Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 January 6

= January 6 =

Colours of clothes
Which colours are the most common ones to be used in clothes like red, blue, green and etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.253 (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there's a great deal of statistics available on this. I would suggest black and white are the most common as they form the basis for both traditional business wear in the Western world and are also a common colour seen for religious wear throughout the world (whilst also retaining a large appeal in general casual clothing). That said the answer will likely vary from country to country and depend on the prevailing fashions. E.g. in the Uk at the moment lots of people are wearing what I can only describe as Plum coloured Jeans. Blue will be very popular due to it being the standard colour of most pairs of jeans. ny156uk (talk) 08:00, 5January 2015 (UTC)

revenge plot
Need some advice for a short story I am working on, as part of the plot a teenage main character saves up lots of money to buy something that their parents don't approve of their having. Said parents take it upon themselves to destroy and throw away their son's prized new possession, prompting him to seek some sort of payback or revenge. The point is that he paid for it with his own money and as such believes therefore it has nothing to do with his parents, that they have no right to do as they did. The obvious thing would be to take back from them the money he had spent, but I think he would prefer a more elaborate revenge plot against something his parents like having. Regardless of the morality of such a decision, I am wondering if anyone here can suggest ideas of how this plot could work.

85.210.117.132 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My father has handled juvenile crime cases before, and one of the "revenge" acts he told me about had a teenager leaving a water hose turned on inside a house over the course of a weekend while the parents were away. Did a lot of damage to the house (ruined carpets, soaked baseboards, etc.). I thought it was fairly creative as far as teenagers go. Not terribly literary, but believable! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you use your imagination, there are limitless possibilities. It just depends on how much damage he wants to inflict on his parents, and what kind: emotional, physical, financial, or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to key into a parent's nightmare, he would hold a party and advertise it on Facebook to all and sundry. "My parents will be out. Bring all your friends!" Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Typical eye for an eye revenge is "payback in kind". That is, if the parents destroy something he owns and values, he might choose to destroy something they own and value. Usually that thing will be more valuable than what he lost, as a sort of punitive damages type philosophy. If you're looking to draw out the plot, you can focus on how he plans to do the damage while keeping the parents in the dark until the big reveal. You could also have the object to be destroyed in a location which requires time and effort to get to (in a locked chest in the parents bedroom, on the father's desk at work, etc.). Or you could go the more emotional route, and have him wrestle with the thought of sacrificing something he himself also values in order to punish his parents. Of course there's always the potential for a situational irony-type plot twist, where the son learns that the destruction had an unintended consequence which came back to bite him. -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read Roald Dahl, Matilda? In this novel, young Matilda (four or five years old) has a library book she's borrowed torn up by his father, and she has to pay its price to the library from his savings.  She plots a revenge.  &#x2013; b_jonas 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

meaning of Swafournadas
In the article on the Statue of Zeus the word Swafournadas is used. I cannot find any explanation of what this word means. I have tried googling it and the only result is the wikipedia page. I've tried translating it - translator guesses it is turkish, but doe not translate it. I cannot find it in a dictionary, nor in a list of acronyms. So I've run out of ideas and I'm hoping you can elucidate. Thanks in anticipation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.204.176 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article had been vandalized with the introduction of nonsense. I have reverted the vandalism. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Coco Cola Ad
I recently saw a Coco Cola ad claiming that there are 3 million tress planted everyday. what I want to know is that how is this figure arrived at and if it is true,is it due to the increasing environmental awareness ? Will such an effort reverse global warming? Sumalsn (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would imagine the vast majority of these are planted for the timber industry and paper industry. Much, if not most, of the forested land in the U.S. are basically used for tree agriculture, and most of the planting is done for the same reason that corn and wheat get planted.  Of course, trees have a much longer "growing season", but forest management/Silviculture is a major industry unto itself.  -- Jayron  32  20:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

24 speeds not enough?
I just got a new bike with 24 speeds and I feel as though its not enough to go as fast as could potentially. Granted I don't last long going all out but I definitly reaching my peak speed on flat road. Does this sound normal or could it be that the ratio of the gears isn't as good as it would be on other bikes or something? --212.120.237.70 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that simply having MORE gears does not mean that the gears will be where you want them. The article on bicycle gearing will explain how things work in general - basically, in low gears your legs travel further per metre travelled than in high gears. Hence you must pedal faster in lower gears for the same speed, although your effort on each pedal stroke will be lower. It's good to have a lower gear for going up hill. Apologies if this is teaching you to suck eggs, but it explains the next bit. The speed in top gear is affected by the size of the gears, with a large front gear (on the pedal crank) and a small rear gear (on the back wheel) giving the fastest speed for a given leg speed. If you find that your legs are going as fast as you can make them, you change to a higher gear. It sounds as if your new bike has quite a low-range gearing. You will probably find that in the lowest gears you can almost ride up the side of a house - this indicates it's probably something in the style of a mountain bike, designed to get you up mountains with the minimum of effort, but not to win you the Tour de France. If you feel that you have a need for speed, you will want to swap your gearing for something that gives you a higher top gear. Speak to your friendly local cycle repair man (and if you want him to be really impressed, drop the word derailleur into the conversation). It's not too difficult to fit a new gearset yourself, and will give you the extra speed you are looking for. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it does sound a bit odd; even when I was younger I couldn't run the heaviest gear (largest chainring in the front, smallest in the rear) for very long on the flat, and certainly not with a significant number of revolutions per minute. But see Bicycle gearing. Let's say that you are running a medium gear--53/19 (that is, 53 in the front and 19 in the rear). If you can paddle at Lance Armstrong pace, 120 rpm, you'd be going 25 miles an hour. That's moderately zippy, though nothing compared with what the sprinters do. I assume you're talking about a road bike (in the calculation about also, not a mountain bike (since high speed on flat road on a mountain bike is an odd combination of terms), and I wonder what your largest chainring in the front is, that is, how many teeth. A good road bike will have 52 or 53; mountain bikes (and my hybrid) often stop at 48. The more teeth in the front, the faster you'll go. If the bike is fancy you can buy individual chainrings and increase the number of teeth. Now, when you start riding 53/14 and can keep that up for some time, it's time to sign up with a club and start making money professionally. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes sounds like my suspisions were correct it seems and I guess I should have mentioned it is a mountain bike. I just thought Id still be able to get decent speed on it when on flat road. --212.120.237.70 (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The gearing on mountain bikes is designed to facilitate peddling uphill, particularly on steep slopes. It isn't designed for speed on flat roads.  The width of the tires gets in the way of speed anyway.  If you had wanted a fast bike, a racing bike would have been a better option, or maybe a racing/touring hybrid.  Marco polo (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Something else to consider is a continuously variable transmission. Once you get a large number of gears, the weight of all those gears and the time to switch gear decreases performance.  Of course, with a CVT, just like with conventional gears, you need to ensure that the highest and lowest gear ratios are appropriate. StuRat (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the proper way of pointing out a history article is factually incorrect (example "Printing Press")?
What is the most appropriate way of noting when an article is factually incorrect? And I would limit the discussion to situations where widely accepted sources clearly provide supporting information that makes the issue clear.

I noticed the following statement in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press):

"The printing press was invented in the Holy Roman Empire by the German Johannes Gutenberg around 1440, based on existing screw presses. "

I appreciate that from a European history point of view that this is true and that this event is probably the most significant as far as how printing developed but it is not an accurate statement as written since it is well known that movable type printing presses existed in Korea about 200 years before (see the link from the U.S. Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/world/world-record.html)

The article is very well written and the influence of the Gutenberg press is clearly the most significant for the development of printing world wide. It may also be the case that the earlier Korean printing press process did not influence printing in other areas. But the actual history of the "first printing press" is well documented with both original printed works available and original movable types.

One of my concerns is how should the article be corrected? It would be easy if a simple fact was wrong (e.g., it was 1441 instead of "around 1440") but this example would really require a new section.

In general, how are situations like this example addressed?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryMurray650 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Would be better to phase it as Gutenberg 'introduced' printing with movable type into Europe.--Aspro (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. The best place to take this up is the article talk page. Thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To me 'introduced' would mean that Gutenberg learned about it elsewhere and brought it to Europe. If he invented it all by himself, 'introduced' does not work. --Itinerant1 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Library of Congress article you cite doesn't mention a Korean printing press. It talks about Korean moveable type, which is a component of a printing press system. Korean metal moveable type is discussed at length, with much better references, at Movable type and History of printing. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A book I just read called Planet Word based on the BBC programme Fry's Planet Word mentions this exactly. It acknowledges that moveable type had already been in use for a very long time, but no one had actually made printing press the way Gutenberg had, using a screw press.  Before that, they made rubbings or other less effective measures.  So while the invention was not cut of whole cloth, it was an innovation.  Therefore, Gutenberg did in fact invent the printing press as we know and recognize it. Mingmingla (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Had he invented it himself there would be earlier versions to show he would have struggling to find the best way of creating and holding the the type in a chase. Not to mention tentative approaches  of forming  the lead type itself. There isn't, so Occam's razor suggests that he had the technology presented to him on a plate. Paper making required a screw  press and block printers employed a screw press. To say Gutenberg invented moveable type printing press is tantamount to  saying Bill Gates got up one morning and decided to invent Word. --Aspro (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Fry is hardly a RS but maybe I should add more. Rubbing a block as he say's (Fry) require enough pressure to be applied to get the air out (to get a 'solid black' to use a printers term) . This amount of pressure (which in schools art classes, is often applied with the back of a spoon) tears the paper between the high spots (as often witnessed in school art classes). Moreover it rounds the wooden edges of the blocks thus wrecks  them (not such a problem with lino cutting I grant you -but several hundred years too  late). Hence the early use of the screw press and flat platen. There was no sudden appearance of these techniques after Gutenberg; the already were in common use. Even the Romans had screw presses. --Aspro (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So an accurate statement would be something like: "Gutenberg invented movable type (which was used in Korea two hundred years earlier, but was unknown in Europe) and adapted the existing rotary press to print from it"? --ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ?.. No, don't jest. School books as you may well know, use over simplified explanations. A student of history quickly learns that technology didn't advance on the efforts of a just few 'geniuses' (bill gates) that simplified history books give all the credit to. Not only is  evidence lacking that  Gutenberg independently invented moveable type but there  is evidence that he didn’t.  Gutenberg, Johann Sir Isaac Newton himself went on record as  admitted that if he saw further, it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants.  Should not Wikipedia  spread out before the reader (which is what WP is all about -isn’t it) the  true context of these technological developments. The OP has a very good point which should be taken seriously.--Aspro (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

German companies
why are some of the biggest companies in germany and europe like Bosch, ThyssenKrupp, owned by family/foundations dedicated to phillanthropic or non profit work. how are they so big... it would seem to me that you have to be a ruthless money machine to be that successful. Roberto75780 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of Bosch, the foundation owns most of the shares but has no voting rights and gets almost none of the profits. The majority of the profits are put back into the company perhaps allowing it to outcompete rivals. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of industrialists and corporations in all countries are associated with philanthropic work and are still behemoths of companies. Consider the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, etc.  -- Jayron  32  20:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that shares don't make decisions, people do. If the owners, be it a foundation or another type of owner, provides the right people with the right incentives (which are normally always tied to financial performance one way or the other) these people will have the same motivation to build a successful business as the management from any other corporation. 85.200.249.178 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

How does the government respond to the needs of the people it governs?
Should there be more space devoted to publishing questions and answers asked?SpeakJeremiah (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC) When people raise or ask questions, do organizations respond? How can questions be followed and shared with the general public? Government Transparency about questions on any subject especially related to all aspects of government policies & procedures should be public knowledge regarding facts and policy questions. How can any anyone persuade and suggest that there be adopted rules and procedures that might cause a fundamental duty and obligation to publish all questions asked every organization that are internet connected? You would think that organizations, Corporations, including City governments, State governments and even the federal Government would publish all questions being raised by all? Wouldn’t this help society communicate better? People might see what people are thinking about and realize how questions are answered, handled or avoided in response by people in authority? 20:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakJeremiah (talk • contribs)


 * There are cases where they do that. There's a community in the Los Angeles area which broadcasts it's town meetings on radio.  They give everyone time to bring up issues, even some crazy lady who was afraid zebras might escape from the zoo and munch on her begonias. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did they suggest she try 'elephant repellent', as thinking about, it I have never noticed zebras or any other African animals in my part of London either – so it must work!--Aspro (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see elephant replant is used in Kansas (USA) as well - must be most efficacious. --Aspro (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming from the way the question is phrased we are talking about the United States. Many local, state and federal government proceedings are broadcast live. In fact, in Alaska where I live the state legislature has it's own cable TV channel, and of course C-SPAN and the Congressional Record cover congress in excruciating detail. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tequila lyrics
I thought I had learned, from a long-ago friend from a Spanish-speaking country, that the lyrics to Tequila went something like this:
 * Me gusta tomar tequila
 * Con salecita y del limón

But I can't find any Google hits for these lyrics, and all the lyrics I can find on the net are just the single word, tequila. Do these lyrics ring a bell with anyone? --Trovatore (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on the songis pretty clear:The title of the song constitutes the entirety of the lyrics, and is spoken a total of three times during the course of the song. I'v enever heard any version with actual lyrics. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I'm looking for someone who has heard them. Maybe no one has, which is OK. --Trovatore (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My first thought was that your lyrics would work well with Santana's rendition of Oye Como Va (and Tito Puente's original as well, I suppose). It wasn't until I played Tequila that I saw how they fit even better, but no, I've never heard of Tequila sung with more than the one-word-lyric. -- ToE 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)