Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 15

= April 15 =

Wikipedia vs global thermonuclear warfare
In the unfortunate event of total GTW resuling in mass extinction of the human race, what precautions have the Wikimedia foundation taken to preserve all the Wikipedia encyclopedic entries for the few survivors of such an event?--BandUser (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no record of the foundation having taken any action whatsoever to consider the means of survival of its assets post a global thermonuclear war. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so that would be a lot of effort down the drain then?--BandUser (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Global thermonuclear warfare: a lot of effort down the drain. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is possible to download a current snapshot of the encyclopaedia. Do your civic duty and act now - you never know, it could already be too late! 94.168.184.16 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This guy is on the job, it's taken care of. Hopefully this mitigates your fear of global thermonuclear war.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This scenario is why Flagged Revisions are so desparately needed - so that the good knowledge of wikipedia can be cast in stone, preferably marble, and withstand thousands of years of weathering, so that the next alien race that comes along can try and decipher them. They'll probably conclude that the earthlings were anihilated in a global edit war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to include glasses for those with poor eyesight. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly the problem isn't taken care of by that guy who printed all that stuff - he only printed the featured articles - that's like 0.1% of the whole encyclopedia - and it only covers the English version! The full printed English Wikipedia is over 1000 volumes and would look like this:

(The guy standing next to them is naked because he's the only human to have survived the apocalypse and he hasn't found the articles: Cotton, Weaving, Needle, Button and Zipper yet)
 * SteveBaker (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's his appearance after exposure to radiation. Either that, or he's a shadow of his former self. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You sure he's naked? Looks to me like he's wearing long underwear, a hoodie, and mittens. All dressed up for nuclear winter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aliens discovering the image will deduce that the last humans were deformed having only one raiseable limb, webbed fingers and clearly no offspring-bearing capacity. The latter explains their extinction. The inscription above the human is presumably its name. The item on the right is one of their computers whose surprisingly advanced technology still survives.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When making a "Post-Apocalypse Edition" of Wikipedia, the size could be condensed somewhat by omitting some articles not necessary to survival or betterment of knowledge. For instance, any articles on cities such as Chaussy, Val-d'Oise could be removed since... well, after a nuclear war, it's probably been laid to waste, if not by nuclear attacks on nearby cities then by nuclear winter (apologies to anyone who hails from Chaussy, Val-d'Oise)). I'd hate to be the person that decides which articles are notable for that particular edition, though.--WaltCip (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, places like Bill, Wyoming might be the only parts of civilization left unscathed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There would certainly be a lot of work needed to add messages as well.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * BEST REFDESK TOPIC EVER. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So it would seem that BandUser s have their uses after all? :) --79.76.228.211 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This gives me a snapshot of all the article text (no images). As long as at least one of those readers survives (and one can find or make batteries) you'd continue to have easy access to all of the Wikipedia text. Dragons flight (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of some woman I heard recently who said, "Ah yes, the internet. I've heard of that.  I must download it one weekend and have a good read of it." True story. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe she has a really fast connection. Meanwhile, in the post-WWIII environment, I wonder how long it will take to get electrical power back up and running? Unless they intend to run the internet via generators. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't be an issue as long as we follow Dr. Strangelove's plan. Nuclear reactors concealed in deep mine shafts could easily provide electricity for several decades. The issue would simply be deciding who would stay and who would go.--WaltCip (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But if only Wikipedia survives, then everything on it will be uncited, so the administrators will of course have to delete it all... --Hence Piano (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming any admins survive. And have electrical power. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a similar, somewhat more serious discussion on another ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, funny how we tend to get bunches of very similar questions all around the same time. Might have something to do with the recent nuclear summit. Or has 2012 been in the news again and I've missed all the fun? -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Terminal Event Management Policy. Hut 8.5 14:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! An answer! -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that document real? Has Wikipedia really arranged to be transmitted to 300 other stars in the event of a ELE? APL (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was begun on April 1, 2009, and currently says "intended as humor", so I'll go out on a limb here and say the answer to your questions is "NO". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew! Got us all worried, then! It gave us lists of priorities for each level of warning, and mentioned codes of conduct - something many people have a hard time with at the best of times, never mind when we've only got minutes to live... And what about copyright?! :) -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Of course. Got me.  I guess long-term use of Wikipedia has conditioned me to skip past the warning boxes at the top. APL (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a well executed gag. Parts of it seem completely reasonable. APL (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote it the best page on Wikipedia. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of days ago, Obama cautioned the public not to expect an immediate recovery response in the event of a nuclear holocaust. I would classify that kind of comment as eternal American optimism in the face of unspeakable disaster. I heard years ago that the IRS had a contingency plan for collecting taxes in the event of a holocaust. Like anyone's still going to be working at their regular jobs as if nothing happened. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! The tax code doesn't have an exemption for people who lost their jobs in a nuclear Armageddon and are now shoveling pig crap for a local feudal warlord. APL (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, even from a current policy standpoint nothing is that simple. We don't necessarily delete referenced material just because the link is dead. And for paper references, 'I can't find it' or the reference being obscure and very difficult to find isn't necessarily a resonable justification for deleting it and the referenced material. In other words, deleting the material just because the other references may no longer exist isn't a clear cut issue even from current policy and mass deleting such material without consensus is likely to be seen as disruptive and leading to bans. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the OP is hilarious, with a sparkling wit that others would do well to envy. ╟─TreasuryTag► stannator ─╢ 19:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was meant as a serious question. If other editors have chosen to take it less than seriously, thats up to them--79.76.191.129 (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Driving a child toward success?
While some people believe in encouraging children to plot their own course in life, there are still many parents that heavily try to shape the course of their children's lives. For example, I know a medical doctor who drove all four of his children to enter medicine. In other cases, you hear of children being groomed to take over the family business.

Are there studies about the impact of this kind of parental direction setting and pressure? Do children end up more/less financially successful, more/less happy, more/less neurotic, etc., as a result of parents driving them towards a particular career? Is it better (on average) to drive your kids or to let them find their own way?

I'd greatly prefer to see research studies rather than anecdotal judgments. Dragons flight (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * “It is said that family firms go from "clogs to clogs in three generations", an aphorism based on the observation that it takes one generation to found a business, the next to build it, and the third to spend it. “
 * Prof. Nigel Nicholson has considered this problem: Keeping your business in the family. However, if you can organise along the lines he suggests, then that can lead to the durability of the type  seen in  long established family firms like the Windsor's.  Even so, they have never found things plain sailing and their latest problems (some along the lines  asked  by the OP) have been the subject of a book. The Firm: The Troubled Life of the House of Windsor. --Aspro (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Selective Perception in SPORTS
Greetings! For an article about "selective perception", "modern mythology", and "false pattern recognition" in todays Sports I'd like to know whether there is a specific team in the US (ANY sport) which has a "media-reputation" of "guaranteed good luck" (winning games in the last minute; lucky, when matches are set up by random-picking of teams, lucky when picking rookies, etc.). A type of Gladstone-Gander-Sports-Team whose reputation ist continuously fed by the media (because media people love those stories). Any suggestions? Could be several, but emphasis is on THE Team that draws most attention in this respect. Thanks! 213.169.161.126 (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * New York Yankees. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Is there a special term which describes this "luck"? Like Luck of the Yankees or similar? (The word "era" in the Yankees-article is sometimes written "Era", sometimes "era" - even in the headlines. Is that intended ?? Its a term, isn't it?) 213.169.161.126 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "team of destiny", a term which was used decades ago to describe the Yankees. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then theres "The team that uses its financial weight to raid every other team in the league for the best players since baseball has no real salary cap and thus has no way for most small market teams to hold on to any good players and compete for a championship except every once in a while as a fluke". I know, its an unweildy name, but its somewhat accurate... -- Jayron  32  19:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then go with the executive summary, "The Evil Empire". The Yankees have always done it this way, from Ruppert-and-Huston to Topping-and-Webb, and then the Steinbrenners. They were willing to spend whatever it took to win, and were in position to be able to do so. But there's another factor, and that is not just spending, but having the know-how to get the best players they could. Which leads to the Branch Rickey quote, "Luck is the residue of design." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know it's not US, although they are owned by Americans (the Glazers), but Manchester United has a reputation (among supporters of opposing teams) for winning matches in the 5th minute of extra time. The reputed practice by referees of giving huge amounts of extra time in Man Utd games has led to this being known as "Man U time". This is not merely a perception: this article tells us that it actually happens. There are other perceptions in the English Premier League, such as the top teams get all the decisions going their way; opposing teams will never get a penalty at Anfield (home of Liverpool FC). However, I can't find any evidence to support these. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Any example is fine. The Info is for a colleague who writes about "Bayern-Dusel" (the luck of FC Bayern München; soccer), which is used extensively in the media (if it comes in handy - and which has been analyzed by a sports psychologist). Should there be analogies in other sports, one would expect (a) a team from a big city (b) leading (over time) in championships (or at least being very successful (c) polarizing fans . I will look into Man U and the other links. 213.169.161.126 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team would be what you are looking for. When they were good, they were known for having "the luck of the Irish." See Hail Flutie. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edna St Vincent Millay society
Just curious, not asking for legal advice or anything... the Millay Society webpage says "The Millay Society owns the copyrights to the literary estate of Edna St. Vincent Millay. All published and unpublished writings, including songs, by Millay and her family are protected under copyright law." How is this possible, since a good portion of her writing was published before 1923? 128.194.250.125 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably a blanket statement intended to protect the works that remain in copyright without having to specify. A 'catch-all' statement.Froggie34 (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Could also be what is sometimes called a "legal bluff". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting for you to email them and ask. I'd personally be curious to see a summary of their response. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It may surprise you to learn that many countries do not have a 1923 cut-off for copyright. We scholars call such countries "not the USA". DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Both that society and Edna herself are American. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If her work was published overseas,(I assume it was.) There may be foreign copyrights that are still valid. APL (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Without researching this, my default assumption is that Bugs is correct. See copyfraud.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bacardi white rum
It is 42.86% v/v and 75% Alcoholic proof. I have a 60 ML with five or six ice cubes. Does it require further dilution? Will you call that drink strong? What is the best simple way (other than water) to take white rum? It's Bacardi Superior, that is, it is unflavoured. --117.204.84.253 (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A "Light 'n' Stormy" only requires ginger beer and ice. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bacardi and coca-cola is popular as is Bacardi and orange. 60ml is about 2.5 'measures' in a bar so that's a pretty strong drink to be drinking (though of course a lot depends on how long you take, how much overall you drink and so on). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would call 75 proof with ice to be a bit strong for me. Rum and water/ice is not exactly everyone's idea of a good time. I would mix it with something else. I'm partial to Rum and Cokes which would work well with that. Even a little club soda would be preferable to me than to just take it straight on the rocks. But it's just personal preference. You can sip it on the rocks if you'd like. If you're thinking of serving it to company, though, you probably want to have a couple other options available. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's always grog, and as a bonus you get to talk like a pirate.  Acroterion  (talk)  16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you're going for pirate authenticity, and less nastiness than actual grog, I recommend bumbo instead. I like it with a good dark rum, but I've found it to be a pretty acquired taste. Most people don't like gritty drinks. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Naturally, we have an article (well, a section of an article, anyway) on rum drinks. List of cocktails with rum.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

75 proof (note: not 75%) is not particularly strong for distilled liquor. Most rum, vodka, and whiskey is in the 80-100 proof range. For someone that enjoys hard liquor, Bacardi white rum with ice probably wouldn't be too strong. Beer and wine drinkers would probably find it too stiff.

Of course, 60 megalitres of rum is more than enough to kill an army, so you're going to want to share with about 300 million of your closest friends. ;) —D. Monack talk 09:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Most translated page?
Is there a list of pages with the most interlanguage wikilinks? For example, articles like cat have a huge list of other languages they can be read in, whereas other articles, like Oto Luthar are only available in 1 or 2 languages. Does such a list exist? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One guy (now departed from Wikipedia for some reason or whatever) took care that the locality he was born in, Kurów, gets as many as possible. I don't know how many of these are still live, though. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the following numbers by counting the languages listed and adding 1 for English: United States 219; Wikipedia 214; English language 208; Bible 182; Earth 176; Internet 157; Computer 156; Google 106; Water 99; World 61. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kurów also has 219 total languages. APL (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please double check me, but by pasting the language list into MS Word for Religion I got 315. I do not know if Word count correctly handles Chinese style characters though.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a line count on the Religion language list, and got only 147 (Plus one for english). APL (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that we can conclude that word count does not correctly count the letters used in some languages. Googlemeister (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also you double-counted languages like "Basa Jawa". APL (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How are you counting? I'm copying into excel and getting different (smaller) numbers than you. Aaadddaaammm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC).
 * I copied the whole list (I tried both copying the list on the web-page, and the list in the wiki-source and got the same answers.) into gVim (A text editor) and read off the line number of the final line. Then I added one. APL (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a list from a year ago at User:Emijrp/Most interwiked articles; that lists True Jesus Church as existing in the most languages. Warofdreams talk 22:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk
How can I go about campaigning for or why do we not have, a religion ref desk and a History ref desk but specifically a religion ref desk, imagine the interesting questions, and the funny answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. The ref desk is not for stirring up controversy for its own sake.  &mdash; Lomn 14:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference desk talk page is the place to raise suggestions on how to improve the reference desks. I'm not sure there is a need for 'more' desks, people seem happy to ask questions on the relevant (or sometime not relevant) desk, I doubt we get less 'religion' or 'history' questions because we don't have a desk specifically titled for them. infact a seemingly large number of the humanities-desk questions are history/religion related. Still if you want to campaign the talk-page is a good place to start194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Check out Reference desk/How to create a new reference desk and use the Reference Desk talk page if you're still keen. --Sean 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been proposed before and well discussed. I have not seen any changes that would warrant me changing my opinion on the matter, but it would be erroneous to consider me alone as a statistically meaningful sample.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Religion and History questions go to the Humanities desk.  Unless that suddenly gets overwhelmed there's no point in splitting it up.   (Adding new desks won't generate questions, obviously, just split up the ones we would have gotten anyway.) APL (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not at all obvious that having a separate desk won't generate questions. However, a specifically-religion desk could easily descend into a lightning rod of endless debates. Meanwhile, the "entertainment" desk could probably be folded back into the humanities desk (as it once was, if I recall correctly) as it doesn't really see a lot of traffic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And to add to the above, the reference desks are not (always) about creating funny answers. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To give some sense of the OP's general seriousness, check this out: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF?!?! 24.189.90.68 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was pretty much my reaction also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Beware the Genetic fallacy. An IP address does not necessarily identify a single user. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True. And IP users almost never identify who they are. So unless they do, they bear the consequences of what they, or other individuals on the same IP, have done - especially when it's recent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want a nasty thing to happen like a mob of Wikipedians all accidentally pinging 62.172.58.82 in Stevenage, would we BB ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be bad. It could force their internet engine (i.e. their hamster on a spinwheel) to overload and shut down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This entire discussion should be on the Talk page, as 194.221 said way up there. Those later entrants who couldn't help themselves from piping up here all know better. -- Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal matters in the press
When there are high-profile charges in the media, there's always a rebuttal from the politician or lawyer or high-profile individual -- "baseless", "nonsense" etc. Is there any tip-toeing around the specific words used in such publicized statements? i.e. are there certain phrases that are safe, regardless of the eventual outcome, or that would affect the legal proceedings or could come back to haunt the speaker? It certainly seems like there's a formula to this kind of response -- not sure if it's just tradition or if it is rooted in something else. 198.161.238.18 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Consult All the President's Men and learn about the phrase "non-denial denial". It's a way of seeming to deny a charge while not actually denying it in plain English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And of course there's an article, Non-denial denial. It explains the response I just read, of "bizarre claims" -- that's a non-denial denial. 198.161.238.18 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then there was the case of the first President Bush, who wanted to make a campaign pledge not to raise taxes, but didn't want to be bound by it. He said there would be "no new taxes".  The press jumped on this immediately as allowing for increasing existing taxes, or adding new "assessments", "surcharges", "fees", etc.  He then gave his famous quote: "Read my lips, no new taxes !", which was meant to stay ambiguous, but not seem to be so.  It did manage to get him elected, but, when he inevitably did raise taxes, people blamed him for breaking his pledge, and he lost his re-election accordingly. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Skidding aircraft


The stationary wheels of an aircraft as it lands skid when they hit the runway at speed, leaving black streaks of lost rubber on the surface. The tires screech and the cost of their wear must be enormous. What is a practical way to get landing wheels rotating before they touch the runway? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)]]


 * There are devices to do this. Involving either motors or little wind vanes. But typically they don't bother.  The tire wear isn't that bad, and they'd rather not pay for the fuel needed to lift mechanism.
 * I don't have a cite, but I think some small planes have mechanisms like this, not to save tire rubber, but to kick up less dust when they land on a unpaved runway. But even so, I'm pretty sure it's rare. APL (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've often thought that a very small motor could spin the wheel up to the proper speed over a few minutes. Without the need for rapid accel, and not needing to move anything but the wheel itself, it could be very small.  Without this, there is a substantial amount of wear and tear on the tires, and they need to be replaced after only a few landings.  All those tires, only used a few times each, can't be good for the environment.  Also, if the small motor failed, then the plane would still land with a skid, same as before, so it wouldn't be critical equipment. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an interview with American Airlines' former chairman. He says that there's more wear on the tire from taxiing than from the landing, and of the idea of spinup he says "Working with our tire suppliers, we've looked at ways to "spin up" a tire before landing to eliminate that result, but a workable solution remains elusive, principally due to the weight it would add." -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * it's cost economics. it's likely much cheaper to replace the wheels a bit more frequently than to implement and lift mechanisms to preserve the wheels.  such is life.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's apparently quite a lot of patents around and even a conspiracy theory that tyre companies bought out patents to suppress the technology discussed here. I think the most convincing argument for me is that if some company DID try to buy out patents, we'd still see this in the air force, or the air forces of china and/or russia. If there really was some cheap and easy way to save tyres on fighter jets, they wouldn't give a hoot about some patent in America or the EU. Install a little doo-hickey on a plane or cart dozens if not hundreds of big heavy tyres around? No brainer. Vespine (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On small, light aircraft (Cessna's and such) and on lightweight fighters, pilots are instructed to dab the wheel brakes immediately after take-off to stop the wheels from spinning because the gyroscopic effects can adversely affect the handling of the plane. I presume that this would also be a reason not to spin the wheels up to speed on approach.  However, for heavier planes, this is less likely to be an issue.  On large jets, it's been proposed to use electrically powered wheels to drive the plane around the airport in order save fuel - if that idea ever succeeds, then it would be easy enough to use it to match the speed of the runway on landing. SteveBaker (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of braking the wheels after takeoff in a light aircraft, but I guess it makes some sense. On airliners the wheels are automatically braked before retraction, not because of gyroscopic effects but to prevent any loose parts of the tyre damaging the inside of the wheel well. FiggyBee (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not an engineer, and have no knowledge of aerodynamics, so maybe I shouldn't post this, but, it seems to me a basic concept of physics that unless the wheel is made to spin at exactly the same speed as it will need to on contact with the tarmac when it will be load-bearing the weight of the plane, there will be a momentary clash of momentum(s) between the wheel and the runway, similar to a car crashing into a wall. the only difference being that unlike the car, the aero-wheel will be forced to spin at the revs demanded by the momentum of the plane - and in such circumstances, there is going to be an inevitable skid and burn of rubber. So why not instead have the runway converted into a gigantic treadmill that runs at the same speeed as a landing aircraft, where the revs are controlled automatically by the plane's auto-landing systems? Seems an easier solution to me - me NOT being an engineer? 92.30.6.53 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A giant rotating turntable could on its periphery receive aeroplanes at their landing speed, save them the bother of taxiing and later send them off on their next flight. Unloading and loading passengers, fuel and luggage would be a little complicated but soluble by curved Moving walkway(s) starting from the center of the turntable accessed via a tunnel below. The large area occupied by the turntable would be compensated by its high capacity for air traffic due to its ability to receive and dispatch airplanes in any direction. Crosswinds could be a thing of the past. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (updated)


 * I recall a story about spinning vanes being added to Spitfire (or possibly Hurricane) tyres during WWII. The extra rubber for the vanes was more than the amount of rubber they saved. Edit: now I think about it a Hurricane or Spitfire was only expected to last a few weeks, making any rubber saving irrelevant (the plane would be destroyed long before the tyres wore out anyway).  Also, note that due to crosswinds, aircraft don't always land in a perfectly straight line (small aircraft can make uncoordinated landings to minimise this, but airliners generally don't for the comfort of passengers and the risk of scraping an engine).  This lateral movement can scrape off a fair amount of rubber; I don't know if pre-spinning the wheels would make it better or worse! FiggyBee (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would make initial adhesion better. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The device would be unnecessary for Kamikaze missions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Kamakaze weapons Nakajima Ki-115 and Ouka had no landing gear at all. FiggyBee (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you're interested in tyre life, a tyre will last about 200 landings on a super-heavy airliner like the Airbus A380, 300 on a smaller airliner like the Boeing 737, and 500+ landings on a small 4-place aircraft like the Cessna 182. Airliner tyres are usually retreaded half a dozen times, so you're looking at a typical lifespan of a few years for a tyre which makes one landing per day. FiggyBee (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that unless all the landing wheels could be somehow guaranteed to spin at exactly the same speed, there would be a real risk of the aircraft skidding or slewing off the runway. Much safer to have them all start spinning from zero.--Shantavira|feed me 08:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A pilot can't ensure that all the landing wheels make ground contact simultaneously and in general they change from skidding to rolling at different times. If one chose to develop an electric spin-up motor it could be controlled by an optical device to match exactly the relative speed of the runway. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * People I have known who worked on equipment located along runways at a major airport said the dust and grit from tires abraded by the scraping against the concrete as they go from zero rotation to high speed rotation during landing was considered a major health hazard. Spinning up the tires would thus benefit the environment. On the other hand, the scraping of the tire tread against the concrete must act to slightly slow down the forward motion of the plane, and synchronously rotating tires would necessitate greater braking action, meaning more wear on brake pads. There are also deceleration devices on jet engines, which lessens the added load that would be on brake pads. Edison (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think they mainly reverse the engines and put the flaps up to brake. The sudden drag on non-spinning wheels when it lands must destabilize the aircraft somewhat.  Depending on if the front wheel or rear wheels hit first, it would pitch forward by differing degrees.  If they were spun-up first, then this shouldn't matter. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any jets that are taildraggers but the "environmental" concern is pretty local (and silly), especially when you consider that the weight on a plane gets multiplied times every mile in fuel, which is overwhelmingly more important than some local rubber smoke on the runway. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They may not intentionally be "tail-draggers", but not ever landing goes perfectly. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd have big problems if you sat a multi-engine jet down on its front gear. That said, I would be curious to know exactly what happens if you do that. Is it a "we gotta repair it" issue, or a crash? Shadowjams (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The front gear is likely to collapse so the pilot ends lower than he wanted to. An example (video). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

collectable silver spoons with holder many years old, need info on them
I learned to make homemade biscuits standing in a chair when I was 5 years old. We never used any thing but WhiteLily flour. Back then you could save so many coupons and redeem for a gift. My mother, grandmother, and I colledcted a set of silver spoons. They appear to do Dutch but I am not sure. Any way I have lost one through the years and would love to be able to replace it if possible. I am now 57 and still use WhiteLily. please help me if you can. Thank you in advance for your kindness, I want to pass them to my only grandaughter whom I have taught to make biscuits.

Sincerely, Sylvia Richardson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvia Richardson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you tried ebay? One can find just about anything on ebay.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Their homepage http://www.whitelily.com/ContactUs/ has an option to contact the company. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

has a pair of them on sale for $24 - and another one for $12. It looks like you could probably find a replacement rather easily/cheaply. SteveBaker (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And you don't just get the one spoon for that much. According to a corollary of Murphy's Law, you'll find the old one as soon as the replacement is ordered. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Municipalities adjacent to Gladbeck
How many municipalities are adjacent to Gladbeck? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Four: Bottrop, Dorsten, Gelsenkirchen, and Essen. According to Gladbeck and de:Gladbeck. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

where can I see a floor plan for a mill house, house has two front doors, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.177.130 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably, it's been divided into two homes at some time in its life. Some of those old buildings are on the large side for modern families.  SteveBaker (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How many of the five mentioned municipalities are urban districts? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Urban district" is a strange term to use for German municipalities. The term referred to urban municipalities that were part of larger counties in England and Wales before 1974.  These are not directly comparable with the German municipalities given this label in some of our articles.  The municipalities given this label are called kreisfreie Städte in German.  This means that they are the equivalent of Kreise, which are more similar to English counties than to English districts, in my opinion.  Admittedly, the kreisfreie Städte are part of Länder or "states" and therefore not directly beneath the national government of Germany.  However, Germany, unlike the UK, has a federal system of government, with the "states" handling many aspects of government handled in Westminster for England.  So the kreisfreie Städte are, in terms of competences, more akin to the urban unitary authorities in England, such as Bristol, for example.  The article in the English Wikipedia that covers kreisfreie Städte is Independent cities.  That is how I think they should be labeled.  Now, of the five cities listed above, three are kreisfreie Städte or independent cities.  These are Bottrop, Gelsenkirchen, and Essen.  The other cities are all part of Kreise.  Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Which district contains Gladbeck and Dorsten? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How long is the border between Gladbeck and Dorsten? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How many roads cross the border between Gladbeck and Dorsten? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gladbeck and Dorsten are in the Kreis or district of Recklinghausen. The border between the two cities extends for about 400 meters. You can see a map showing this border here. No roads cross this border. However, if you look closely at the map, you will see that there seems to be a track through the woods along the border of Bottrop where it meets the border between Gladbeck and Dorsten.  If you want to travel on an actual road between Gladbeck and Dorsten (or any other part of the district of Recklinghausen), you will have to pass through outlying sections of Bottrop or Gelsenkirchen.  Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the Residenzpflicht? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is Bottrop an independent city, even if Recklinghausen is not an independent city? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

where is the grave of the man who discovered the metre rule
where is the grave of the man who discovered the metre rule?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Fleur (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain your question more clearly. What do you mean by "metre rule"? Is this a physical object, a unit of measurement, or a rule as in a law?  In any of these cases, nobody "discovered" them, since they do not occur naturally.    --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The unit of measurement known as the meter was invented by John Wilkins (His meter was 3mm shorter than the modern one.) According to this source : "After four years' tenure of his bishopric, he died in the year 1672, at the age of fifty-eight, in Tillotson's house: he was buried in the churchyard of St Lawrence Jewry, his old vicarage. "
 * Is this what you were looking for? APL (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP is the same one who put up the trolling "Lubbock" and "Dando" questions yesterday and the day before. Good enough grounds for ignoring this question as well, I suggest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

giant sunfish (Ocean sunfish)
are there any plaster cast or similar actual size of the sunfish mola mola in the uk?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Fleur (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * --Fixed your link --Anon, 03:46 UTC, April 16, 2010.

According to the article, it seems there has been 'some sightings of this fish in south-west England'. Some people have been saying that this is 'evidence of increasing marine temperatures' (quotes from the article). Sorry if you are on about a model, you're question wasn't too clear. (The reference to this statement is highlighted here. Hope this helps you in some way. --Chevymontecarlo . 05:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to type "YOUR question" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP is the same one who put up the trolling "Lubbock" and "Dando" questions yesterday and the day before. Good enough grounds for ignoring this question as well, I suggest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)