Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 June 26

= June 26 =

Traditional Asian units
What were the traditional units of length/distance and weight in East Asia, and what are their values in metric units? --108.225.117.142 (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems like homework. Are you taking a class on Ming China? μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether it's homework or not. I'm interested in the answer. Please continue. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here’s a start:

One liang or tael = 10 mace (or chee) = 1/16th of a catty. In Hong Kong, one tael is 37.79936375g, but the Taiwan tael is 37.5g

A Singaporean candareen is approximately 3.74 grams.

See also Chinese units of measurement, Japanese units of measurement and Taiwanese units of measurement. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking
How do we direct an image in an article to an external link? As in, clicking on the image will direct the reader to an external link. I'm working on a wiki site, and I can't figure out how to do it. 204.4.182.14 (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If this is a Wikipedia article, you can't, because clicking on a picture takes you to it's source. You could, however, add a link to an external site in the caption. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I corrected your spelling and hope you don't mind. DriveByWire (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do mind. I spell "it's" that way intentionally, so it's not an error, it's a choice. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Your choice in the above post is consistent with this disambiguation in Wikipedia which is verified by reliable sources. Good. I have re-corrected your only error which was inconsistent with the references that we are expected to provide. Please follow the normal WP:BRD cycle in article space if you believe you can make an improvement there. Do not abuse the latitude allowed in helping an OP at the Ref. desk. DriveByWire (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We've been through this before. StuRat has this weird notion that it's all right for him to spell/punctuate that particular word incorrectly, because he thinks it's more logical that way, or some such frivolous reason.  StuRat, sorry but you don't get to make or change the rules of written English. DBW, you shouldn't have corrected StuRat's misspelling, even if you'd known he did it deliberately.  Here on the RD we don't edit other people's posts. --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * English does change and grow, like all healthy languages. Sometimes new ways of spelling words evolve out of unintentional errors that get repeated zillions of times until dictionaries acknowledge the new spelling has become the norm in at least some contexts.  I suspect this will happen to "alot" and "awhile" in due course but I'm still holding out with "a lot" and "a while".  Sometimes change starts with a deliberate joke, which gets repeated so often that the new way becomes the norm.  "One foul swoop" has been going this way for years, but the recognised expression is still "one fell swoop".
 * I don't agree with their arguments, but I accept that some people see some logic in using an apostrophe to spell it's, no matter whether in the sense of an abbreviation (it's) or a personal pronoun (its), so I understand where they're coming from. What I don't understand - and I've told him this a number of times but he's never explained his position satisfactorily to me - is how StuRat always spells it with an apostrophe here on the ref desk and on other talk pages, and presumably in his private life, but in article space he acquiesces to the expected norm of spelling the personal pronoun 'its' without the apostrophe.  I just don't get how one can be so rigidly principle-driven in some places, but abandon that principle where a certain minimum standard of writing is required.  The message I always get from this is that he is committed to perpetuating a lower standard (and going out of his way to do so) but only where he thinks it doesn't matter or where he can get away with it, because he collapses like a pack of cards in places where it really does matter.  It's the most risk-averse adherence to a principle in the history of the world.  If you only ever fight the battles you're assured of winning, you're definitely not going to win the war.   --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  01:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's OK for informal writing, like this, but not yet accepted in formal writing. I wouldn't say "gonna" in formal writing, either, but might very well use it here. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I never use "gonna" in article space, but often resort to it here.  But that's because I'm sometimes lazy, and I look for acceptable short cuts.  This also explains why people regularly omit the apostrophes from possessives ("my mothers car"), or from the abbreviation it's (= it is) and just write its.  Or why they write "It was to good to be true".  All sorts of abbreviated language exists.  But your thing is the exact opposite of all that.  You go out of your way to insert an apostrophe where it is not required, in defiance of every grammar book in existence.  Clearly you are hoping it will achieve acceptance, because you say "not yet accepted in formal writing".  That confirms that you do this with the intention of adding your voice to the International Movement for the Respelling of Its.  I don't share your passion, but I wish you and your kind well.  I just think you'd come across as more credible if you did it everywhere, and let the chips fall where they may.  You certainly wouldn't be the first editor to misspell a word in an article and have some other editor come along and correct it.  Articles are often copied holus-bolus, errors and all, so you'd have a better chance of changing the world that way, than restricting your campaign to the ref desk and talk pages.  Hey, now you've got me giving you advice on how to change the language I have sworn to uphold and defend - its shocking how its turned out!  :) --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have re-corrected StuRat's deliberate misspelling. Providing intelligent answers is by consensus what we do here and that takes priority over any individual responder's wish to exploit a public page for their minority campaign. Here on the RD we do edit other people's posts where a justifiable reason exists. Good examples of such reasons are refactoring, removing content such as e-mail adresses, medical or legal advice, inappropriate matter, and righting typos that cause text to say something wrong that we know is not the poster's proper intention. The misspelling with which StuRat disrupts this thread is in this category because IT'S means IT IS, and nothing else. DriveByWire (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You've already been warned that editing the posts of others is inappropriate behavior. Your edit doesn't fall into any of the categories listed.  If you continue, I will request that an Admin take action against you. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * DriveByWire, I disagree violently with StuRat's position, but I would defend to the death his right to have it. There's no law that says you have to spell correctly, and if you want to make some sort of lame point by deliberately misspelling words, that's your right.  It's as irritating as itchy powder, but you have to learn to deal with it in some way other than directly changing what another editor wrote.  That sort of action is reserved for article space; back here, we are agents of influence and exhortation.  Please restore StuRat's original text.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What I mean by "this category" will be understood when an Admin acts on StuRat's request. With the majority of volunteers who do not condone disruptive behaviour to "prove a point" I think a suitable reaction will be welcome. DriveByWire (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've put it back again. The next time you edit my posts I go to AN/I. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia, that would contravene a guideline in WP:EXT: external links should only be put in an "External links" section. If you're talking about a different wiki using Mediawiki, I suggest trying MW:Project:Support desk. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "a wiki site" implies to me a site other than Wikipedia which happens to use similar infrastructure. —Tamfang (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

mobile phones with actual keyboard
hi. I nee dto upgrade my phone, currantly a blackberry, and i don't want to move toa phone with a touchscreen keyboard, i like feeling actual physical keys. are tehre any non-blackberry phones which have those any more? --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.161.161 (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Other than Blackberry, most physical-keyed smartphones run Android. This article gives some comparisons: http://blog.laptopmag.com/just-your-type-the-best-smartphones-with-physical-keyboards, other reviews and comparisons exist. The two 'best' examples (for some arbitrary definition of best) seem to be the Motorola Droid 4 and the HTC Evo Shift 4G. We have a category called QWERTY mobile phones which you might wish to read through, but it seems to be incomplete. It also contains a number of phones no longer on sale. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict, but basically the same as the above) It depends what style of phone you're looking for. There are some Android phones with slide-out Qwerty keyboards like Motorola Droid 4 and earlier models, and LG has a few; Sony and HTC also have models. There's also some LG phones with slide-out Qwerty running Windows Phone, like the LG Quantum. Also a few Blackberry-shaped phones from different manufacturers like the HTC ChaCha and Samsung Galaxy Pro (both Android I think). Nokia have Symbian models like the E6-00 if you don't mind the lack of software and feature phone QWERTY models like the Asha 210. Basically, there's not many options with Blackberry style keyboard below the screen, but a few with slide-out keyboards, particularly on Android. It will depend on your country and network (some like the HTC Evo are for 4G networks, and phones with keyboards seem to be more popular in Asia). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am currently using an LG Model 500G, which has a QWERTY keyboard on the front face (no slide) like the Blackberry. It is definitely not a smartphone, but it does its job well. I only purchased it less than a month ago, so at least in the U.S. it is available (depending on provider).  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 10:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Cape Point
The height of the peninsular is refuted to be the highest in the world> Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.190.232 (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Cape Point might lead you to an answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would depend on your definition of a peninsula, and how you measure the highest point of one. For example, the Arabian Peninsula is said to be the largest peninsula in the world, and its highest point, Jabal an Nabi Shu'ayb, is 3666 metres according to our article.  This page, among others, defines the highest point on the Cape Peninsula as being Maclears Beacon at the summit of Table Mountain, which at 1084 metres is considerably lower.  If you mean is Cape Point the world's highest point at the extreme end of a peninsula, you then have to define the area/size/length at which an outcrop of land into the ocean begins to qualify as a peninsula.  The cliffs at Cape Point appear to be around 249 metres high but there are plenty of higher ones listed in our article Cliff.  If any of these are situated on something that could be defined as a peninsula, then the answer to your question would be no.  Ka renjc 11:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is the Reference Desk, I'll point out to the OP that s/he probably meant "reputed to be " (= has the reputation of being, is said to be). An argument can be refuted when facts are presented which contradict what was previously known. "A pupil asserted that the Thames was the longest river in England. The teacher refuted this by opening an atlas and pointing at several which are longer." BrainyBabe (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny you should use the Thames in your example. News of a "Seven Springs near Cheltenham is the real source of the Thames", suggest that the Thames is indeed the longest river in the UK.  Astronaut (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Dump
I have been using the random articles feature of Wikipedia for fun, but I noticed that the article Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Dump has a sentence that says "Beginning in February 1969, Chemical Waste Storage and Disposition, a Beaverton company, stored roughly 25,000 55-gallon drums of chemical waste near the shore of the playa with a permit from the Oregon Department of Agriculture."

The problem is that playa is a disambiguation article. Which would this be talking about - Sink (geography), or Dry lake? - Letsbefiends (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dry lake—the word is correctly wikilinked in the first sentence of the article. Deor (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that the sink article doesn't agree with the playa disambiguation page. It seems that sink shouldn't be listed there. Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Stanley Theater (Utica, New York) ...
... was named after Stanley V. Mastbaum. His Brother was called Jules E. (= Ephraim) Mastbaum.
 * 1. Question: The middle initial "V." stands for ?
 * If this is not known, but following the pattern "middle name Jewish"


 * 2. Question: Any suggestions, which Jewish given names start with a "V." ?
 * I appreciate your suggestions. Grey Geezer 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)


 * At http://www.babynames.org.uk/jewish-boy-baby-names.htm I found Vaschel and Venamin/Veniamin/Venjamin as possibilities. Searching Google for 'Stanley [xxx] Mastbaum' gives nothing with these, though. His family seems to have been fairly fluid in their naming - on the 1880 census Stanley is 2 months old. Jules is listed as 'Jules S Mastbaum' and his father is 'Levi Mastbaum'. By 1900 they have become the 'Nastbaum' family, dad is called 'Leo' and Jules has become 'Julis C Nastbaum'. In 1910 Stanley is using his middle initial and is back to 'Mastbaum'. It's possible that one of the original documents gives the full name, but I suspect that they used various names, variously translated from German or Yiddish, as the mood took them. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for looking into the matter! Not solved but interesting observations given, especially that the middle initial appears when he was about 20. Trying to make a (stage) name sound more interesting ? Anyway, thanks a lot! Grey Geezer 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that you can conclude that because Jules had what you believe to have been a Jewish middle name, that his brother did too. I'm also not sure that you can firmly state that in those days Ephraim was a Jewish name, rather than just a biblical one. --Dweller (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cieling??
Does the word cieling actually exist as an alternative to ceiling?? I am asking because I noticed it in many pages. Roshan220195 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's a misspelling. Here's the history of the word, in EO. It derives from the same Latin word as "celestial", meaning "of the heavens". There is no entry for "cieling". Possibly complicated by the fact that in Spanish the word for "heaven" is cielo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There were two mis-spellings in the English wikipedia, one of which I've just corrected. The other (an image caption) is apparently a direct quote from the original document. There are another 19 instances found in a search for "cieling", all referencing foreign language words. Rojomoke (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Thanks. Roshan220195 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Digital artwork / flat-screen television
I know the technology for this product is relatively common, so I am fairly certain it must exist, but I have never seen one advertised or marketed. Is there a wall-mounted flat-screen TV that when turned off, instead of showing a blank screen, becomes a digital photo frame to display artwork, for example? Each of these exist independently. (In fact, they sit right next to each other in my local Walmart!) It would look so much better to see a nice work of art or a family photo over the fireplace when the TV is turned off than a black rectangle. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, except for the "turned off" part. To display anything, a digital photo frame or TV must be "on", in that it's using a fair amount of energy.  Many TVs can display photo's on a USB flash drive, for example.  For those that can't, there are set-top boxes that will read the pics off the USB drive and output them on a HDMI cable (I have one).  However, one thing to beware of is that some TVs will suffer screen burn-in if left on the same image (or small series of images), for an extended time.  Best idea of all ?  Go with an old-fashioned photo album/scrap book and save both your TV and the planet.  (I suspect that whatever pics you see looping over and over again on any device will soon lose their appeal, in any case.)  StuRat (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * [I know it's a lost cause globally, but in this zone of clever people may I point out that English plurals do not normally use apostrophes? The plural of photo is not photo's.] Hayttom (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, StuRat. When I said "turned off", I meant when it is not being used as a television. And I knew burn-in was a problem for old cathode ray tubes, but I wasn't sure about flat screens. With regard to your reference to albums or scrapbooks, I agree, but I was thinking about the aesthetics of the room — a framed still image is better than a big black rectangle on the wall.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See Screen_burn-in for an illustration of burn-in on a flat screen TV. My thought was that a flat-screen TV could be used to light the room, which, if it used white light, should at least dim the screen evenly.  If they design a TV which is efficient enough and doesn't fade, this might be how rooms are lit in the future.  StuRat (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)