an extrapolation. https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=6XhEAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=security and https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=6XhEAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=social+security both lead to extracts which the formulation will not be leaving place for a further expand focused on a "population's pension" obviously. For access to some tables, look for "Japan", "Germany" etc. --Askedonty (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but where exactly does Leibenstein write about pensions? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

In a book (by a different author) on economic growth and development I found this passage: "In sum, Leibenstein builds a theoretical case for an inverse relationship between per capita income and fertility based on the assumptions that (1) the cost of an additional, or marginal, child rises with income and the number of children, and (2) the benefits an additional child falls with income and the number of children."^[4] However, this refers to what the author calls "Leibenstein's model of the marginal child", expounded in a later article: Leibenstein, Harvey (1974). “An Interpretation of The Economic Theory of Fertility: Promising Path or Blind Alley?” Journal of Economic Literature, 12:457–479. Moreover, the discussion refers to a pension motive for having children. Apparently, the term "pension" is used in broader sense than those provided by the government-organized pension systems of the higher-income countries.  --Lambiam 18:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but where exactly does Leibenstein write about pensions? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The 1957 edition of Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth can be consulted here. A search for "pension" gave 0 results. If the alleged inverse relationship is mentioned there, its characterization as an inverse relationship between "the birth rate and the level of the population's pension" is a paraphrase.  --Lambiam 12:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Historical acreage accuracy

Hello! I am trying to improve Busch Gardens Tampa Bay (BGT) to the best as I can, accurately. I am moving onto a section where the physical diameters of the park are to be addressed, with all sources reliable or not pointing to the figure 335-acre (136 ha) (Example 1, Example 2 Example 3). As much as I could slap that statistic on the article and call it a day, historical reporting's point to a different number which amount to around the same acreage the park currently exists upon (The Tampa Tribune). I found that via a county's property appraisal website a way to look up the park's parent company, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, property. Individually, the total acreage owned by the company amounts to be ~ 353.58 acres (143.09 ha), the BGT park itself being a healthy 249.53 acres (100.98 ha) (minus parking lots or additional property belonging to sister water park Adventure Island).

The problem: no reliable sources support BGT being anywhere near its approximate acreage, and relate the total properties of SeaWorld's Tampa properties to the park's size. Is there a way I can cite the appraisal's website supporting its recorded 249.53 acres (100.98 ha)? If possible, how could I go about citing the total property that Busch Gardens lays upon with its sister park and additional lots owned by the parent company? Since the calculated amount, 353.58 acres (143.09 ha), differs from decades of coverage citing 335-acre (136 ha). Am I just plain wrong and need a trout? Any and all help would be appreciated! (Note: I did ask this question at the Teahouse but realized this might be a more proper forum as I have been on the platform for a while). Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Not an answer, but assuming the park is the rectangle enclosed between on the north E Bougainville Ave, on the south E Busch Blvd, on the west N 30th St and on the east N 40th St, counting pixels on Google satellite view results in approximately 236 acres. This is an estimate, but given the assumption there is no way it can be off by as much as 30%, which it would be if 335 acres is correct. The press kit page of the park's website states: "offering 300 acres of fascinating attractions",^[5] but on several other pages they also use the 335 number.  --Lambiam 08:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The owned acreage is a bit wonky, but correct assumption. The data encompasses most of the square for the "249.53 acres (100.98 ha)". This figure can be found when viewed in "Map View", with the total figure found through self calculating all properties owned by SeaWorld in Tampa. Hope this helps answer the question. Adog (Talk・Cont) 11:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Busch Gardens 249.53 ac
• Adventure Island (water park) 50.9 ac
• Parking Lot 35.28 ac (not including 4.6 ac acquired from the city in 2004)
• Total: 335.71 ac

Those three parcels, the original and the two acquired around 1980, are most likely the origin of 335. fiveby(zero) 14:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Alright that settles that number, I greatly appreciate you taking a look and adding figures together. Thank you! Do you (or others) know how I am able to cite these stats accurately within the article, or if that is even possible with such a source? I would imagine that a footnote citing all these GIS data sets is the best way. Although, I am unsure if citing these altogether would stretch into the realm of WP:OR with a statement such as: Busch Gardens Tampa Bay is located ... northeast of downtown Tampa, Florida on approximately 250 acres (100 ha). The animal theme park is part of a 335 acre (136 ha) area that includes one other SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment property: Adventure Island. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Basic arithmetic is not WP:OR. Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible.

@Jayron32: Thank you, I did not see that part of WP:OR, which makes me more comfortable with this finding. My final stupid question just to keep my sanity at bay for accuracy: 335 acres, or a total of around 353 acres. Which should be used? The one based on passing reliable sources mention, or actual total property the theme park is encompassed by, relatively speaking? Ya'll have been masterfully helpful! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Porque no los dos? "According to X, the land area is around 353 acres. By adding together the reported acreage from A, B, and C, reflecting the three different parts of the park, the land area is 335 acres". As long as X, A, B, and C are relative sources, feel free to attribute the source to the figure, and then you don't need to make a distinction. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation. --Jayron32 19:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Alrighty, thank you once again for the tremendous help! I did not think I would get an answer that quick or at all! Learning more new things a day. :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

October 24

Arrangement of jet engines - proper wording

• 
  F-14
• 
  F-15
• 
  F-18

What's the proper wording to express that the F-14 had "wide" jet engines far apart from each other, while the F-15 and F-18 have "tight" jet engines close to each other? --KnightMove (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The NATOPS manual for the F-14 says it has "displaced engine nacelles", though I'm not sure that would really be helpful to the average reader. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed - but very interesting anyway, thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that the "proper wording" would be a statement of how far each engine was from the centerline of the airplane. --174.89.144.126 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I think "...engines are widely/closely spaced..." would be adequate as a general description, but if it is really significant you could give the specific dimensions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

October 27

Midfield flags (soccer)

Watching matches from long ago, even major competitions like the World Cup, in addition to the classic four flags at the corners of the pitch, there were two more at the extremes of midfield. What function did these two flags have. Thank you very much. 93.41.96.25 (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is just a wild guess, but in the olden days pitches were not maintained as well as they are today, and I can recall the pitch sometimes becoming so muddy that you would need those flags to determine where the centre line was supposed to be. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Our article Football pitch says: The intersections between the half-way line and the touchline can be indicated with flags like those marking the corners – the laws consider this as an optional feature.. So, one can use them, but doesn't need to. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is useful for determining Offside as a player cannot be offside in his or her own half of the field. Xuxl (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

October 28

Kia thefts

Not asking how to do it and my car is not a Kia, but there are news reports[6] about Kias getting stolen by that one weird trick Kia owners hate. When I saw the headline I thought "aha another stupid remote ignition or unlock vulnerability, they will never get it right, good thing I have an old beater with traditional mechanical locks". But then in the article itself, it seems to say that this vulnerability is against mechanically locked Kias.

Is there a reasonable simplified description of the type of attack? I don't want the specifics or links to them here (don't want to give idiots ideas)--general summary is fine. But, am wondering if owners of older cars in general should worry. I know later cars have engine lockouts in addition to the mechanical switch, to prevent hotwiring. I haven't worried about that since the steering column lock and the age of the car seems like enough. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems to primarily effect vehicles with smart keys that do not have an immobiliser per Fortune. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks. It said something about steel keys which I figured meant ordinary mechanical keys. I will stop worrying, not that I was worried. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)