Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 November 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 13

info on a song

I was windering gor the KMPH 26 news in Fresno, CA. The song that is played during an advertisement for the station with something about your neighbor; is there any way that I could get the name of the artist and song? Thank you.

Jrnniifer please contact me at (email removed)

Please suitly emphazi windering gor. JackofOz 02:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. But seriously, Musipedia's contour search might help if you remember the melody well enough. Dar-Ape 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was quite serious. I have no idea what "windering gor" means. Wondering something? Wandering something? Beats me. JackofOz 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well its gotta could mean 'listening to'. But its not important to the question. 8-)--Light current 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, in English (run-on sentence left intact):

I was wondering, for the KMPH 26 news in Fresno, CA, the song that is played during an advertisement for the station, with something about your neighbour; is there any way that I could get the name of the artist and song ? Thank you.

Jennifer

StuRat 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see ... I think. Thanks. JackofOz 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new and have a question...

Hi everyone. I recently signed up to wiki and I'm wondering if I have done something that's not allowed, please help me out.

I build and finish cabinets and other woodwork for a living, I guess it's also a hobby of mine. So when I came across the cabinet page on wikipedia, I figured I would create a page of pictures and descriptions just for wikipedia. Here is what I'm speaking of: wiki cabinet page

Now, if you look at the external links, you will see the link I added. It takes you to a page full of cabinets my company has built. I know from prior jobs and charity work online, sometimes this is viewed as a conflict of interest. So, this external link and page I have made, is it allowed? I didn't put any AdSense or other crap on the page, I also added a big link at the bottom that returns the user to the previous page.

But, if it is allowed, am I able to create more pages like the one mentioned in this question? We do many types of woodworking and finishing, so I could create a ton of pages just like it with pictures and description on many different areas of my profession.

And be nice, I'm new! =P

Barry--Naples 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the link you added is very good. As long as you don't abuse Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising, you should be fine. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, so what if I make more pages? I have a TON of content to use. We do faux finishes, re-finishing, painting, Venetian Plaster, cabinet building, finishing and so on. I would volunteer to actually create new pages(you guys have a ton of non-existent topics in the woodworking area), but I'm a very poor writer. The writing you see here from me, it's the very best I can do. Lol, thank God for the spell checker on Google Toolbar. =o

Barry--Naples 03:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just give it a go, and we'll let you know if your articles need some cleanup :-). The important thing is to be bold, and it sounds like you have a lot to offer! Dar-Ape 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, I guess it's worth a shot. I will just create very basic pages on topics that don't exist and let the better writers come behind to fix up my mess and add some solid content with proper grammar. I'm not so bad at writing if it's only like one paragraph, after that I start to ramble and get lost. I will go create a page now or maybe tomorrow and report back here when it's done.

Also, as I was looking for a page to create, I came across [this page]. If you look at the external links, some of them seem to be rubbish, some also link to pages with lots of AdSense and commercial stuff. Is that a normal and an accepted thing?

For example, the link named "To Refinish or Not to Refinish (Antique Furniture)", is that something that works? It seems kind of worthless, no? Just wondering, I'm no where near ready to start removing peoples links, just trying to get a feel for things.

I also added a link to the [frame and panel door] page. I actually did this before I was a member of wiki though. Barry--Naples 04:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are doing well researching, remember to look at what has already been done and try to fit in within that. It's not good going around creating separate pages for every single type of paint when they are already all listed and described in the paint article (for a bad example).. Remember there are existing categories such as woodworking, wood, furniture. Lots of reading there. Hope I haven't discouraged you:) Vespine 04:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. The weird thing is learning the formatting here. I'm used to plain old HTML. And also the rules are pretty strict(worried about making people upset). That's why I'm reluctant to write content or create pages, maybe I need to play around for a week or so first. =X

Barry--Naples 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do like everyone else did: copy everyone else. There's over a million articles out there, though less than half of those are good examples of usage. There's also enough Wikipedia: literature to keep you reading for weeks, and enough talk about that literature to keep you reading for $\mathrm {months^{months^{months}}}$, so you can always find help. Don't worry about getting people mad, we have policies that require us not to get mad!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you create those pages on Wikipedia itself? The way you do it now, no-one else can edit what you write. Just in case you don't realise, you can upload images with the 'upload file' link at the top left of every page (one but last entry, under 'toolbox'). And you can start a new article by typing in the title you want to give it in the search box and then clicking 'create article'. If you don't want to do that for some reason, what you are doing now is still helpful. It would just be more helpful if you did it on Wikipedia. DirkvdM 07:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can think of one thing, and that's WP:NOR. If it's previously unpublished material, we can't add it to Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 09:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you write articles just based on your knowledge of the subject, they are likely to be criticised and perhaps deleted as original research. The answer is to find a few books on the subject or magazines of general circulation and use them as citations. I like inline citations. Find an article which has little superscript numbers which link to references at the bottom of the article and copy their reference format. Thanks for your willingness to contribute to Wikipedia. Edison 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't quite get what's happening to your sig there? Are you just typing the details in? Have you registered yourself? Are you using four ~ marks to sign your name? I'm pretty new myself so can't quite work out what's going on. :) Vespine 00:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems he has registered, though his name is in red because he doesn't have a user page yet. If you change User: to User_talk: you can get to his talk page.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank Barry/Naples for doing this the right way - you see people putting spam links in so often it is refreshing to see someone put thought into what may be a conflict of interest etc. and setting up his pages so that this is not likely to occur. Great work Barry! -- Chuq 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This place is sooo confusing! lol
"Also, I don't quite get what's happening to your sig there?"
Neither do I, it just said in the rules that you have to sign your name on everything you post, so that's what I do. =T

"Why don't you create those pages on Wikipedia itself? The way you do it now, no-one else can edit what you write."
I'm worried about people stealing the pictures and using them on their site or blog. We have had a big problem with people stealing content off our site and making it their own. It's hard to know exactly how bad the picture stealing is because there is no way to check for that. I use copyscape.com regularly to check for article and copy theft. Anyway, the point is, I know from past experiences uploading pictures to wiki, they instantly become public property. Unless there is a way around that, I'm not sure I'd like to have all our pictures publicly owned. I don't mind giving up ownership to 3 or 4 pictures so wikipedia can create a brand new page, but I don;t know if 50 or 100 pictures is a good idea. Plus, the CEO of JWP could get T'd off about it, Yikes! =o

They do not become public domain, unless you explicitly make them so. However, if you do not do so, you must licence them under the Gnu free documentation license. which, yes, will allow others to copy and reproduce them freely as long as they comply with the license.

Please sign your contributions here (and on any Talk page) with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine 05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Inland Lighthouses, USA

Hello, I visited Lake Minatare in Western Nebraska, USA. It has a lighthouse, which is an inland, and it is one of seven similar inland lighthouses.

I am looking for help about the rest seven. Please if you know answer me.

Kind regards, Zeyad, USA

You might try [[1]]--Light current 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I dont' have the answer, but I have to ask. What is the purpose of an inland lighthouse? DirkvdM 07:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So that we're ready for when global warming raises sea levels ? Maybe someone else can shine some light on this issue. StuRat 08:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Some inland lighthouses, such as the lighthouse at Hannibal, Missouri, are found alongside large rivers (edit) or inland lakes. Others, such at the lighthouse at Yokohama, Japan, are located on hilltops a mile or more from the shore, making them easier for mariners to see than lighthouses at sea level. --Charlene 09:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, some inland lighthouses are built as memorials, such as in the case of the Mark Twain lighthouse in Missouri.

So how far inland is inland? Some people build inland lighthouses as follies. I believe there are two such in the UK.--Shantavira 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So do those listed at Lake Michigan#Lighthouses count as inland?--Shantavira 09:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not those on the lake, no. StuRat 09:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

While it might not apply to the US lighthouses some like the Dungeness Lighthouse were built on the shore at the time but are now further inland due to the sea receding. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe... reminds me of an old joke. SWAdair 09:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lake Champlain still has an operational navigational light or two, one of which might count as a "lighthouse". And the old Colchester Reef light house was moved to Shelburne Village where it has been preserved as a museum exhibit; now it's really inland, but it does have the old steamship "Ticonderoga" nearby to keep it company.

Atlant 19:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When where helicopters first used by warships?

When where helicopters first used by warships? I could not find the answer in the helicopter article. Also, when did flight decks start showing up on cruisers, destroyers and frigates? Can anyone direct me to a website on how warship design was influences by helicopters? --Blue387 06:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's something, including the first helicopter carrier: [2]. "Governor Cobb" should be a good google search term for more on the subject. If you research it you could write Governor Cobb, of course :-) Weregerbil 12:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be USCG Governor Cobb (WPG-181)? Aircraft showed up on cruisers, submarines, etc. even earlier. These were ramp-launched fixed wing craft and water-recovered by crane. (except the submarines ones - water-launched) Rmhermen 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Brown Sugar

So I have a bag of brown sugar that's been sitting in the back of my cabinet for a while now. It's now literally rock solid, and I can't seem to be able to use it at all, short of whacking it with a hammer. Is there anyway to ressurect this bag of sugar? Or, failing that, is there a way to prevent this? ---Wedgeoli 17:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is normal as the sugar absorbs moisture from the atmosphere. The only way to stop that would be to store it in a damp-proof container. Maybe gently warming it first might soften it and then whack it with the hammer. Toffee hammers are made for this express purpose.--Shantavira 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding rice, or another non-toxic desiccant might help prevent the clumping too. If you need the (clumped) brown sugar for baking, you could nuke it with butter first (provided the recipe calls for butter.)---Sluzzelin 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had success with putting the sugar in an airtight container with an orange peel and waiting a few days; the peel slowly rehydrates the sugar. But I've never had my brown sugar get all the way to hammer-whacking stage. --ByeByeBaby 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So wait, is the sugar hard because its dehydrated or because it's absorbed moisture?? ---19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Dehydrated. Keeping it in a "damp-proof" container is to keep the moisture in. --hydnjo talk 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The actual problem isn't its hardness but its clumpiness, and it's clumped because it absorbed moisture. It's also "hard" in its granular form, but that's not a problem usually. ---Sluzzelin 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Microwave it, but zap it a little at a time and keep checking it so none of it melts. -THB 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was dead wrong, OP. I hope you didn't make things worse by following my advice. Otherwise feel free to drop the clump on my house. :) ---Sluzzelin 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So what's wrong with whacking it with a hammer (in the bag obviously)? You will break up the lumps. alteripse 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Doods, the best way to keep or make sugar soft is to put a couple of teabags in with it in an airtight container. That leads me to believe, anecdotally, that it's too moist, not too dry. Anchoress 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Brown sugar gets hard when it loses moisture. White sugar gets hard when it absorbs moisture. Makes no sense whatsoever. -THB 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, allz I knowz iz I keep a couple of teabags in with my brown sugar, and it never gets hard, and if I have hard brown sugar, I put a teabag in with it and it gets soft. Weird. Anchoress 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the tea bag is moister than the brown sugar and drier than the white sugar! -THB 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're all wrong! The correct solution to the problem is to make cookies/biscuits often enough that the brown sugar never has time to clump in the first place! ;-)

Atlant 19:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Brown sugar is still good when it's gone hard. Whacking it against the counter (while still in the packet) works well for me. And yes, it goes hard because it has dried out. Getting it wet won't help either (it will disolve), but dry sugar can be ground should you need granules. Robovski 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How much do English cricketers earn, and where does the money come from?

Whenever I watch cricket on TV, the stands are near empty. So, again, where does the money come from and how much does a senior cricketer typically earn?. Thanks 195.93.21.101 20:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

English cricketers are paid by the England and Wales Cricket Board. "The ECB salaries of Andrew Flintoff, Michael Vaughan, and Marcus Trescothick (three of the most important players in the England side) have been estimated at £400,000 (per year)"[3]. Jpe|ob 22:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

They also earn money from sponsorship deals. The ECB gets the money from gate-takings and selling the rights to televise British cricket. Jpe|ob 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I guess that means that for most cricket fans, it's an armchair sport, and that being the case, there will be lots of TV advertising revenue. But I wouldn't have thought there would be much sponsorship money from cricket related items; I mean, how many of us simply have to go out to the local sports shop to buy a new set of stumps? Stumps me.

the family of Roelof Frederik "Pik" Botha

Does anyone know anything about the son of Roelof Frederik "Pik" Botha who should be about 60 years old now? I believe his name is Pieter, no relation to PW Botha, of course. Thank you in advance for anything you can tell me.

Puking and getting sick

Is there a way to make yourself puke and get sick without hurting yourself? 207.118.239.193 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. To make yourself throw up, you just touch your uvula. Cbrown1023 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

May be under Gag reflex--Light current 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Or you could take Syrup of ipecac. Dismas|^(talk) 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you aren't asking this to get out of school. :) Cbrown1023 22:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I need a way that I can be done with stuff around the house. If I make myself throw up by touching my uvula people would be able to tell.207.118.239.193 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When are you planning on doing this? And for what? It will help us give you a better answer. Cbrown1023 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How, are they going to look for scarring to detect whether you're doing it on purpose? o_o --froth^{T C} 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it is proper to give you advice on this self harm program.--Light current 23:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing it to harm myself. I need to pretend to be sick. 207.118.239.193 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Propose removal of this thread. Agreement?--Light current 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the ipecac solution is a valid one; it's certainly what I'd do. NeonMerlin 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted. The answer is "No", vomiting is harmful. Vomiting up acid harms the lining of your throat and can damage your teeth, especially in bulemia, which article has more information on the damage vomiting can do, such as electrolyte imbalance. -THB 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was only going to do it once. I'm sure once isn't bad for you because otherwise puking more then once when you are really sick would hurt you badly. 207.118.239.193 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Although inducing vomiting is the proper treatment for some, but not all, poisons. In those cases, the harm caused by the poison exceeds the harm caused by vomiting. StuRat 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My experience with vomiting and poison is restricted to alcohol and I didn't have to do a thing to make myself barf. -THB 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you'll need some toxin or mucosa irritant. It's not like clicking your heels and saying "Emesis" three times. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Standard method is index finger down the hatch. -THB 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

Are there any articles on Games and toys from the 1920's and how they possibly affected the culture?------Terry R. Caldwell

The precursors of Monopoly (game) were around then, but I'd argue they reflected the culture rather than affecting it. Notice the hidden social commentary in the game, including that people get thrown in jail just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, but the rich can always buy themselves out of jail. Also, the way to become the Chairman of the Board is to bribe everybody, and once you have a monopoly you can raise your prices and nobody can stop you. StuRat 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the culture mostly affected the toys, rather than the other way around... (I should learn more about the 20's, it seems like an interesting decade...) 惑乱 分からん 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Solitaire was probably played during the 1920s as well. The article doesn't say anything about its influence on culture, though. --Kjoonlee 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Eighth continent?

I was reading [4], about Dubai building eight man-made archipelagos, corresponding to the "eight" continents. Did I miss something? Has Atlantis been found? Clarityfiend 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That article does say eight. The official website does not. The article on Continents does not mention eight, although I have always wondered myself why, if Europe and Asia are separate continents, India is not, even though it is frequently referred to as a "subcontinent". It has its own tectonic plate and no doubt will be a continent at some point in the future. So either the reporter was including India and it got past the fact checkers or they're counting India. Of course, since it's in Dubai, they could be counting the Arabian Peninsula, which also has its own plate.-THB 00:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Greenland could be called a continent, or the Arctic, if you don't care that there's no land under it. StuRat 00:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess if you count Antarctica, you have to count Arctica to be fair. So with Arctica, Arabia, India, and Greenland, plus the usual suspects, you get 11. Surely there's one more to make a dozen. -THB 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica counts because it is a land mass, covered with ice. The Arctic is just frozen water sitting on top of unfrozen water. It has no definition except wherever the ice happens to peter out, which changes with temperature fluctuations. With global warming, it might even disappear entirely. JackofOz 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Greenland?--Light current 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Greenland is not a continent, but part of the North American land mass. The correct number is indeed eight, taking Antartica into account. Clio the Muse 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Eight? North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia/Oceana, Antarctica, and...? -- SCZenz 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; seven. That's what I meant-honestly! Clio the Muse 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote we make Pluto the eighth continent, as a consolation prize. Clarityfiend 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion. Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, it, too, can be a continent. With North & South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Arabia, India, Greenland, Australia, Arctica and Antarctica, that makes twelve continents. An even dozen. A very nice number, indeed. -THB 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This puts me in mind of King Lear, one of the exchanges between Lear and the Fool;

FOOL: The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven stars is a pretty reason.

LEAR: Because they are not eight.

FOOL: Yes, indeed: thou wouldst make a good fool. Clio the Muse 02:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So why DOES that article talk about EIGHT continents when there are twelve? -02:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What about, North America (1), South America (2), Europe (3), Africa (4), Asia (5), Australia (6), Oceania (7), and Antartica (8)? Like what SCZenz said, but counting Aust. and Ocean. as different continents. (and plus this colon-over thing is getting ridiculous)--Porsche997SBS 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, does Oceania have its own tectonic plate? I hope not, because that makes 13 continents. Why would you count Oceania before India? -THB 02:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Most scientists and people tend to agree that there are either 6 or 7 continentes (with the 6 having a combination of that landmass that makes up Europe and Asia called Eurasia). I'm sure that there can be many possiblities of conintents. It is like the whole kingdoms of organisms thing, it is disputed amongst scientists... Cbrown1023 02:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of scientific proof. It's a question of definition, and there is more than one definition of continent, depending on whether you're a geographer, a cartographer, a geologist, or a poet. JackofOz 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Or property developer from Dubai! -03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"I guess if you count Antarctica, you have to count Arctica to be fair." - we have an article on the continent of Arctica. You're just a couple of billion years too late to count it. Warofdreams talk 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Who comes up with these names? JackofOz 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Usernames or continent names? I cannot believe there really was an Arctica. Are you sure that you didn't create that article as a hoax? Tsk, tsk. -THB 08:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To JackofOz and StuRat, I think you guys are mixing up the Arctic with the Polar ice cap. The Arctic Ocean, part of which is covered in sea ice or pack ice, is part of but not all of the Arctic. I live on Victoria Island (Canada), part of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and there seems to be plenty of land here. Can't see it right now due to the snow cover but I'm sure it will turn up again next spring (June). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but is it a continent? It is only fairly recently that people knew there was no land (sticking up above sea level) there, only ice & snow. -THB 09:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Arctic being a continent but that it does have land above sea level. Look at Category:Mountains of Nunavut all of those are in the Arctic and are above sea level. Take a look also at the Arctic article and see what it defines as the Artic. Lots of land. The island I live on is almost the same size as England and Wales. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tectonic plates have little or nothing to do with continents, except by coincidence. The western half of the Atlantic Ocean lies above the North American and South American Plates; likewise the eastern part lies above the Eurasian and African Plates. The North American Plate includes a significant portion of eastern Eurasia. There is a Caribbean Plate, a Scotia Plate, a Phillipine Plate, but they are certainly not continents. "Continent" is a conventional name for the "great land masses of the world" - and whether you count Europe and Asia as two, or Eurasia as one, it is simply convention; but Oceania can't work as it is not a "great land mass". Nor, by convention, can Greenland, which is barely a third the size of Australia. By convention, the difference between a continent and an island is precisely the difference between Australia and Greenland. Geologyguy 16:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think that on most of the current projections we use that Greenland is absolutely huge and if someone wanted to count it they could. How far would sea level have to drop for us to get a new continent? (I know that's not the usual method but it would be fast.) -THB 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Greenland's area is 840,000 square miles as the largest island (sorry I don't have sq km instantly available) and Australia is 2,941,300 sq miles as the smallest continent. The most significant continental shelves are the Bering Sea west of Alaska and the Arctic shelves of Siberia, the North Sea, plus perhaps parts of the South China Sea. These would add to North America, Asia, Europe, and Asia, respectively in case of a sea level drop, so no new continents would be formed. Geologyguy 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the name of the "mother" supercontinent? -THB 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pangaea. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it was eluding me. -THB 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Our list of islands by area may be of interest. Note that the central land area of Greenland actually lies below sea level, so were the ice to melt (I know that's not your question), it would have a far smaller land area, and possibly consist of several islands. Warofdreams talk 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is true of Antarctica as well. Perhaps if/when all the ice melts, the Wipkipedia RD folks will have a new definition of "continent". :) Geologyguy 23:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, North America, Central America, and South America? --Bowlhover 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard Central America referred to as a continent... --Geologyguy 23:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just back to Australia. When talking about the continent of Australia, most people think of the place that's occupied by the country called Australia. But there is another "continent of Australia" - see Australia (continent) - which includes not just the country Australia but New Guinea and associated islands, and has a total area of 8.5 thousand sq km, compared with Australia (the country) which has only 7.7 thousand. This was news to me till quite recently, I must admit, and it's incredibly confusing. If they must define this larger area as a continent, what possessed them to call it "Australia"? JackofOz 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)