Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 January 4

= January 4 =

Wikipedia printed in volumes
--Inspector (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See Size of Wikipedia and Size in volumes. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Currently, 1,744 volumes (Britannica's last printing was - I believe - 32 volumes) - but that's without any pictures, which would likely push the number close to 2,000 volumes - depending on how large you printed them. Several people have read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica from cover to cover - if you tried that with Wikipedia, you'd come badly unstuck because our growth rate is faster than most people's reading speed! SteveBaker (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am revising the heading of this section from How many volumes will be needed if the wikipedia articles are printed in style similar to Encyclopædia Britannica? to Wikipedia printed in volumes, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in the Manual of Style about section name length? I didn't see it at MOS:HEAD.  It's not unusual for help or refdesk questions to have titles more than 60 letters long, and I don't think we should start the habit of changing them for length unless they are very unwieldy or unclear.  I don't think the linked article really applies here: we're not trying to get someone to read an e-mail.   RudolfRed (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of anything in the Manual of Style about section length. I acknowledge that Reference desk questions sometimes have titles more than 60 letters long, and I add that the practice seems to be becoming more common, but brief headings are usually more practical because they enable readers to interpret discussion content more quickly.  I wish to encourage all editors to practice the use of headings that are both concise and informative.  Summarizing the topic in about three keywords is a useful exercise.  Informativeness in a heading is limited; the question in the body of the discussion provides more details.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (@User:Wavelength) None of that stuff applies here because the reference desks are neither "Talk" pages nor in "Article-space". In fact, we have our own editing guidelines to cover the unique fact that we're answering questions from the general public who typically don't know much about Wikipedia guidelines and such.  Reference_desk/Guidelines is the relevent standard here.  We have a rather important policy of NOT editing other people's posts - including the title - other than for essential formatting reasons.  That is because you might inadvertently change the meaning of a question in some subtle way that you, personally, might fail to notice.  The wisdom of that policy is very clearly demonstrated in this case because "Size in volumes" in your revised subject line is very vague and results in an unanswerable question.  How many pages are there in a volume?  How big are the pages?  What font are they printed in?  But our OP specifically said: "printed in style similar to Encyclopædia Britannica" which completely clarifies the question.  So in editing the OP's question "for clarity" - you actually removed a vital piece of information to help ref desk denizens in answering the question...and that's the reason we frown on you doing that kind of thing.  Please don't do it again!  SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The revised heading is Wikipedia printed in volumes, and not what you said it is. I preserved the question unchanged, immediately below the revised heading.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

talking birds
what birds/if any do they sometimes cut the tongue of..in order for the bird to talk better..either inside or out..of the US..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.182.187 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe this is related to raising Mynah birds. Query might better be handled by the Science Ref desk -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like cruelty to animals to me. Although if we tried that approach on some of the current human singing "stars", it might be an improvement. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cruelty indeed: Contributing to the delinquency of a Mynah. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * De-lingua-ncy, perhaps? :) --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. Perfect. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

First women president of indian national congress?
who is first women president of indian national congress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.201.41.149 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on President of the Indian National Congress, I think it's Annie Besant. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Earls Court Power Station London
My grandmother used to talk about her father being a boiler cleaner (electric light worker). at the Earls Court power station but I can find no trace of it, Can you help ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithneu (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Could this have been the Lots Road Power Station in Chelsea? Coal-burning from 1905 to the 1960s, then oil until the 1970s, then gas. It's a little under 1km from Earls Court station. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a blog post on that power station. Marco polo (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the above two posts, but given that Earls Court has 4 rail lines running through it, I wouldn't be surprised to find the underground rail network in that area had its own power sub-station. Are we talking about 100 years ago ish? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My husband has found a reference to, between West Brompton Station and Brompton Cemetery, the Brompton and Kensington Electricity Company. I shall try and find more for you. The building is still there, and is opposite the West Brompton entrance to Earls Court Exhibition Centre. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Originally, each Metropolitan Borough in London had its own power station, either operated by a council-run board or by a commercial company. Earl's Court was in the Metropolitan Borough of Kensington. I found "1923 Richmond Road, Earls Court power station purchased by the London Electricity Joint Committee". The same page says; "1928 Closed the Kensington station when the supply was replaced by that from the London Power Co". The only other information that I could find was on this page, which says (about a fifth of the way down a very long page): "Brompton and Kensington Electric Supply Company Limited was incorporated in 1888 and commenced supply in 1899. The company was first known as House to House Electric Light Company and secured rights to supply electricity not only within London but outside the capital and carried out contract work in laying down electricity mains and generating stations at Eastbourne, Sussex, Leeds and Madrid, Spain. A generating station was built at Richmond Road (later renamed Old Brompton Road) under supervision of Robert Hammond, Managing Director and pioneer of electricity. Later one of the six companies which formed Central London Electricity Limited. In 1947 demand was 14,640 kW."
 * So the Richmond Road / Old Bromton Road power station seems to have operated from the 1890s to 1928. I hope that fits in with your family history. If you want to find out more, The Kensington and Chelsea Local Studies collection at the Kensington Central Library might be your best bet, although you'll probably have to go along in person. Alansplodge (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks all. the Richmond Road / Old Bromton Road power station fits very well as he is listed boiler cleaner in 1911 (no mention of where but they were living in Chiswick)and at his death in 1924 as boiler cleaner (electric light worker)Earls Court power station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithneu (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just how unanimous are the Falkland Islanders?
This year there will be a referendum on the Falkland Islands about if they want to continue to be an overseas British territory. The overwhelming opinion is that they'll vote to stay British, but I'm curious as to if anyone at all will vote the other way. Here on the BBC we are given the impression that the islanders are totally unanimous on this, is that the case? Are there even 5% of islanders who want independence or Argentinian rule? Do any islanders have an Argentinian background and loyalties? Many thanks, 86.146.138.64 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Falkland Islands status referendum, 1986, 96.45% wanted British sovereignty while 0.11% 0.33% wanted Argentine sovereignty. A new referendum will be held in two months.Dncsky (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I didn't realise they'd had a referendum on this before. Thanks a lot. 86.146.138.64 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My pocket calculator confirms that 0.11% of 911 votes cast, equals exactly one single person who wanted to be Argentinian. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ooops, my bad. It's supposed to be 0.33% (3 votes cast). The WP article I quoted is wrong, the source of that data is correct. I've corrected the error. Dncsky (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And at that level, it could very easily be a few mis-cast ballots. I don't know how the ballot was conducted but for example, I found a study about a US election that said that: "97% of respondents had no difficulties using touch screen voting terminals"...which means that 3% of people had difficulties with those voting machines - it only takes one in ten of those having difficulties to actually register the wrong vote to reproduce the results in this referendum.  Numbers of voters down in the fraction of a percent are negligable.  Truly, this this can be said to be unanimous within the limits of probable error. SteveBaker (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The system was postal ballot, for the record. 86.146.138.64 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Falklands census data has apparently just been released; 60% self-identify as "Falklander" by nationality, rather than British or anything else! This includes some resident non-citizens. I'll try and find some firm data; all I can see just now is self-identification of national origin, which isn't quite what was asked for.


 * There's an interesting article here which notes that in recent years, the non-British population of the islands has sharply increased; "60 nationalities are now represented", including - as Falkland Islands notes - a small handful of Argentineans, and a substantially large number of Chileans. The population was much more homogenous in 1986; even if the non-citizens don't vote, it may have an impact on opinions. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure many Chileans are going to want to be Argentinian. But we'll see in due course. Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That earlier referendum was held less than four years after the war, when Britain saved the Falklanders from those evil Argentinians. Now, a quarter of a century and a generation later, in a more peaceful world, there could well be a different mood. But who knows. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering what the Islanders were subjected to during the occupation, it would be astonishing if it were all forgotten, even by those who weren't born then. Alansplodge (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One doesn't need to go back that far: the Falklands are currently under something of a mini-blockade orchestrated by Argentina, which isn't even trying to win the hearts and minds of the "occupation force". - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 00:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the primary objective of the current Argentinian agitation is not "recapture the Islas Malvinas", but rather "re-elect the President". For that, sympathetic Falklanders might even be counter-productive. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder what percent would want independence, if they thought they would still be protected from an invasion by Argentina. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Since protecting them from an invasion by Argentina requires more military personnel than the number of civilians that voted in the referendum discussed above, along with the world's longest corridor, any independence on those terms would be a bit meaningless. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't understand what you're saying. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're saying that the UK wouldn't grant independence and still support the garrison, I'm not sure that you're correct. A precedent is Belize who became independent in 1981, but retained a British garrison of 1,500 including Harriers and Rapier missiles, which were needed to dissuade Guatemala from invading the place; they didn't leave until 1994. Alansplodge (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And are they on their own now ? If so, only 13 years of protection isn't very reassuring. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well actually the last British forces left in 2011. Guatemala now recognises Belize and are behaving themselves, but help is only a few hours flying time away. Alansplodge (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No that's wrong, there are apparently still 40 Brits supporting the Belize Defence Force. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, so they're (still) helping with training. A situation where you prop up a country until you've trained enough of their homegrown forces to defend themselves is one thing. In the Falklands, that's not an option. Reducing the British armed presence to a "tripwire" force was what (partly) encouraged the 1982 invasion in the first place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine they have a force there now capable of defending it from an Argentine attack until British reinforcements arrive. That would require that a fleet be permanently stationed there.  StuRat (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, much more of a deterrent than there was in 1982. And the Argentinians now know that it's not a bluff. This article suggests that it would be very difficult, if not impossible for Argentina to neutralise the RAF Mount Pleasant air base, but conversely, if they did, it would be equally difficult for Britain to retrieve the islands. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

EUCLID ROCK QUARRY DUMP TRUCK (wooden scale model)
I am researching some identification on (of all things) a unique hand made extremely detailed wooden scale model Euclid Quarry Dump Truck. I have been poking around and this question is so unusual that I am not getting to a point of resolution. Thought maybe you folks could give me a suggestion. The best I can describe this is it is a very detailed actual wooden hand made scale model 10"H, 10" wide and 18" long. I only have the craftsman's name and date of completion (2000).  However, I do know that his work was so unique that he was asked to build a model for the Euclid historical museum display. I think Euclid of Ohio was eventually purchased under license by Hitachi?  I can send photos if that would help with pointing me in the right direction.  Again this is a one of a kind model and not a mass marketed product.  Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.216.251 (talk • contribs)


 * This page has photos and specifications on a number of Euclid trucks. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you do a Google maps search on the museum, here, you'll see it has a "See inside" section that allows you to use Google maps to walk around inside photographs of the museum. I didn't see a dump truck model on display there - although there are a variety of other wooden models.  You might want to check it out yourself - since you know what you're looking for. SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

former nba player
what is blue edwards real name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.101.8 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Theodore, according to our article at Blue Edwards RudolfRed (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there global figures for deaths and injuries caused by celebratory gunfire?
I was reading the article about Celebratory gunfire and it has some interesting cases of how many deaths and injuries are caused each year by people firing guns into the sky for various (mostly euphoric) reasons, but the figures are all for individual countries or cities in individual years. Does anyone collect more comprehensive stats, ideally worldwide? I've done a bit of googling without any luck. Many thanks, 86.146.138.64 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this a big thing in London? I am fairly certain I have heard of it happening in Iraq, and not recently. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a big thing in London. But I think someone died in Palestine that way recently. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only British traditions of celebratory gunfire are the feu de joie using blank ammunition, recently revived by the Brigade of Guards for the Jubilee, and the curious quasi-pagan custom of wassailing, which culminates in firing a shotgun into an apple tree, for reasons nobody really understands. See this YouTube clip I've never heard of anyone being hurt. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. My people have a tradition of cutting the leg off a man who falls out of an apple tree with an axe at Christmas.  I bet the two are related. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you find volunteers to be the man in the tree? Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have explained it's a fiction. "Wassailers" called gubi or jaslickari go from house to house presenting a story about a shepherd who falls out of an apple tree and breaks his leg, which has to be cut off with an ax.  They then chase the kids around with the ax and tell them they are next if they've been bad.  It used to scare my mother witless.  (The story is fused with the nativity, the "wisemen" carry an orthodox nativity scene and introduce the foolish shepherds.)  See this description, but without the reason why they carry axes.  (My parents were married in the church that is mentioned.)  After the pagan part they sing some Christmas carols and tell the nativity story.  You are supposed to offer them food and liquor.  I'll eventually have to upload my movie, but here's a video from modern day Ukraine where you can see the ax chopping about 2/3 of the way through.  No chasing the kids though. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

More a collection of articles rather than a complete list, but Gun Policy News: Shooting-in-the air, unintentional injury and death might be of interest. There's an awful lot of them. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)