This page lists all the recent questions asked on the Wikipedia reference desk by category. To ask a new question, please select one of the categories below. To answer a question, click on the "edit" link beside the question.
{{Infobox protected area}} and {{Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site}} appear to make use of Wikidata. I want to display the kind of protected UNESCO map seen at the bottom of the infobox over at Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park, but I am trying to place it in another article, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (referred to as Monument here). When I try to do this, the interactive map comes up blank when someone browses the page. When you click on it, it appears to be over the wrong landform, but if you scroll around it does indeed show the protected Monument complete with the red bordered polygon. It's just that I can't get it to display this on loading the page like one sees with Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park. This problem has something to do with the way the map displays the area of the North Pacific Ocean, and I'm sure there's a simple fix for it, but I don't know what it is. I just want to display the red bordered polygon of the Monument like the Vocanoes National Park does. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having just dived into a bit of a hole to learn how those maps are generated to begin with, it appears this has something to do with the relationship between Wikipedia, WikiData and OpenStreetMaps. The entry on WikiData for Papahānaumokuākea (wikidata:Q787425) was missing the value that linked it to the relevant entry on OpenStreetMaps, which I've added. However it appears the OpenStreetMaps entry itsn't quite right and may need to also be fixed before the map will display correctly here on Wikipedia. I'd attempt fixing that also but I'm editing from work at the moment so can't set up an account to do so. If no one else gets to it (or finds a solution that I'm missing) I'll make an attempt later. Amstrad00 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so on further review it appears this is an issue with the boundaries of Papahānaumokuākea extending over the 180th meridian and how OpenStreetMaps handles drawing those boundaries. The long and short is that the portion extending over the meridian has to be split off into a separate area that makes the map seem to span the entire width of the globe. I don't know that there actually is an easy way to fix the issue. Amstrad00 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding a good match. WhatTheFont suggests that it may be "Pinkhoff Caps" or "Lumier" - and those do have the distinctive E, but Pinkhoff's B and R are quite different, as is Lumier's N. You can try your luck here, but automatic font identifiers are notoriously poor; you may have to wait for someone to identify it for you by eye. Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon for well-funded enterprises like films to have their own novel typeface created for publicity materials, If it's just used in titles, it may even be hand-drawn, which is also common for book covers. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! I’m working on a name and logo concept for our Tech Club, which focuses on the securities market.
I’d love to hear your thoughts or inspiration if you’re interested in sharing.
What name do you think would suit a tech-and-finance club? And why do you think it would be a good fit for the club?
From the header text: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." You'll have to come up with something without our help. Matt Deres (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the range of things current LLMs are relatively good at, although you may need to tweak the characterization of your club and of your notion of suitability of a name for a few iterations before you get a good fit (if at all). ‑‑Lambiam23:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Dell Inspiron 3910 desktop computer, running the latest version of Windows 11. (That is, I receive and install the updates.) I have a USB optical mouse, but had two problems from time to time with it. The first is that sometimes the USB connector came loose from the back of the computer, so that I had to diddle around with the cable and reseat it. The second was that I would occasionally catch the cable with my foot and bring the mouse onto the floor, and occasionally bring the keyboard onto the floor. (If the cat was asleep on her chair, this had the undesired side effect of scaring her.) So I bought a Bluetooth Insignia BT3.0 mouse. It worked fine for a while, but a few days ago, it would sometimes turn off while I was using it. I would have to turn the power switch on the underside of the mouse off and then turn it on again to restore mouse functionality. For now, I am using the USB mouse, and am asking whether this is a known problem with bottom-of-the-line Bluetooth mice, and whether there is a way to deal with it. If I have to buy a $20 or $30 Bluetooth or wireless USB mouse because the $7 Bluetooth mouse is not worth $7, that is what one gets for buying a bottom-of-the-line peripheral.
I bought the mouse about two weeks ago, User:Ruslik0. If I need to replace the battery, would that mean that the battery was weak from the start, or that the mouse is a power hog, or what would it mean? I don't think that I should have to replace an almost new battery, but we shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never trust a battery that comes with an item. You have no idea how longs it has been in the manufacturer's stock - possibly since long before that item was actually assembled. A new battery is a quick, comparatively cheap fix. If it makes no difference, reuse the battery elsewhere, and try a different fix.
I use a Logitech (no connection &c.) wireless keyboard+mouse combination with Windows 11 (and Linux), and do not experience any untoward powering off by either item. -- Verbarson talkedits16:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. A similar thing happened to me when I bought a second-hand car last year that basically died on my driveway the same day. The garage were indignant when I suggested they'd sold me a car with a dud battery, but after they'd spent 24 hours trying and failing to fully recharge it, they replaced it with a new one for nothing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Btname is used to mark biological names, like Vombatus ursinus. It currently begins
<span style="font-style: italic;" lang="la">…
I think this is wrong, because biological names aren't in Latin: they're language-independent. The whole point is that they're the same, whatever language you're writing in. (Besides, they're fairly often drawn from other languages-- see for example Chrysoclista, which is Greek for "gold-washed".)
Now, it seems to me that BCP 47 should have something to say about how to write lang attributes for biological names, but I can't find anything. This must be a solved problem! How would you do it? Marnanel (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Binomial nomenclature the names use 'Latin grammatical forms', whatever their linguistic roots. They therefore behave the same as any other words adopted into Latin from other languages. There is an extended dsicussion at Binomial nomenclature § Derivation of binomial names. What seems to be missing from the article (except by implication) is any indication of which alphabets or scripts may or may not be used. I guess that the 'Latin' alphabet (ie 26 English letters) is the only set of letters allowed? -- Verbarson talkedits16:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"11.2. Mandatory use of Latin alphabet A scientific name must, when first published, have been spelled only in the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet (taken to include the letters j, k, w and y); the presence in a name when first published of diacritic and other marks, apostrophes or ligatures, or a hyphen, or a numeral in a compound species-group name, does not render the name unavailable (for corrections, see Articles 27 and 32.5.2)."
"32.1. To be validly published, a name of a taxon (autonyms excepted) must: ... (b) be composed only of letters of the Latin alphabet, except as provided in Art. 23.3, 60.4, 60.7, and 60.12–15; and ..."
My issue here is that just as it's called "the common wombat" in English, it's called simply "vombatus" in Late Latin. If you were actually writing in Latin, you would only use the phrase "Vombatus ursinus" in exactly the same contexts you would use it in English. So I don't see that *Vombatus ursinus* is in Latin. Marnanel (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no ISO 639 language code for binomial nomeclaturese, the only permitted alternative, within the HTML standard, is to omit the lang attribute altogether. I don't see much value in having it – or for that matter the template, used in only 23 articles – but I also do not see the harm. ‑‑Lambiam23:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's colloquially called a 'Latin name' for ease of reference: that doesn't mean it's what any classical (or vernacular) Latin speaker/writer would have called the entity in question (I'm pretty sure they never saw a wombat), but Neo-Latin remained the international language of scientists until relatively recently (I've read of one mathematician who still insists on submitting his new papers using it) and its specialised use in Taxonomy has persisted, because it works.
(I studied classical Latin at school and failed the exam, but it's still one of the more valuable subjects I took because of its prevalence underlying so much scientific vocabulary, as well as its relevance in linguistics.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutron star material is remarkably dense: a normal-sized matchbox containing neutron-star material would have a weight of approximately 3 billion tonnes, the same weight as a 0.5-cubic-kilometer chunk of the Earth (a cube with edges of about 800 meters) from Earth's surface.
Neutron stars are extremely dense, to be sure, but what would that matchbox weigh on Earth? What is its mass? Tonnes are a mass measurement, not a weight measurement, so I don't know if this badly written passage means that it has a mass of approximately 3 billion tonnes or if it means that its weight on the neutron star is the same as the weight of a 3-billion-tonne object on Earth. First sounds reasonable because the star is very dense; second sounds reasonable because the star is very massive and has a tiny radius, so per gravitational constant, an extremely massive object with an extremely small radius of distance will cause any object on its surface to be extremely heavy. The statement has two citations, but I don't see the statement's information in either of them. Nyttend (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to replace the word "weight" by "mass"; I assume the writer thought that lay readers were more familiar with weight than with mass. With weight expressed in mass units, the statement is actually true both on the neutron star and on earth; that would not be the case if the weight was properly given in Newtons, i.e. as a force. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Polarisation has nothing to do with it — the reason why planets twinkle less than stars is that they have much larger angular sizes. The main planet in the evening sky at the moment is Saturn but it is not very conspicuous, as there are many stars of similar brightness. Later in the evening Jupiter rises but that doesn't strike me as particularly yellow, so without further information I guess the OPs question cannot be answered. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's properly dark and you've got good eyesight, some bright stars are noticeably coloured. For example, Betelgeuse (the right shoulder of Orion, which you see on the left if you're on the Northern hemisphere) is noticeably red and Bellatrix (Orion's other shoulder) is blue. I suggest you use some planetarium program to find which star appears yellow to you. Stellarium is free and open source.
Since we don't know whether you are in the North or South hemisphere, it's impossible to tell what stars are currently visible to you at night. It should not be too difficult for you to find out which constellation the star in question is in. (My guess would be Capella.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read that ciguatoxins produced by Gambierdiscus toxicus are largely harmless for larger species in food chain, even after biomagnification, and that they harm mostly warm-blooded animals, including humans. That looks odd because evolutionarily one would expect toxins to target direct threats which isn't the case here. That contrasts, for example, with capsaicin that evolved as a protection against pepper-eating animals. Is there an explanation? Brandmeistertalk22:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G. toxicus may have evolved to produce ciguatoxins both for protection against being grazed by herbivorous fish, and also for some other metabolic reason, either as a necessary byproduct or for some function as yet undiscovered. The fish, meanwhile, may have then evolved immunity to the ciguatoxins (see Red Queen hypothesis). That a relative few of these fish may then be eaten by larger animals (including us) and those might also then be poisoned, is outside the evolutionary context of the dinoflagellate, so it's just our bad luck.
I also thought of immunity development, but, as I understand, this implies that herbivorous fish effectively won the evolutionary arms race which is postulated to be perennial. Maybe the toxin then continues to evolve to be more lethal? Brandmeistertalk20:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, or maybe its other (hypothetical) metabolic role mitigates against its changing to do so, or maybe pollution and/or warming and/or other factor(s) is reducing the population of the immune grazing fish. Evolution is very hard to discern while it's going on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to re-emphasize 08's earlier point: we call it a toxin because it's bad for us, but predation deterrence may have nothing to do with why that little beastie is making it; it may be used for something altogether unrelated or could be a by-product that just happens. For example, the liver of a polar bear is toxic to eat - you die of a vitamin A overdose - but the bear definitely didn't evolve that to stop pesky humans from eating it; from the bear's perspective, it's something that just happened without evolutionary pressure. Matt Deres (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an explanation for the SI unit "".
In some articles I find "", or "the power radiated per unit wavelength interval at wavelength 𝜆 by unit area of blackbody at temperature T", or "The spectral radiance is defined as the radiant energy per unit of time emitted within a unit spectral bandwidth from a unit area of surface into a solid angle in a direction normal to the surface".
I find also this text:"the power from wavelength 𝜆 to 𝛥𝜆", but after no trace of 𝛥𝜆 in the formulas ???
I assume that "" is to match a bandwidth unit of 1 nanometer, but I don't know how to interpret it as there is no bandwidth parameter in the law.
So where can I find an official reference for the SI units of Planck's law ?
PS: In wikipedia I get the SI units but without explanation nor reference, and I was not lukky with Google ! Malypaet (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I have no money to put in bying ISO/IEC 80000, vol 6 or 7, to check if it is there.
I have only found this in wikipedia:
The Spectral radiance in wavelength is the watt per steradian per square metre per metre (W·sr−1·m−3)—commonly the watt per steradian per square metre per nanometre (W·sr−1·m−2·nm−1).
How should we interpret "commonly"?
Is this yet another strange, counterintuitive quantum quirk used to obtain a result that conforms to the law?
Because otherwise, with the law and standard SI units, we have a calculation that yields a result greater than the measurement ! Malypaet (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the article is confusing. There is no official SI unit for any physical quantity. You can read that the metre is "the" SI unit of length. But but but... the nanometre is also an SI unit, and it is also a unit of length. What is special about the metre as an SI unit is that is an SI base unit – but the choice of SI base units has been dictated more by convention and practicality than by any principled or theoretical considerations. Spectral radiance does not have its own base unit, but can be expressed in a so-called SI derived unit, being a product of powers of base units. Scientist and engineers have their own practical reasons for using other SI units than base units and derived units.
This underlies what is going on here. The situation for spectral radiance in wavelength is basically the same as for length. These two units for spectral radiance in wavelength are both SI units. The numerical values of the same quantity, expressed in either of these two units, differs by a factor of 109. So why are there two units in use? For the same reason that the metre and the nanometre coexist as units of length. Scientists expressing the wavelength of the radiation under consideration in metres, which is more common for radio waves, will usually prefer W sr−1 m−2 m−1 as the unit. Scientists expressing the wavelength of the radiation under consideration in nanometres, which is more common for visible light, will usually prefer W sr−1 m−2 nm−1 as the unit.
The SI derived unit for radiance is W sr−1 m−3, which is a more conventional way of denoting derived units, but of course in the end the same as that used by radio broadcasting engineers. The different way of denoting it betrays the background: the factor m−2 is for the reciprocal ("per") of an area, and the m−1 is for the reciprocal of a wavelength. ‑‑Lambiam01:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these explanations, it's clear.
But if you keep the spectral radiance of "W sr−1 m−3", the calculation differs to the measurement by a factor of 109.
In the experiments I have read, the SI units tricks is a way to indirectly introduce the bandwidth in a bandwidth unit of one nanometer, that is a factor of 10-9. Malypaet (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The numerical values may be different, but combined with the respective units they denote the same magnitude of a physical quantity.
Consider the following problem. An object moves with a uniform speed of 50 km per hour. How long does it take to traverse a mile?
Solution 1: Go all imperial. 50 km per hour ≈ 31.0686 mph. So it takes 1/31.0686 hours = 3600/31.0686 s ≈ 115.873 s.
Solution 2: Go all metric. 1 mile = 1.609344 km. So it takes 1.609344/50 hours = (1.609344/50) × 3600 s ≈ 115.873 s.
In the end, it does not depend on the units. Planck's law holds in imperial units just as much as it does in metric units. ‑‑Lambiam16:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but with the bolometer of a spectroradiometer you get a power per square meter ( W m−2 ).
This power depends not only on the wavelength, but also on the bandwidth. If you double the bandwidth, you approximately double the power, right ?
“If you double the bandwidth, you approximately double the power, right ?”
Yes, that's right.
“With a temperature at 1000k, for a wavelength of 550nm (and a bandwidth of 1nm ?) you get:
a spectral radiance = 10 307 W sr−1 m−2 m−1”
The spectral radiance is the radiance within a particular band (centred around 550nm in this case), divided by the width of that band, in the limit where we take the bandwidth very narrow. If narrow enough, so that the spectrum has no features narrower than the chosen bandwidth, the resulting spectral radiance is independent of the bandwidth. In this theoretical case, we make the bandwidth infinitesimally narrow (which is quite a bit less than 1nm), although for practical measurements it's a bit more than that.
“Now if the bolometer gives 0.000010307 W m−2, what about the spectral radiance ?”
What the bolometer gives you is the spectral radiance integrated over some bandwidth and integrated over some solid angle. Unless otherwise specified, it's safe to assume that this bandwidth is the full spectrum (that is, zero to infinity), or at least the part over which the bolometer is sensitive. The integral over the solid angle is, unless otherwise specified, taken over the full extend of the source.
“If you double the bandwidth, you approximately double the power, right ?”
Yes, that's right.
...the resulting spectral radiance is independent of the bandwidth....
You are contradicting yourself.
So if you divide the bandwidth by 2, you approximately divide the power by 2, etc...theoretically down to zero power, and zero spectral radiance.
But Monochromatic radiation is idealized and does not exist in nature, even with lasers and their linewidth.
Therefore, logically, bandwidth should be included in the calculus of the blackbody spectral distribution.
Now, if you have a 1 nm bandpass filter in front of the bolometer, , I am currious to see how do you integrate this into your calculus (not ), from the planck's law?
And with ?
I know, for this last case, you divide the power by 2, to have a bandwidth unit of 1nm, and we return to the previous case.
Say the price of eludium per microgram is 13 ₹. Then 7 mg of eludium costs 91,000 ₹, and 14 mg costs 182,000 ₹. Double the amount and you double the price. The price per microgram remains the same, it is independent of the actual weight of an amount of eludium purchased. Same for radiance; it is energy flux per area per bandwidth, so it is independent of the bandwidth. ‑‑Lambiam09:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two days ago, you write per wavelength for , now per bandwidth?
That's what I wrote; the power per nanometer of bandwidth remains approximately the same. However, in your analogy [ power in W ≡ price in ₹ ] and [ bandwidth in nm ≡ weight in micrograms ], the power is not independent of the bandwidth, just as the price is not independent of the eludium: 0 micrograms of eludium ≡ a price of 0 ₹.
However, the expression "per bandwidth" is inappropriate, because power is proportional to bandwidth (product) and not inversely proportional (divide) as with wavelength in Planck's law. I prefer the expression "within the bandwidth," which I found in an older article, but I don't know the antonym for "per."
I just noticed that if we multiply Planck's law by a bandwidth of 10−9m, while keeping the meter for all quantities, we find the same arithmetic value as with the simple Planck's law in W sr−1 m−2 nm−1 and I am looking for an explanation, voilà. Malypaet (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken; I did not write "per wavelength" What I wrote was, "Scientists expressing the wavelength of the radiation under consideration in nanometres, which is more common for visible light, will usually prefer W sr−1 m−2 nm−1 as the unit." That is something different. Of course, someone using nanometres for wavelengths will naturally express the width of a band from, say, 32.2 nm to 35.8 nm also in nanometres, and say that the bandwidth is 3.6 nm.
As I wrote before, the validity of Planck's law does not depend on the system of units used. I am not sure what you mean by multiplying a law by a bandwidth. ‑‑Lambiam20:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my mistake.
"Same for radiance; it is energy flux per area per bandwidth, so it is independent of the bandwidth. ‑‑Lambiam 09:01, 4 December".
Here bandwidth is strange, as there is no bandwidth parameter in Planck's law.
So, take the bandwidth parameter as (1nm for example).
Then integrate this law for the summ of all bandwidth for wavelength 0 to :
Where is the planck's law in wavelength.
Then replace by , and the integral by a summation of the mean wavelength (in a bandwidth) from 0 to by step of , as it is done in blackbody experiment.
And here you are.
So, you have the bandwidth as a product of planck's law, with the result in radiance, not spectral radiance. The ratio is dimensionless, and you have no more wavelength dimension nor Temperature, while they are present in the law.
You keep referring to Planck's law as if it is a physical quantity ("multiply the law by ", " is the planck's law in wavelength"). This does not make sense. Planck's law is a veridical statement, confirmed by observation. You cannot multiply Planck by a physical quantity, and neither can you do this for the law of which he is the eponym.
Good diversion, yes, L stands for radiance or luminance in French.
But , so why not as there is or ?
I agree that Planck's law has been regularly verified. I just noticed the absence of a bandwidth parameter in the law, whereas experiments take it into account.
I do not understand why you bring in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, since it seems to have nothing to do with the original question.
Yes, Planck's law has no bandwidth parameter. It also has no area parameter. If is the energy flux per area per bandwidth, and is the area, then is the energy flux for that area per bandwidth – assuming that is constant over the area. Likewise, if is the bandwidth, then is the energy flux per area for the given bandwidth. At least, that is a good approximation when is sufficiently small so that varies linearly over the range of wavelengths Otherwise you should use
I just used the reverse example of going from Planck's law to Stefan–Boltzmann law, so one arrives at , with the SI units of radiance that gives a spectroradiometer.
Then you divide by to get the spectral radiance of Planck's law, and, therefore,you can write "per bandwidth" (-^-).
With a bandwidth of 1nm, if you use the unit in spectral radiance, you cancel the division by (per bandwidth) and get the same arythmetic value as the spectroradiometer.
In quantum physics you can have two different definition for the same quantity:
"Spectral radiance is the radiant energy per time interval, per wavelength interval, per area, and per solid angle that is received by a detector oriented normal to the source of radiation. Spectral radiance is abbreviated L(λ), where λ is the center wavelength of the detector."
Remember the spectral radiometric quantities have units including per nanometer or per Hz (the nanometer or Hertz represents an interval not an absolute value).
Spectral radiance denoted is defined as the radiant flux at a given point, direction, and wavelength per unit of projected area, solid angle, and wavelength interval. Malypaet (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something I searched around but didn't get a great answer for:
People can have very different capacity to tolerate reduced O2 / increased CO2 level, even with similar living experiences (e.g., always at sea-level) and physical fitness (e.g., stamina and strength). Why? What contributes to this difference?
Q2: How do we call this phenomenon? I've came across both hypoxemia and hypoxia, but they seem to describe only severe cases than mere drowsiness.
I know. Sadly our outpatient departments here focus mainly on solving identifiable diseases, and the doctors' response is basically "go out once in a while".
Concur with Bugs. This question started out as a request for information, but quickly shifted to asking us what was wrong with you. That's not something we should be doing, even if we might like to do so out of helpfulness. Your point about it getting worse really suggests that something is happening to you and should probably be reviewed by a qualified person that can examine you properly. Sorry. Matt Deres (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any options between visiting a doctor and asking random strangers on the Internet? As stated at the top of this page, we cannot give medical advice. At the same time, if everybody with some minor issue went to see their doctor, there would be such a queue that the people really ill would drop dead before reaching the surgery's doorstep. Unless there were more doctors, but that will inflate the cost of healthcare. Now people have told me that US healthcare is an order of magnitude more expensive than anywhere else in the world. PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the morning beteen 6 AM and 7 AM, I look out my East-facing window while I lie in bed (in Rockville, Montgomery county Maryland). I see birds flying North (or sometimes NNE). This happens almost every day (that is when the weather is not so bad that they are grounded). It is rare to see a bird fly in any other direction. This seems odd to me, especially since it is late Autumn. Shouldn't they fly South? Why do they fly North specifically? I figure that this is a Biology question, so I am asking it here. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While some Northern hemisphere bird species "fly south for the winter", many don't. You give no indication of what sort of birds: birds may move in the early morning from their roosts to feeding grounds some distance away; in the case of waterbirds or water-associated birds (like bald eagles) these may be lakes in the area (which I regularly see with geese where I live in Southern England, near some artificial lakes). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.1905} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely daily commuters. Most migratory birds have reached their winter home by now.
The birds may not even take the same trajectory there and back again. For example, they may fly high in a tailwind and low in a headwind. Does the wind have a preferred direction in Maryland? On days with significant thermals, the boundary layer is thinner in early morning than late afternoon, so wind speed has a different effect on altitude during the morning commute than during the evening commute. Maybe their feeding area is visible from very far away, so they can fly in a straight line, but their sleeping area is harder to find, so they have to follow a string of landmarks. Maybe they take a detour to make use of thermals in the afternoon, which aren't present in early morning. Et cetera. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the controversy over the 3I/ATLAS comet, that Avi Loeb said it was an alien spaceship, but most evidence would suggest it isn't. But let's say, as an hypotethical case, that a real alien spacecraft was really flying towards us. Let's say, like alien versions of the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. How closer should they get for us to see them and confirm their nature? And would it be possible to intercept and capture them, if they were confirmed to be technological? Cambalachero (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the technological capabilities would be unknown, there's no way to know what the answer to that question would be. Potentially it might be possible to approach it, but what happens when or if it detects the approaching vehicle is unknown until it happens. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the hypothetical, it is a reasonable further assumption that the extraneous intelligence behind the comet-like probe has the technology to disguise its nature that is so advanced that we, backward humans, stand no chance of confirming the hypothesis. ‑‑Lambiam07:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we can confirm it's built by aliens depends on how hard the aliens tried to disguise it. If they simply put a 3 kilometre radio dish on the surface, it should be easy once we can resolve the object. And there are tricks to make images of objects we can't resolve.
Intercepting it would be hard. The delta-V required is just too much. The best chance would be to use a big rocket with extra upper stages to send a tiny probe, like a cubesat. But orbital insertion must be perfect, or it won't get within a few kilometres of the nucleus. Even then, the probe will have a relative velocity of tens of kilometres per second, allowing for just one snapshot and measuring the mass, if the probe isn't disabled first by a collision with a dust particle from the coma. Capture requires another big delta-V, so forget about it.
Loeb didn't say it was an alien spacecraft, he speculated that it could be, and calculations on which he partly based this have been shown to be erroneous, as 3I/ATLAS#Alien spacecraft speculation details. Loeb has a history of this sort of thing.
Actual alien spacecraft would (I suggest) be most likely to betray their nature by alterations in velocity and/or trajectory impossible to ascribe to any natural cause (rather than slight ones which natural phenomena can explain), and/or by a reflectance spectrum completely unlike a natural body. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You ask about an alien version of the Voyager probes with their 1.85 meter radius radio mirrors. Consider flat disks of this radius, with 100% albedo, and ideal conditions (disk is perpendicular to the direction of the Sun, and opposite to the Sun as seen from the observer). The disk at about 1 AU from the Sun, receives a fraction of of the Sun's radiation. It reflects it to one side, and with Lambert's cosine law that should give a factor of 4 if I remember correctly, so the luminosity as seen from 1 AU distance should be times that of the Sun. Taking minus the base-10 logarithm, multiplying it by 2.5, and adding it to the Sun's apparent magnitude gives us an apparent magnitude of 27.7 or so.
The Vera C. Rubin Observatory has a limiting magnitude of 24.5 for single images. As this telescope makes regular surveys, it would be likely to discover the alien Voyager if close enough. We need to increase the brightness by 3.2 magnitudes (or a factor of ) which can be done by decreasing the distance from 1 AU to AU.
In order to really discover that it's moving through the Solar system with some hyperbolic excess velocity, we'd need a few images. But we'd still know almost nothing about the object. If we want to resolve it optically, perhaps to see the magnetometer boom and the disk of the radio reflector, say resolve 0.5 meters or better (I don't think seeing an elongated shape alone is enough), with e.g. the Hubble Space Telescope, the resolution should be at the order of magnitude of (see angular resolution), so it would need to be as close as 2500 km (from the Hubble Space Telescope). Highly unlikely, unfortunately.
What other way would there be to tell that it is special? Its RTGs would long be cold, so not from excess heat. Its radio would long be silent. If we illuminate it with microwave radiation (radar), it would have to be probably as close to see the structure, at least if we do it with a local array of radio telescopes. Larger combined radio telescopes have been used as for the Event Horizon Telescope, but as it took longer for them to image our Galaxy's black hole than M87's larger one, due to fluctuations at shorter timescales for our smaller black hole, it's probably not ready for imaging something which is in all likelihood rotating comparatively fast.... though let's assume it is (if the alien Voyager is not tumbling, the regularity of the rotation can help). Assume a radar wavelength of 2 millimeters, and an effective telescope size of something like 10000 km, to give a resolution of something like , so we could resolve it at 2.5 million km instead of 2500 or so. All to be taken more as order of magnitude estimates.
So I think the best possibility is having the luck of the object missing Earth only by a few million km and a really good worldwide-receiver radar system being used.
I would expect the best detail would come from planetary radar, where the signal is transmitted from Earth, bounces off the target, and is received again on Earth (either at the same site or a different one). The ability to modulate the signal gives a big advantage. In particular, the combination of time-of-flight and doppler allows details on the target to be resolved in a way that is not limited by distance or array size (assuming enough signal-to-noise). Unfortunately, planetary radar will not be possible during 3I/Atlas's pass through the inner solar system [8], but perhaps it could work for another interstellar visitor. --Amble (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct. The origin of the universe, and of the Earth, is not known with any confidence. There are many theories as to the origin of matter and the origin of energy. Dolphin(t)08:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions of the concept of matter vary considerably; see Matter § Definition. But all agree on the involvement of elementary particles. According to the prevailing physical theory of cosmogenesis, during the Planck epoch – the time within 10−43 seconds of the Big Bang – energy was so concentrated that the concept of particle of quantum physics breaks down. So there was nothing yet that could be understood in current physics as being a particle. Compare this to what happens when you strike a bell with a hammer. If it is a good bell, you'll hear a clear musical tone, which is actually not a pure tone but more complex. But for the first millisecond after striking the bell, there is a loud (very energetic) sound, but nothing yet that could be called a tone. It takes some time for a tone to emerge from the initial chaos. ‑‑Lambiam12:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The validity of the formula relies on Galois Theory applied to the tower of finite fields constructed by the embedding degree and the existence of a Sextic Twist.
Theorem: For and , the value lies in the subfield .
Proof:
Miller Loop Construction: The function is a rational function on the curve constructed via Miller's algorithm. The coefficients of are arithmetic combinations of the coordinates of and the curve parameters.
The Twist: Since , it is the image of a point under the twisting isomorphism . Consequently, the coordinates of (and the line functions used to build ) are defined over (up to scaling factors that cancel out or remain in the subfield during the accumulation step).
Evaluation Point: The function is evaluated at . Since , its coordinates are in .
Closure: is a subfield of . Therefore, evaluating a function with coefficients in at a point in yields a result in .
Conclusion:.
3. The Typical Trap (Why Miller Inversion is usually not enough)
In a generic scenario (or on curves without the specific Type 3 / Twist structure), having an algorithm that inverts the Miller loop (finding from ) is insufficient to invert the Weil pairing.
The Problem:
You are given the target . The equation is:
To use your Miller Inversion algorithm, you need to isolate the numerator . You would try to rearrange the equation:
The Circular Deadlock:
To find using, you need the value of the Right Hand Side.
But the Right Hand Side contains .
The value of depends on .
Result: You cannot calculate the input for your inversion algorithm without already knowing the answer .
In standard literature, resolving this dependency ( appearing in both numerator and denominator) generally requires guessing bits of or solving a Discrete Logarithm, which drives the complexity up to exponential levels.
In your specific case (BN curves), the denominator is not an independent variable. It is algebraically coupled to the numerator via the Frobenius automorphism.
Because comes from a twist over a subfield, we proved that:
This substitution breaks the circular dependency by turning the equation into a single variable problem.
The Subfield Trick (Why the denominator is dependent)
Let's look at the two Miller loops composing your Weil target:
Numerator : This is a function derived from () evaluated at (). The result lives in the full extension .
Denominator : This is a function derived from (coefficients in ) evaluated at ().
Crucial Consequence: The result belongs to the subfield (embedded in ).
For the inversion algorithm (which works on the full structure), the denominator is a "small" structural element compared to the complexity of the numerator.
On BN curves, the Weil Pairing and the Tate Pairing/Miller Loop are linked by a fixed and known power relation for all points in the group.
Why? Because the denominator is linked to the numerator via the Frobenius endomorphism (anti-trace).
The value of : This is not a secret. It is an integer that depends solely on the curve parameters. On many BN curves, this is linked to .
The Polynomial Reduction: Instead of: : You have: :The Solution Path: Since is a known constant integer, you can simply invert this exponent modulo : : ==== The Frobenius Trick (Conjugation) ==== In the field , the operation acts as a complex conjugation relative to the quadratic extension. * Property of the Result (Pairing): : is an -th root of unity. On BN curves, modulo the order , we have . : Therefore, for any valid pairing result : : * Property of the Denominator : : Since , it is invariant under . A fortiori, it is invariant under (since is a multiple of ). :
We have the following system: # # (Target group property) # (Subfield property) Apply the Frobenius to equation (1): : Substitute using properties (2) and (3): : We now have two expressions involving : * From (1): * From derived equation: Equating the two expressions for : : :
You are looking for (the input for inversion) given (your Weil target). The final equation is: : *((The exponent is calculated modulo the group order . Division by is multiplication by the modular inverse).)* Why does this work without knowing the denominator? Because the denominator is "eaten" by the operation. By squaring and playing with the conjugate, we exploit the fact that is "real" (invariant under ) while is "complex". This eliminates from the equation.
You have effectively reduced the "Weil Inversion Problem" to the "Miller Inversion Problem" using simple arithmetic. If your algorithm solves Miller Inversion in polynomial time, the entire Weil inversion becomes polynomial.
Also the advandced model in addition to answer correctly on some mathematical terms did quoted papers on this discussion that achieve bilinear pairings wihtout final exponentiation but on hyperelliptic curves.
Since LLMs generate texts that statistically resemble human-produced texts, one should expect, given an LLM-generated text, to find human-produced texts that statistically resemble it The fact that a text statistically resembles human-produced accurate texts does not make it particularly more likely that it is accurate, unless there are many of such human texts, which, moreover, use similar wordings. This is the case if you ask for the capital of New Caledonia, or how to say "Merry Christmas" in Polish. I doubt that it is the case for your conjectured implication. ‑‑Lambiam21:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a program to find Euler circuits on the completedirected graph of n vertices. Now I want to eliminate isomorphisms. Such a circuit is a kind of bracelet (where bead colors represent vertices of the graph), and there probably exist algorithms to detect isomorphism between bracelets. I wonder whether it would be easier to generate all bracelets (of n-1 beads of each of n colors) and filter the list for the desired quality of including all sequences of two colors. —Tamfang (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There exist, rather obviously, algorithms to detect that two Euler circuits on a given complete digraph are isomorphic (enumerate all automorphisms of the digraph), so I assume the purpose is to find a faster method.
To enumerate the Euler circuits one would use a depth-first algorithm to search the tree of partial Euler paths, backtracking when no Eulerian continuation is open while the cycle is not yet complete. (The problem can also be viewed as finding Hamiltonian circuits in a directed graph whose nodes are formed by edges of the original graph and whose edges are the pairs of the form and then the search tree is a spanning tree of the new graph.) In enumerating the bracelets, one would, I presume, use a functionally equivalent algorithm, not waiting with filtering till completion of a bracelet, but not attempting to extend a partial bracelet ...AB...A with another B and backtracking when no lawful continuation is possible. So I think there is no gain. And in either case you still have to test for isomorphism. ‑‑Lambiam21:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not merely n! but 2n(n-1)n!, because the path can begin anywhere and I want to consider reversal equivalent. (My program reduces by n!, by requiring that the vertices' first appearances be in order.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamfang: May I check my understanding of the setting of your problem? Concretely, I suppose that here a "complete directed graph" refers to a tournament on a complete graph. Is that correct?
If so, indeed, by Rédei's theorem, there is a directed Hamilton path in the tournament (or complete directed graph); and any such path is naturally and uniquely divided into a sequence of constituents of two kinds of induced subtournaments, namely, either consisting of just one vertex, of containing a directed Hamilton cycle; and such that for any vertices and with the edge between s and t is directed from s to t. Moreover, it is fairly easy to find these Ti, together with one Hamilton cycle for each (for the nontrivial ones). The main trouble I perceive would be that any such Ti (except the smallest ones) could be expected to contain a large number of different directed Hamilton cycles (even disregarding those which just are rotations, obtained by choosing a new 'first vertex'). Are these Ti your bracelets?
If i guessed right about the setting, so far, I think an important point would be whether or not you consider it probable to have many small bracelets (i.& nbsp;e., small Ti) in your application. My ten cent opinion is that in 'sufficiently random' situations you would rarely have more than one bracelet (i. e., you would have r=1, i. e., the graph itself would contain a directed Hamilton cycle); simply since there are fairly few ordered bipartitions of an n-set (actually many), and fairly low probability for any given one of them to have all edges between them directed 'to the right'. If you seldom or never accounts neclaces with some smaller size 'bracelets', you would gain little in preloading a list of these.
Aren't Rayo numbers(using arbitrary arguments instead of a googol),conceptually the same as Busy Beaver numbers, except using logical symbols instead of theoretical computer science? Also, it seems that although infinite instead of finite, inaccessible cardinals are conceptually similar in that they use the idea of defining them as what one cannot "get to" using all previously used techniques.Rich (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For which positive integer n, the Hasse diagram of all positive divisors of n ordered by the "is a divisor of" relation is a planer graph?
If n is a positive integer, and the Hasse diagram of all numbers >=1 and <=n ordered by the "is a divisor of" relation is a planer graph, what is the largest possible value of n?
The Hasse diagram based on the divisors of a positive integer is constructed as follows:
1. For a prime power , the diagram is effectively a line with vertices, e.g. 1-2-4-8 having 4 vertices.
2. For a product of prime powers , it is the Cartesian product of the line graphs corresponding to the contained factors.
If your number has two prime power factors, then this graph is pretty much just a grid, and obviously planar. If your number has four prime factors, then it must admit the non-planar hypercube graph as a subgraph. If your number has exactly 3 prime factors then it seems to be a bit complicated, and I will have to reflect on this a bit. GalacticShoe (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so when there are three prime factors, if at most one of them has a power above 1, then it is planar; this can be seen as drawing the graph is a series of nested squares. In the article for Hasse diagrams, the example given for factors of 60 is a graph of this form that can be rearranged into a planar graph. Meanwhile, I think the graph corresponding to a number (essentially four cubes pasted together in a 2 by 2 grid) is nonplanar, but I can't find a convenient online tool to test planarity, and I'm having an annoying time trying to find a or minor a laKuratowski's theorem. If it is the case that this is nonplanar, then the criterion would be as follows:
The Hasse diagram of the divisors of a positive integer is planar if and only if the integer either has at most 2 prime factors, or it has exactly 3 prime factors of which only one may have a power greater than or equal to 2.
Or more succinctly,
The Hasse diagram of the divisors of a positive integer is planar if and only if the integer has at most 4 semiprime divisors.
This online SageMath program shows that indeed the graph is nonplanar, confirming the condition mentioned. The list of positive integers with nonplanar divisors Hasse diagram, i.e. the list of positive integers with at least 5 semiprime divisors, starts 180, 210, 252, 300, 330, 360, 390, 396, 420, 450, 462, 468... GalacticShoe (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The density along this curve at parameter is given by .
Compute the exact value of the limit
which represents the long-term average density along the curve as .
Can I just use the average value theorem for integrals? Like, isn’t the limit of equal to something in the middle? I would greately appreciate your help here. Thank you. ExtraTerrestrial120 (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mean value theorem is not going to help. It tells you that some point exists, but not how to find it.
Before we can try to help you, could you tell us where the original problem came from and how it was formulated? This specific problem looks utterly implausible, both as an exercise and as a practical problem. ‑‑Lambiam15:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The limit is in fact quite a bit more. In the interest of not spoiling the answer to what I presume is a homework question, I'll simply mention that when , , and when , . GalacticShoe (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My "a bit more" was meant as an understatement. This may originate from a homework question, but if so, and if this is the original homework question, it is a very strange one, bizarrely convoluted to drive a simple point home. Note that the form of the space curve, and in fact everything before and after the imperative "Compute ... ", is irrelevant to the problem as posed. ‑‑Lambiam06:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just misread the limit. I thought it b->0. 20:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
If b were going to 0, this would be a better question (about the definition of the derivative and the fundamental theorem of calculus—still no meaningful connection to density on a curve, though). ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can find information here, also following some links, about the project of nationalizing scholarly books and placing them in the public domain. I see no reason to doubt the propriety of the claim for this specific publication. ‑‑Lambiam01:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Picardy refers to "Barthélemy the Englishman" who apparently referred to "Lower Picardy" as "Hainault". There's no source given, and there are no English people listed under Barthélemy, so do we know who this person is? Rojomoke (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His biography makes him sound kind of left wing, but his recent article criticizing Larry Summers[9] uses the term "free market" enough times to almost sound libertarian. Is there a more nuanced take? Web search finds him criticizing that concept here.[10] Thanks. ~2025-35499-09 (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single-axis 'left and right wing' analysis is a very crude and frankly obsolete analysis of political alignment. There are several two-axis models that may better capture the varieties and combinations of political ideas (see following sections in the linked article), but unfortunately none has become popular enough to take over in popular discourse. (Personally I suspect that a 3-axis model might be required.) In short, what Americans perceive as 'left wing' (which most Europeans would fall over laughing at) need not be incompatible with a 'free market' ideology: the first is usually more of a social position, the latter an economic one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I feel like I've been alone on this until very recently. I've been saying the left and right wing have had no relevance in US politics since Bill Clinton's first term. Recent studies have shown that most US voters are not ideological but are concerned with simple issues like affordability. Most politicians still don't get it because the donor class runs the show, not the people (in the US). Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Policies determining "simple" issues like affordability have a political basis that is rather strongly ideological: they are governed by ideological positions on the question how the combined fruit of the populace's labour should be distributed. The outcome depends on how powerful the involved social parties are. By no longer recognizing the ideological basis, voters become apolitical and lose power in the tug of war over the distribution of wealth. (IMO both dominant parties are to blame, one by having become apolitical itself, the other by disguising their ideology.) ‑‑Lambiam08:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I find it surprising that there are no images depicting something as abstract as a "race to marry and produce heirs". What kind of image did you have in mind? Zacwill (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My copy of Fulford's "Royal Dukes" (Penguin Classic Biography edition) has Gilray's caricature of the Princess Royal's wedding (as seen at Charlotte, Princess Royal) as it's cover illustration. The book does mention that at the time the participants in that farce were widely and pungently satirised in print and in cartoon. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article Andrew Young (poet, born 1885) "The disappearance of his brother David in discreditable circumstances in 1907 so affected him that he gave up his intention to become a barrister and instead studied theology at the local New College". I would like to know more about David, the discreditable circumstances, and did he ever re-appear? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three queries. :-
1. In 2002 there was a recruitment event held in Harrow, My recollection is that it took place at Harrow Lesiure Centre, but current Google Streetview's of that locale don't match up with my memory of the area.
Between 1980 and 2005, there was a nationally respected model shop in Harrow. It closed around 2004(?), although some online directory sites still seem to list it over 20 years later!..
Was the area between Masons Avenue and the railway redeveloped in the 2000's? (I recall a footpath by the side of the railway line, that doesn't seem to exist in the current OpenStreetMap, or Google Streetviews. )
I don't have British Newspaper archive access, and the online sites for local print newspapers, for 2002 (via wayback didn't yeild anything) (Print editions of local 'advertiser' style papers in the United Kingdoms are unlikely to have been digitised at all.)
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion you may already have explored: I believe that if you look on Google Earth Pro, you can set the date to earler years and get an idea of when redevelopments took place. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't (but your suggestion was noted.) (I don't for reasons have an Acccount on Facebook.) I'm ideally looking for verifable print/photo sources, I can put in Inter-Library requests for. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Harrow, but it could be worth searching YouTube for videos uploaded by locals, to see if they cover the locations you are interested in. A search for Harrow 2000 brings up some promising results. ("Harrow 2002" returned a lot of less relevant videos; you could try other years.) -- Verbarson talkedits12:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the leisure centre yet, but possible answers to the other two:
Re. the model shop: I've trawled the British Newspaper Archive. Newspaper adverts from the early 1990s give its name simply as "The Model Shop" and its address as 194 Station Road, south of Harrow and Wealdstone station at the junction of Bonnersfield Lane. It's now a burger restaurant. This forum thread has a great deal of interesting historical information, including details of its earlier premises at 29–31 St Ann's Road. Meanwhile, the Pinner Observer of 13 October 1994 ran a little Q&A with the owner, Arthur Cross (also referred to on that forum thread), on his 60th birthday. Among other things it stated he had been trading in Harrow for 40 years. It was still trading in 1999, when a news report described a child being temporarily blinded in an accident involving an airgun bought in the shop. Separately, this website states that it closed in mid-2005 and "the business has been taken over by Radley Models", which was apparently based at Poulner, Hampshire, although its website no longer exists.
Re. Masons Avenue: the area around the west end of Masons Avenue was redeveloped in the mid-1990s (1995–96, as far as I can tell) with the construction of the relief road (George Gange Way) which took traffic away from the High Street. The London Gazette of 18 April 1996 details the highway improvement Orders raised by the council. On the 1959 OS map I can see a footpath with stairs at the west end leading from Herga Road (close to the Masons Avenue junction) to The Bridge, the road which crosses the railway line just east of Harrow and Wealdstone station. This was exactly where a junction was built with the new George Gange Way, so the route of the footpath was altered – although it still exists (this Google StreetView capture shows it). I can't see any other footpaths in the vicinity of Masons Avenue on old maps. I also found a Harrow Borough Council document online which discusses road improvements in the town centre. As an aside it states this: "The current [road] layout ... dates back to the construction of the George Gange Way and Ellen Webb Drive relief roads in 1995/96, measures aimed at removing through traffic from the main shopping area of the High Street. Ellen Webb Drive and its continuation into Headstone Drive (West) became the east-west route transferring traffic from Canning Road/Headstone Drive route". Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)20:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I do know, is that some Russian(-language) media is restricted in Ukraine (even before the 2022 invasion). This includes RT and Yandex, Russia's own search engine. JuniperChill (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Most Western countries don't block them (though I suspect a lot of East European countries might under laws against communism or the like), and they probably don't block Western countries' access as it is propaganda after all. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, RT's television news service in the UK had their licence revoked by Ofcom within a month of the 2022 invasion, for failing "to comply with the due impartiality rules of [their] Broadcasting Code". [13]Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the dimensions of a normal-sized matchbox? From neutron star:
Neutron star material is remarkably dense: a normal-sized matchbox containing neutron-star material would have a weight of approximately 3 billion tonnes...
Unfortunately the citations for this statement mention neither matchboxes nor the rest of the information in the sentence, so we can't use them to calculate the volume of the matchbox. I've asked another neutron star question at WP:RDS, but it's looking at the weight and density of the star material, not the size of matchboxes. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles on matchboxes suggests that they "generally measure 5 x 3.5 x 1.5 cm", or around 26.3 cubic centimeters. Meanwhile, if we say "approximately 3 billion tonnes" is somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 billion metric tons, and neutron star density is somewhere between 3.7 x 1017 kg/m3 and 5.9 x 1017 kg/m3, this bounds the original volume assumed by whoever wrote that to between around 4.2 and 8.1 cubic centimeters, so I would say that the estimate might be off by a factor around 3-6. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, matchbox size can vary considerably. A long time ago, people used to collect matchboxes for this reason. I would argue, therefore, that there is no general measure. In 2025, people don't smoke as much, and matches are rarely seen these days, but until recently in the US, it was popular for retail establishments to have their own matchboxes made for advertising purposes. As a side note, the final heyday for this kind of thing was the 1990s. Anyhoo, people who would often be active and dine out a lot would collect these things and either dump them in a large flower vase or if they were artistically inclined, mount them in a frame. I'm telling you that the "standard" size of a matchbox basically disappeared a very long time ago. It was likely true in, let's say, the 1950s and 1960s, when there were few companies making them. It hasn't been true in a very long time. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very fair and I certainly haven't come across a matchbox myself in a long time, possibly years; that being said, I do feel like the given size of 5 x 3.5 x 1.5 cm is reasonable, and a matchbox a third that size would be unusually small. But at the order of magnitude of billions of tonnes, a 3-6x difference is really just splitting hairs on my part. GalacticShoe (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have just proven myself wrong. I just scoured my house for a single matchbox, as I knew I had an old one around. Indeed, I found the last matchbox made by the Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, circa 2012 in a drawer. It is exactly 5 x 3.5 x 1.5 cm. The fine print on the side says it was manufactured by Eddy Match, Pembroke, Ontario, but "Made in USA", which seems to imply it was made in Port Huron, Michigan. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I work in a grocery store and we stock packs of multiple matchboxes in our grilling section. The given size matches (snicker) my recollection, but I am not at the store right now to verify. In my experience, unless we consider extra long matches, every matchbox I've seen has been that size. I don't remember businesses having custom matchboxes. I do remember match books with the logos of hotels, restaurants, etc being given out by those businesses. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least five custom matchbox sizes. Until the 1990s, most restaurants, and some bars and clubs made their own matchboxes. Towards the end of this era, the sizes of the boxes started to vary more, with some of the more notable that I remember consisting of the "triangle" size used for weddings, the "mini" size that bars and clubs used to carry, and my personal favorite, the "long" and skinny, which I thought were cool. You can see images of all of these online. Virtually every restaurant had custom matchboxes made for them until maybe 20 years ago, and there were many different sizes to choose from. Matchbooks were a thing before the 1980s, and went out of a style a long, long time ago as people didn't like them, and if you lived in a rainy climate they could easily get destroyed. I remember matchbooks basically disappearing from the restaurant, bar, and club scene in the 1990s as the higher end places started using custom matchboxes instead. By 1995, matchbooks seemed to be on their way out. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. The word "matchbox" to me immediately recalls the 250-count boxes, which are significantly larger than that. This spec sheet gives dimensions of 4.75 inches (12.1 cm) x 1.375 inches (3.49 cm) x 2.5 inches (6.4 cm).
If the dates here on Wikipedia are to be believed, Hey would have been 27 at the time. Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that apparently Hey did appear in the video, but as the woman in the giant test tube, not the girl. I guess some people didn't do their due diligence and just assumed that the "extra" female name in the credits must refer to the girl. I couldn't find the name of the girl (or any information about her, really) either. Long is the way (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To a historian of the 31st century (if there are still historians then), they will look very similar. For someone born in 1950, they may have looked more different while living through them. In general, it depends very much upon what one focuses (culture, economy, politics, technology, ...?) and from which perspective (that of an Appalachian miner, a South-African police officer, a Vietnamese scholar of economics, ...?). See our article on the 1970s and the 1980s and decide for yourself what strikes you as significant differences. In any case, the periodization in decades creates artificial boundaries ‑‑Lambiam15:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Anglosphere, the rise of Neoliberalism? Reaganomics in the USA and Thatcherism in the UK had profound effects on the economy and society as a whole. Whether this is a greater difference than between other decades is debatable; the 1960s were radically different from the 1950s for example. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1970s were post-pill, pre-AIDS. There's a reason people joke about not remembering them; it seems like it was the last time for adults to have "fun" without as much consequence as there had been earlier or would be later. --Golbez (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is quite irrelevant, but our article Bodhisattva says that "Chinese Buddhists generally use the term pusa (菩薩)" to mean "bodhisattva", i.e. "a person who has attained, or is striving towards, bodhi ('awakening', 'enlightenment') or Buddhahood". This book, Asia in the Making of Europe, refers to "Kuan-yin, usually called simply Pussa (p'u-sa), the popular Chinese term for bodhisattva." Kuan-yin seems to be Wikipedia's Guanyin, who "has been more commonly depicted as female in China and most of East Asia since about the 12th century". --Antiquary (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's highly relevant! Re Kuan-yin, yes, she is Guanyin, who is more or less Avalokiteśvara in Indian etc Buddhism. As for Brewer - yet another wholly unreliable Victorian source we should not be bothering with. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Brewer's, it records 'Phrases and Fables', with the latter including " historical or literary allusions". The 'triple goddess' thing was likely a mistaken idea about Pussa that some European had spread and which was mentioned in European literary works, so the publication (Brewer himself died in 1897, the 18th Edition was published in 2009) could be explaining those allusions without necessarily implying that they're accurate . . .
. . . though it would be helpful if it mentioned that they aren't. Perhaps someone should send a copy of this discussion to Susie Dent, who edited the most recent two editions of 2012 and 2018, so that a clarification can be included in the next if the mention of Pussa is still present.
(Amusing coincidence department. In 1991 I was offered an editorial position at the OUP, but for logistical and other reasons decided to turn it down. If I'd accepted it, I would have become a colleague of Ms Dent.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Hindu's use the names of gods when naming children. Arjun, Hari, Chandra, Indira, Kali, Lakshmi, Naranya, Rama, Parvati etc etc are all common names. And yes it's the same for Buddhist figures - names such as Ananda, Tenzin, Tara, Dolma, Jampa, etc etc. Nanonic (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The generally reliable John F. Burton claims[1] that Ludwig Koch recorded (on wax cylinder or disc) a Quagga in Frankfurt Zoo. The subspecies is now extinct, and the recording supposedly lost.
However, Koch was born in 1881 and our article says that "...the quagga was extinct in the wild by 1878. The last captive specimen died in Amsterdam on 12 August 1883." and "The specimen in London died in 1872 and the one in Berlin in 1875."
So what is Burton talking about? Some other now-extinct species, perhaps? Or do we have the date of extinction wrong?
If Frankfurt did have a specimen, when did it die?
[I will post a pointer to this discussion, on the science ref desk.]
I suspect that Burton has misunderstood some account of Koch's activities which used the word quagga in a looser sense than a modern zoologist would. The Dictionary of South African English website says that "In earlier times the distinctions between the different species were not always noted, but the name ‘quagga’ is now used primarily for the extinct Equus quagga, a zebra once found at the southern tip of Africa and now recognised, from genetic information, as a sub-species of E. burchelli" (my bolding). Its citations include:
1979 "Two boys found guilty of malicious injury to property after shooting a Quagga at their local zoo...worked weekends at the same zoo."
1990 "Fifteenth annual sale of game — Werksplaas Tshipise. Game species:...15 Quagga."
That might, incidentally, also explain my own faint memory of seeing film footage of a quagga when I was a child. All my life I've wondered what on earth it could have been. --Antiquary (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Koch (born in Frankfurt) was recording animals and birds by the age of 8/9 ("His 1889 recording of the song of a white-rumped shama (Kittacincla malabarica) is the first-known recording of bird song"), so it's not improbable that he recorded a zebra at Frankfurt Zoo around that age.
From Quagga we know (as Antiquary mentions) that the name was applied to zebra in general in their native habitat ("The name is still used colloquially for the plains zebra" [Equus quagga]), and that quagga (now Equus quagga quagga) were first identified as a separate species only in 1778, so confusion is understandable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Koch's own memoir makes this claim, which is a bit questionable. I can't find any evidence that Frankfurt Zoo ever had a quagga - but what it did have, according to this 1873 guide, was Burchell's zebra, a closely related subspecies (Equus quagga burchellii instead of Equus quagga quagga). It's possible that it was either labelled as a quagga when Koch was there, or (since he talks about it being the "last of the quagga species") he retroactively labelled it as a quagga - it's not extinct, but it was at one point believed to be so (genetic analysis has since revealed that some wild plains zebras are true Burchell's). Smurrayinchester13:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice from its article that one of E. q. burchellii's common names was/is bontequagga. It seems to me not unlikely that when the young Koch made his recording, Frankfurt Zoo's specimen(s) was(were) labelled "Quagga". (Zoos, I noticed decades ago, were sometimes slow to update their information panels.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 22:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC) ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason on why did the Enlightenment caused the shift from religious lifestyle to a more secular lifestyle? This was a Renaissance that revived classical cultures and arts. But why did the religion decline much further in Europe on modern and contemporary times, since the early 21st century and further? How did the knowledge changed since 18th century? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one thing, it's the emergence of a new thing from the interaction of many things, in this case, the revival of rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism. And as new as it was, keep in mind how old these ideas are and how the Enlightenment was only one recent iteration. You can go back in time and see these things play out over and over again. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." Or more to the point: "Art begins in imitation and ends in innovation." Looking towards the past allowed them to bypass the religious institutional restraints on current ways of thinking and create something entirely new. This is how it is always done. We look to the past to create our future. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The European wars of religion, for which religion was always only one of the causes, mostly came to a halt in 1648. The Age of Enlightenment followed this, mostly in the 18th century, and religiosity amongst upper class people dropped. By then, people were no longer prosecuted for adhering to the wrong religion (mostly), but still weren't allowed to build churches for the wrong religion. The wave of revolutions at the end of the 18th century, including the French Revolution, made states religiously neutral, removing most pressure on people to adhere to any religion in particular, but most charity was still provided by churches. The next step (and the core of the answer to the question) was the rise of socialism in the late 19th and early 20th century, so that people in difficult times could get support from the state, labour unions and socialist political parties. With the new idea that religion is the opium of the people, religiosity amongst the lower classes entered a sharp decline. When labour parties reached the peak of their power during the post-WW2 reconstruction and build the welfare state, religion no longer served a purpose. The next generation didn't join church life.
I wouldn't be surprised if the current wave of neoliberalism, sending society back towards the 1860s, when entire families lived in flooded single-room basements whilst their employers lived in palaces, and large scale immigration from more religious countries (mostly Muslims), would reverse this secularisation. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By then, people were no longer prosecuted for adhering to the wrong religion (mostly)
People were prosecuted for being a Muslim or Jew. This cannot be labeled as adhdering to the wrong denomination of Christianity. ‑‑Lambiam21:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Avocado meant to say, in some form, 'wrong religion or wrong denomination of Christianity' but the comment got borked in some way.
(I could make an argument that technically Islam can be classified as a denomination of Christianity (of a nontrinitarian form that was more widespread in the 7th and earlier centuries, but which has otherwise largely died out), but that's not a discussion to be had here :-) .) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is vim's substitute command. Applying, in vim, the command
s/religion/denomination of Christianity
(the optional closing / is omitted) to the text
By then, people were no longer prosecuted for adhering to the wrong religion (mostly)
results in its being replaced by
By then, people were no longer prosecuted for adhering to the wrong denomination of Christianity (mostly)
On reconsideration, the intention behind this change is ambiguous. Rather than non-assertion of religious prosecution of Muslims and Jews before Enlightenment, the intention may have been to note their continued prosecution afterwards. ‑‑Lambiam09:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the ambiguity. Yes. I meant that while persecution of people following the "wrong" denomination of Christianity became much more rare, persecution of Muslims, Jews, and followers of non-Abrahamic religions continued. While in Western Europe some legal restrictions were loosened or lifted, discrimination continued; and in formerly more tolerant parts of Eastern Europe, in many cases persecution escalated. See also pogrom. (TBF, prosecution decreased afaik, with the Inquisition less actively pursued.) -- Avocado (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all countries were equally tolerant. In my country (Netherlands), Jews (the only significant non-Christian group) were tolerated (viewed with suspicion, but not burned at the stake or forced to convert) in the 17th–18th century, but only Protestant Christians could openly build places of worship. Tolerance was a good move financially and the Republic was ruled by money. Only in some Catholic-majority areas the Catholics were permitted to build their own churches (after the Protestant minority had taken the old Catholic churches, converted them to Protestantism and repaired them with public money). But given the large number of Jews who fled from Portugal to the Netherlands, I suppose the Portuguese were less tolerant. Maybe republics were generally more tolerant than monarchies. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Althought his oath to Hitler, was he remained loyal to Kaiser Wilhelm II in exile until his death?
The Kaiser released all military personnel from their oath of allegiance on 28 November 1918. (Herwig, The German Naval Officer Corps, p. 264). —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question with no significance. What could Rommel, loyal or not (probably not), possibly have done for Willy while he was in exile? Drop off a bundt cake? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The booklet "La Anarquia explicada a los niños" ("Anarchism explained to the children") was published in 1931 by Max Bembo (a pseudonym of José Ruíz Rodríguez, aka Emmanuel José Antonio). Archive dot org has a copy of an undated later edition here, with a cover picture which is not attributed. There's a sticker in the corner saying "1959", but idk whether that's the date of the printing, or the edition, or the picture.
The book was published in 1931, and the cover of the re-issue is undoubtedly a faithful reproduction of the original cover, so the image, which looks to me like linocut but was perhaps a line drawing in a style suggestive of woodcut or linocut, was almost certainly created in 1931 or perhaps late 1930. It is signed "R. Pujol P.", which possibly (or even probably) stands for "Ramón Pugol Pinxit". This could be the artist Ramón Pugol (1907–1981), but this is a rather common Catalan name, and I see no other work attributed to this Pujol in a similar style. ‑‑Lambiam21:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a split responsibility. The current Administrative Arrangements Order, dated 13 May 2025, lists "Biosecurity, in relation to animals and plants" as the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and "Biosecurity, in relation to human health" as the responsibility of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. How that actually works at the coalface, I do not know. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]22:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess (following a breadcrumb trail from former agencies and departments) it would be the Department of Home Affairs. It would be handy though if someone who's actually crossed the Australian border has any documentation they picked up at the time. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(blacklisted link: www.change.org/p/nominate-sam-altman-as-a-living-saint ) Is there really such a thing as living sainthood? I thought saints had to be deceased before canonization. Living saint just redirects to saint. Thanks, ~2025-38367-99 (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the petition gives a hint which of the two applies. But if the product of delusion, it is even funnier. ‑‑Lambiam09:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be established that there is an ancient cult of veneration of the blessed Samuel, vicarious financial martyr through his sacrificial loss of Other People's Money, for which the nomination linked to provides some evidence, albeit only contemporary, the Pope might consider equivalent canonization. ‑‑Lambiam09:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But, as our Saint article notes, canonisation provides an official recognition of sainthood. Saints live among us; they're just not yet recognised by the Church, and most will never be. (The article did say "...in Heaven" further down, but I just removed this because it relied on a citation from Pope Francis which also says there are saints on earth.) Marnanel (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The website referred to by the OP can be read as bitter sarcasm. The proposal for a living sainthood is an ironic emphasis on the societal benefits (vs a potential dystopia) of Sam Altman´s involvement in AI. To "AI or not to AI" is a complex and controversial topic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a cynical observation: If literate speakers of the English language can´t differentiate between a neutral declarative statement and satyrical hyperbole, we should do something to support NI (natural intelligence)... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current article for the Bell X-2 research airplane states that test pilot Mel Apt was the first person to exceed Mach 3, doing so on September 27th 1956 moments before dying when the plane crashed. However, the article also states that, 20 days earlier, fellow test pilot Iven Kincheloe reached an altitude of 126,500 ft and a maximum speed of 2000 mph. That said, though, other sources I have read say Kincheloe's top speed was 1500 mph, but the FAI accepts the 2000 mph figure, as does the US Air Force Museum. If Kincheloe did indeed reach 2000 mph, given the speed of sound at 126,000 feet, is it possible that he, not Apt, ought to be credited as the first person to reach Mach 3? ~2025-38533-33 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Search engine enquiries which yielded impressive looking calculations inform me that at this altitude Mach 1 is approximately 704 mph (thus Mach 3 = 2,112 mph), but also (of course) that the speed of sound in air is dependent on its temperature and density, both of which can vary. I presume that these factors may have been measured at the time, and that the researchers might have mentioned if Kincheloe had indeed attained Mach 3; however the above suggests that given average conditions, Kincheloe fell at least 5.6% short.
Fair enough. That said, I've seen conflicting statements of exactly what Mach 1 at 126,000 ft is, with some placing it, as you do, at 704 mph but others placing it as low as 660 mph. I'll have to do more research into this, but until I do I'll refrain from changing anything in the article.
The earliest cite in the OED Online is for 1919, when the Manchester Guardian used "World War No. 2" as a heading. (Obviously they were speculating about the future.) The next cite is from Time (magazine) in 1939, a week after the invasion of Poland: "Some of the diplomatic juggling which last week ended in World War II was old-fashioned international jockeying for power." --~2025-38436-32 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well found. This seems important enough that I uploaded and transcribed the article.
The Supreme Court is established by Article Three of the United States Constitution. As far as I can see it does not require any qualifications at all for who may sit on the court, not even age or citizenship, much less status as a lawyer. I do not know whether Congress has established any such qualifications by statute. I imagine that would be within their authority; this does not seem to be explicit in the article, but they do establish, for example, the number of justices. --Trovatore (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VIP-hood is not a formal status; the level of deference with which the SCOTUS justices are treated is up to any hosting organization or similar. The US is somewhat peculiar in that many citizens can name all SCOTUS members. In most countries, the appointment of members of the highest national judicial court is not a news item. An overwhelming majority of people would not be able to name even a single member of this court and would also not recognize their names, and the members will not expect, in general, any special treatment beyond standard courtesy. ‑‑Lambiam12:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changes in the ANAP Ideology According to the Manifesto Project Database
According to data from the Manifesto Project Database, the ANAP's election manifesto in the 1999 Turkish general election suddenly shifted sharply to the left compared to 1995 — to the point that it became more left-wing than established social-democratic parties such as the CHP and the DSP. Statistically, it jumped from being the second-most right-wing party to the most left-wing one.
This really surprised me, because in my impression the ANAP has always been a center-right party. So the question is: Did the ANAP actually undergo a major ideological shift during this period, or is there a problem with the Manifesto Project Database’s coding/methodology, or is something else going on? Ataled (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked at the Manifesto Project Database, but I suppose that any appearance of a shift to the left was an optical illusion designed to deceive the electorate. If so, it did not help. The government at the time was an ANAP-led coalition whose other members were the Democratic Left Party and the Democrat Turkey Party. ANAP lost 46 of its 132 parliamentary seats in the 1999 Turkish general election, a stunning defeat. To remain in the government after this defeat, they had to join again a coalition, now led by the Democratic Left Party but also containing the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (think Grey Wolves), which they did without qualms. ‑‑Lambiam13:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the root of the names of Maria Yellow Horse Brave Heart? Brave Heart is used as her de facto family name in the article... but I don't assume that she was born into a family with this family name & has received the given names Maria, Yellow, and Horse?! --KnightMove (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but that does not help directly - even the less as those persons were far from having family names. Was she named Yellow Horse at first, Brave Heart later, or the other way round? Or otherwise? Who gave her the "White" name Maria then? --KnightMove (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the full name for the academic degree "Pd. B."? It's not clear to me what degree that would be, issued before a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Science. Lovelano (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OED's first usage is from the January 1994 number of Online magazine: "What attracted librarians to the Internet? For some cybernauts, USENET, IRC, and the other social media of the net are the hooks." Of course, that just means that's the first usage they're aware of. --Antiquary (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason by David Ingram in 1985. The relevant quote (referring, of course, to Jürgen Habermas) is: The analytical differentiation and quasi-transcendental grounding of cognitive interests, disciplines, spheres of action, and social media propounded in his Frankfurt inaugural address of 1965 thus marked a significant departure from the hermeneutically conceived unity of theory and practice evident in his earlier work.
So it goes back to 1985, or if you can find the lecture, to 1965. Given that I have no idea what any of that sentence means, I cannot begin to guess what he might have meant by "social media" either in 1965 or 1985. -- Verbarson talkedits17:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1929 book Personality and the social group contains a use of "social media".[16] I don't think these early uses have the same basic meaning. Specifically, I think we see the plural of "social medium", in which "medium" means a context or means in which or by which processes take place, so together this would mean some social context. On the next page we find a use of singular "social medium".[17] Habermas writes, for example, about "the medium of social labor and class struggle".[18] ‑‑Lambiam20:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While period is a common English word, used as a noun, and adjective, and in North America also as an interjection, periodt is confined to being used as a slang interjection. The suitability of either depends on the context of the use. ‑‑Lambiam17:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd be unsure, period would be the safest bet. (This is the first time I have heard about periodt. Or, I might have come across it, but assumed it was a simple typo.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The interjection was originally pronounced with an emphatically devoiced final /t/.[19] You can also find it spelled as periot.[20] There is something about its history here. The spelling periodt came after the spoken form.
In general, there is no known way to understand why one slang term catches on like a firestorm while others quickly fizzle out, just like one carelessly discarded cigarette butt may cause a wildfire while most cause no major harm. I guess it is a matter of landing in a receptive place, mostly by chance. There is also a Dutch Riot Grrrl punk band by the name Periot,[21] which may be a coincidence or a conscious repurposing of the term. ‑‑Lambiam22:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, Periot ends on riot. I don't know how the Dutch band pronounce their name; like P-riot (/ˌpiˈɹaɪ.ət/)? ‑‑Lambiam06:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stadt seems to be a very unique case as a noun where the part containing the -dt is not derived from an adjective. The main purpose here seems to be to distinguish Stadt = City from the old-fashioned Statt (= Location, Place, but besides physical location there also exists the figurative an seiner Statt = in his place, which might link to stat = instead of). According to [22], the distinction between Stadt and Stadt originated in the 16th century. Nowadays, Stätte is more commonly used than Statt, although even Stätte has a somewhat old-fashioned feel to it. -- ~2025-36771-01 (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the use of "period" to describe a puctuation mark is not used in British English where the same mark is called a full stop. "Period" here describes a passage of time or colloquially, menstruation, giving rise to any number of schoolboy jokes. Alansplodge (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Period" is used that way in American English as well, but it's just one of many uses. For example, a given class time in school, as in, "there will be a quiz next period". Or as in the type of a magazine, which is a periodical. I wonder if Brits call it a "fullstopical". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Period" is also used for a lesson slot in the timetable in some British schools (or was when I was at school). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "period" in the magazine type refers to a regular timing of publication rather than a punctuation mark. It's a known term here but sounds rather dated to me. Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think its increasingly common for Brits (especially the younger generation) to use American English more, namely because they're exposed to American media more than their own. One factor is that the US has 5x the population of the UK. This is the reason why I feel like train station is more common than railway station (although Wikipedia articles on UK stations still use X railway station). Same goes with saying November 30 rather than 30 November (spoken as 'the 30th of November'), except that date formats are always dd/mm(/yyyy). And I don't really hear the word encyclopedia much to the point I feel like encyclopaedia is a mispelling to me. JuniperChill (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say "see the word encyclopedia". In any case, the Wikipedia article encyclopedia says Following Noah Webster's spelling reform, the spelling of the word varies between encyclopedia in American English, [and] encyclopaedia in British English (although the spelling encyclopedia is increasingly gaining acceptance) which likely explains why I've always used the American spelling as a Bruit. JuniperChill (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does English have any words which have two semivowels on both sides of a vowel, such as a made-up words wawe, which would be pronounced [weɪw] and yaye, which would be pronounced [jeɪ̯j]?
--40bus (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; the second W doesn't contribute a semivowel sound. "Wawa" works, but it's a proper name (a place name, a business name, etc.), not really an English word. --~2025-36752-20 (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the second ⟨w⟩ in Wawa a plain /w/, like it is in stowaway (/ˈstəʊəˌweɪ/)? I think it is the other way around: the first ⟨w⟩ in wow is not a semivowel. But dayowl (seen here) should work. So would windowowl, should these critters become common enough to warrant their receiving a univerbated moniker. ‑‑Lambiam12:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're both non-syllabic vocoids, aka semivowels aka glides aka (subset of) approximants. English phonotactics prohibits them from occurring in coda except as the second components of diphthongs. Nardog (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the sender knew the recipient to be able to read texts written using the Armenian alphabet, both courtesy and common sense strongly suggest they would have used a script that was more readily accessible to the recipient, in this hypothetical case presumably the Ottoman Turkish version of the Arabo-Persian script. Even if (not unlikely) the recipient was illiterate, they should have had little difficulty in finding someone who could read it to them. And, if the sender had not mastered the Ottoman Turkish alphabet (also not unlikely), they would have dictated the letter to a kâtip (scribe). BTW, having "Ottoman nationality" sounds anachronistic; your hypothetical correspondents are more plausibly referred to as having been "Ottoman subjects". ‑‑Lambiam11:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any attestation of a combining prefix for Asia (Asio-? Aso-?) on the pattern of Euro-, Afro-, Indo- or Sino-? The coining of terms like "Asia-Pacific" seems to suggest a consensus rejection of such a thing, and Google turns up basically nothing. Still, though, it seems odd that we lack one. ~2025-31275-58 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checked as many Wikipedia articles as I could to find expected prefixes. I can't guarantee that in all of these cases the Asia in question is Asia, but I've tried my best to separate out the ones that aren't (e.g. Asiabadus named after Asiabad, and Asio which is named after the Latin asiō for horned owls.) Unsurprisingly, Asia- frequently shows up, prevalently in biological names:
Thank you both. I didn't think the council would provide the reasons why their logo is stylised that way, but I'm guessing is because of the fact people have asked about why the logo is different to the spelling. JuniperChill (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of the reason, but logos are chosen to promote as well as identify their owners and Edinburgh Council probably want people to talk about the historic buildings in the Old Town. TSventon (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a Celtic style to me. Classical writing didn't really have lower case. It evolved as a kind of cursive writing, until the different cases started to be used for different functions. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Largely" historically correct, as a conscious distinction between U and V didn't happen until about 1500 years later. (I guess it should have been "VVHEELS", as well, but details...) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that other languages call the letter W 'double V' and in German, its pronounced [v]. And the letter W is not apart of the Italian alphabet. JuniperChill (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I somehow happen to stumble the (also Scottish) band Chvrches, pronounced as churches. Found the first use of V instead of U when not in all caps, as Wikipedia has titled it that way. JuniperChill (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The font is eclectic; while the is uncial, the other letters (particularly the D and H) are not. The DINBVRGH part is more like a freestyle form of the classic Roman square capitals as found on Trajan's column; note the irregular heights and slants. While the majuscules of several typefaces have a Trajan-inspired freestyle form, I think these in the logo are not from any paricular identifiable typeface, but that the lettering was done by the logo's designer specifically for this one logo. ‑‑Lambiam14:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does English have any words where semivowel /ɪ/ is spelled ⟨y⟩?
Does English have any words which have two rhotics on both sides of first syllable vowel, as in made-up words rark and rirn? --40bus (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also "rare", "rarify", etc.; "reredos", "reremouse", "rerun" (and doubtless other "re + r-" prefixed words); "rorqual", "rort" (australian slang); "rural"; and various words from or imitative of foreign languages such as "Rorschach" and "Ruritania". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I asked what 40bus meant by "semivowel /ɪ/". In all of these "short i" examples (the one that came to my mind was myth), the /ɪ/ isn't a semivowel; it's just a vowel. Deor (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, "Weird Al" Yankovic has recently made a joke video where he complains about his surname being mispronounced with soft '-ch' not hard 'k', but then begins to wonder if he's been mispronouncing it, and that he's turned into a parody of himself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can the manga be "originally published between between 2013 and 2016" if there is only one volume according to the infobox? Trade (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that it was originally published in monthly installments in the manga magazine X-EROS (alongside installments of various other stories), and only afterwards (re)published complete in its own volume. This is a common comics practice worldwide. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our article specifically mentions: Henshin was first serialized in Japan in Comic X-Eros from 26 July 2013 to 26 March 2016. Before being published as a single tankōbon volume. As the temp account above mentions, this is a pretty standard practice. Amstrad00 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So then "Volumes 1" is incorrect. The hentai originally appeared in serialized form in seven installments, each being one chapter, distributed across issues of Comic X-Eros that were published within a time span of almost three years. It seems that the magazine does not use volume numbers. ‑‑Lambiam09:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I’m curious about something I’ve noticed in everyday objects. Many common items, which are like pens, bottle caps, envelopes, or packaging, often have small design features (grooves, holes, ridges, extra folds, etc.) that don’t seem immediately necessary for their main function.
Are these features usually there for manufacturing reasons, safety regulations, patents, cost savings, or something else? I’d appreciate an explanation or examples of how such “small design choices” end up in everyday products.
Probably all of the above, although not all at the same time. It may also be the case that they are actually functional. Grooves may offer additional grip. Crown corks have a ridged rim for manufacturing reasons, as a byproduct of the crimping process. In twist-off caps these ridges have actually become functional. Our article Ballpoint pen explains why their caps have holes: for safety. Another non-functional reason may be the esthetics of the product, as seen in decorative hubcaps and other non-functional trim used to pimp up cars. If distinctive enough, a design may offer protection against copy cats; see Industrial design right. ‑‑Lambiam00:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Special occasion stationary envelopes have all sorts of unnecessary design features, from vintage wax seals to string-tie or even magnetic closures. Then you've got a choice of lining and texture, accents, embossing, engravings, the list is endless. None of these design features are necessary. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but special occasion envelopes hardly qualify as "everyday objects", so it remains open whether "everyday" envelopes can be found with seemingly unnecessary design-features. If such exist, we'd need to know what these features are before attempting to answer the question of their whyness. ‑‑Lambiam07:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The flap of an envelope isn't strictly necessary. The size and shape of the flap is therefore a largely arbitrary choice, similar to the bumps and ridges of plastic objects. Some are triangular, some are rectangular, etc. ~2025-36066-72 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better if you offered up a specific example of something you'd like more information on? Two (to build on Lambian's reply) of the most common everyday item features I see explained are the holes in Bic pens. As our article explains, the hole in the side of the tube of the pen is there to equalize air pressure and hole at the end of the cap cover is to reduce the risk of choking, should someone ingest it and get it stuck in their windpipe. Matt Deres (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Unnecessary" is a very loaded term. Is the internet necessary? People have developed quite an attachment to it, and if it suddenly ceased to exist there'd be a great deal of chaos. But before it existed, was there a widespread desire for such a thing? Did people keenly feel its lack, or did they just go about their internetless business blissfully unaware of what they weren't missing? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]17:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the many centuries during which waiting weeks or more for a letter to arrive was the norm, I'm sure people desired near-instant communication across great distances. But want isn't need. Almost everyone wants clothes, but they aren't necessary. ~2025-36226-46 (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of environmental protection. Regardless of of nudity taboos, there are large parts of the world that are too cold, or when the sun is too strong for humans to thrive or even survive without clothes. And given that clothes need to be removed to be cleaned or repaired, you'll usually need at least some duplicate items. Iapetus (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud, as always, your pedantry, but note the OP's specific request is around design features "that don’t seem immediately necessary for their main function." (emphasis mine). So, the question isn't whether the Internet is necessary, it's about design features of the Internet that might not seem necessary to its function (but perhaps are - or at least have an interesting story to tell). For example, people might not know that the http:// at the beginning of web addresses is to distinguish it from other transfer protocols like ftp and gopher. As those protocols became deprecated and support waned, the need for that went away and now most browsers don't bother showing it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted, it might be useful to link to specific products and features, and we can get more specific. Extra grooves/ridges/holes/creases can be added to a product to add or maintain strength/rigidity with less material. (You can't stand a flat sheet of paper on edge, but you can stand a sheet of paper with vertical creases.)
Ridges and nubbins of various sorts may also be artefacts of various manufacturing and processes: places where a sprue was attached, or flash where there was a boundary between parts of a mould, or witness marks where tooling was applied. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to add to the above, injection-moulded plastic parts generally benefit from keeping the wall thickness reasonably consistent where it is practical, as uneven thickness can lead to uneven cooling, making distortion after the object is released from the mould more likely. Saving material by hollowing out to a consistent wall thickness is good, but in terms of the economic benefit, the ability to produce parts faster without distortion may be the deciding factor, and lead to design features that save little material being incorporated even when they make tooling manufacture more complex. Back in the days when I designed injection-moulded parts, one had to resort to guesswork as to whether it was really worth the effort in edge cases, but I'm sure it can be done through software now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Design features which are of no interest or use to the end user can arise for many, many reasons:molded jarmolded bottle
As User:TenOfAllTrades already mentioned, injection molded parts tend to have various nubs left over from the sprues which are a necessary part of the molding process.
Molded bottles and jars often have one or two circumferentially-oriented wedge-shaped depressions on the bottom (see images). I assume (although I've never verified this) that these are to make it easier to eject the finished bottle from its mold.
A complicated part may need an extra hole in it solely for someone to pass a screwdriver or wrench through, in order to tighten a fastener. For example, this pulley [ external image ] for a flat belt has holes in its face, which don't affect its function, but allow access to the setscrews which attach the pulley to the shaft.
There are a bunch of other design-for-ities. We have an article which lists several. Another example from my field is Design for testability, although this doesn't result in physical features that an end user is likely to notice. And my favorite example, which I've never even seen discussed anywhere, is "Design for Shippability", a term that popped into my head when I figured out why the wheels of this recycling toter (see image to right) toter wheel have offset holes in them. Another manifestation of Design for Shippability is when you buy something that says "some assembly required": they're not making you finish the assembly so that they can cut down on their manufacturing costs; no, they're arranging that the disassembled parts can fit into a smaller box, with less wasted space, for more efficient shipping.
Hello there, while the The Source OC had been proposed before its construction, and this began in August 2012 and was developed by M+D Properties, what was the originality of this shopping mall, and why did it become a home to many Korean-owned businesses, despite its mixed-use development? Did this shopping center originally had American-owned businesses and tenants? And how did you find out? ~2025-35811-87 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like M+D Properties itself has a Korean connection:[24]
Chief Executive Officer: Donald Chae
Chief Financial Officer: Donald Chae
Director: Donald Chae
Secretary: Donald Chae
Based on his employment record, interior designer Yoon Chang has been involved with the project.[25]
What with the large influx of Koreans in northern Orange County,[26] the developer (possibly Chae, who is also a real estate agent[27]) must have sensed a business opportunity. ‑‑Lambiam16:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources for Blumenbach's five-race classification, one of which was the "Ethiopean race". William Henry Flower supported a three-race classification, likewise including an "Ethiopean race". The topic Menschenracen in the ur-edition of Meyers Konversations-Lexikon presented a four-race classification.[29] All were very much 19th-century theories. None used the term Ethiopid, nor is it clear that the latter term, in theories that use it, means the same as Negroid. ‑‑Lambiam01:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of 31 December 2019, Shell had total proved reserves of 11.1 billion barrels (1.76×109 m3) of oil equivalent.
What's a good jurisdiction-independent word for the right to control oil reserves? This sentence's use of "had" is sufficiently vague, but because it's close to "proved", it looks like a misplaced auxiliary verb, and I'd like to change it. But perhaps "owned" is incorrect (can it own reserves if one merely owns the right to extract them from someone else's land?) and perhaps "controlled" is insufficient (perhaps the landowner "controls" oil rights even after selling the rights to Shell?), so I'm not clear on the right terminology. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The collocation "had proved reserves" is not uncommon: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. You can avoid it by using, "Shell's proved resources amounted to 11.1 billion barrels". (The use of "total" is IMO redundant.) ‑‑Lambiam23:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today I noticed an icon in page histories that looks like a chess pawn and links to info about the username just to the right of it. Is that something new, or has it always been there and I failed to see it until today? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Culture and cuisine also varies considerably across the contiguous United States, so the main differences are to be expected in what is unique to Alaska. Indigenous culture is more influential in Alaska than in the other continental states. There are (depending on how you count) 22 indigenous languages, 18 of which are official languages of Alaska. There are many indigenous dishes not found in other states; other than these, the cuisine can largely be described as Pacific Northwest cuisine, not unique to Alaska but different from the cuisines of most states. The Iditarod is extremely popular; I can't readily think of a similarly popular state-bound event in any other state. There is probably much more; I've never been to Alaska and don't know any Alaskans personally. Oh, and Alaskans may think they are more rugged than people from other states, but such state-centric chauvinism is not unique to Alaska. ‑‑Lambiam15:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "main difference", but when I think of Alaska, the first things that pop to mind are:
Unlike most other states, Alaska is not subdivided into counties, but rather boroughs. (But it is not quite unique in this regard, as Louisiana is divided into non-county parishes.)
Historically, the finest-scale USGStopographic maps for most of Alaska were 1:63,360 scale, unlike the 1:24,000 and 1:25,000 maps for the other 49 states. (But it looks like, since 2018, they're making 1:25,000 maps for Alaska, also.)
County vs borough vs parish is really just a difference in terminology. Alaska's boroughs and Louisiana's parishes are included in lists alongside the counties of other states because they serve the same purposes. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say that Alaska is unique in that the (organized) county-equivalents do not cover the whole state; but then I remembered reading that the counties of Connecticut are now mere statistical units, with no administrative function, so they are comparable to the Unorganized Borough. —Antonissimo (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're different. As copyright states, it covers only specific creative works. Culture that gets appropriated hijacked is a broader, more nebulous subject. It can, I suppose, include creative works (if books like Shakespeare and Cultural Appropriation can be taken seriously), but includes many things that can't be copyrighted. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriation is making that which belongs to someone else your own. Depending on who, how and what, this may be legal or it may be unlawful. And even when it is perfectly legal, it may be wrong (in someone's point of view).
Copyright infringements are, by definition, unlawful. Copyright is protected by law. The expressions of a group of people that are part of their shared cultural identity – use of language, dress, hairstyle, songs, and so on – are generally not copyrightable and not protected by law. Infringing such expressions without respect for their significance may be wrong, but is nevertheless legally permitted.
A specific example may be helpful. Rastas have dreadlocks. To them, this has a religious spiritual significance, connecting them to the universe and Earth. When this is copied just because it makes the wearer look like they are a cool dude, they experience this as a disrespectful appropriation of an important aspect of their culture. But what can they do about it? They have no copyright or any other claim to an exclusive right on dreadlocks. ‑‑Lambiam13:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone point me to where I might find out the first man to win a women’s sports title? I am working on a school report and would like to find something inspirational. Thanks! Kevinscottwalker (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it's obvious that any number of transmen are likely to have won sports titles at their schools before coming out or transitioning. If this is not what you meant, please clarify that you are only wanting examples of titles meeting some specified criteria of notability, or that you are only interested in cisgender males.-Gadfium (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can perhaps be inspirational for a school report. This may be the first documented case; it will be difficult to prove definitively that it is the actual first case among the several thousand women’s sports titles awarded up to 1966. ‑‑Lambiam21:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I had an image of it I could directly post here, it would probably be in Wikimedia Commons or something and it would have a description that identifies the animal in question, but obviously I don't have that yet. I can link to an image of the animal, though. https://postimg.cc/QVk75NbsMEN KISSING (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, thank you for pointing me in the direction of anteaters! But it looks like more of a Southern tamandua based on what I could find on Wikimedia Commons. Thank you, though!
Southern Tamandua - Sunshine International Aquarium, Tokyo, Japan
No, I'm the same. This is the distal interphalangeal joint of the 4th digit (3rd/ring finger), but I can't find any reference to this particular slight limitation of forced motion (in at least some of us), as opposed to this digit's reduced independence and strength of voluntary motion, which is understood (though not well explained in Wikipedia as far as I can find). I've wondered this too, so I hope someone else can find an explanation, thought I suspect it's trivial. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hypermobile joints are common and occur in about 10 to 25% of the population. So it's not "just you" who can bend their fingers backwards. The degree differs from individual to individual; contortionists are unusually high on the hypermobility spectrum (a term I just invented for this response, but I see we have an article on Hypermobility spectrum disorder). Just like hypermobility of a specific joint can be due to an injury, so can limited mobility, so a potential explanation for lack of hypermobility in specific finger joints of an individual whose other fingers can bend somewhat backwards is a prior injury, perhaps so mild that it went unnoticed at the time but just sufficient to reduce its mobility permanently. But it may be relevant that the ring finger and thumb are the ones that are most commonly affected in trigger finger, a problem that has generally no known cause. The cause of ring fingers being more commonly affected (for which I have not seen an explanation) might explain their more likely lack of hypermobility. ‑‑Lambiam11:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
![{\displaystyle [\lambda _{0}{-}{\tfrac {1}{2}}\Delta \lambda ,\lambda _{0}{+}{\tfrac {1}{2}}\Delta \lambda ].}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/af5fff1fb8ca6b41405f20a69c03e7d020e35ec8)
![{\displaystyle G_{1}=E(\mathbb {F} _{p})[r]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4261f9c6d858f8e7b97c024e7f5573766c6b5f5d)
![{\displaystyle G_{2}\subset E(\mathbb {F} _{p^{12}})[r]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/b157ea5c3ff60253ddf614c92506f8e04bd51355)
![{\displaystyle E'(\mathbb {F} _{p^{2}})[r]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/03fa9de9966b12118942d383a890528993f8ee5a)
is uncial, the other letters (particularly the D and H) are not. The DINBVRGH part is more like a freestyle form of the classic Roman square capitals as found on Trajan's column; note the irregular heights and slants. While the majuscules of several typefaces have a Trajan-inspired freestyle form, I think these in the logo are not from any paricular identifiable typeface, but that the lettering was done by the logo's designer specifically for this one logo. ‑‑Lambiam 14:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Resolved
