Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 7

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.

October 7

Geohashing

In xkcd's comic giving an example of geohashing (http://www.xkcd.com/426), what exactly does the "md5" arrow indicate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.202.36 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It means convert it to an MD5 hash. --Tango (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You probably know this, but just in case : There's a mapping utility here. APL (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed know this... I am trying to write my own program for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.202.36 (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

Suppose you were writing a list of the locations of, for example, developed houses only one room long, and on the list was Georgia (the country) and, someplace later on in the list, Georgia (the US state). Apart from writing "Georgia, USA" for the latter, how else would you distinguish them? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Georgia, USA" is easy; the problem is what to call the other one so that readers won't assume you mean the American Georgia there too. Perhaps the easiest solution is to write "Republic of Georgia", but according to Wikipedia (Georgia (country)#Etymology) that's no longer its official name. You might write "Georgia (Europe)", but the boundary between Europe and Asia in that area is not entirely agreed on, and some people might call that wrong. "Georgia (former USSR)" is another possibility. Or just "Georgia (the country)". --Anonymous, 05:20 UTC (minor edit later), October 7, 2009.

After much debate, the Wikipedia articles are at Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). That works for us. Who is the target audience? If it is people outside the US then "Georgia" and "Georgia, USA" should work, it is generally only Americans that would interpret "Georgia" as meaning their state rather than the country. If your audience includes Americans, then "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia, USA" would be my recommendation. That is all assuming it is necessary to specify the state - could you just say "USA"? --Tango (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not only Americans. I would expect anyone from Canada to see "Georgia" and think of the US state. Maybe people from at least some other places in the Americas too; I can't say. Maybe some other English-speakers too; the US Georgia has had that name for as long as any of us have been alive, while the other one was the "Georgian SSR" for many decades. --Anonymous, 19:20 UTC, October 7, 2009.

True - could I get away with claiming I meant people from the continent(s) of America by "American"? I can't speak for all English-speakers, but in the UK I would expect most people to think of the country. The news rarely clarifies when talking about the country. --Tango (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't really claim that, because even though non-US North and South Americans claim that the US has monopolized the term "American", they don't really want to be confused for Americans of US origin. I speak as a Canadian.

How about Georgia, Republic of and Georgia, USA ? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As Anonymous writes above, the country is not called Republic of Georgia, so Georgia, Republic of would be as incorrect as calling the USA the Democratic Republic of America /88.131.68.194 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Store the data in table format. The City(, State) column and Country column are distinct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would Georgia, the country, and Georgia, the state, be in the same category? It's not very consistent if you switch between giving some locations in the form of countries, and other locations in the form of states or other sub-national divisions. There's going to be confusion anyway (even without Georgia) if you've got a list of countries, and you throw in a U.S. state - or if you have a list of U.S. states, and you throw in a nation. (That does, of course, assume that you're mixing and matching different levels. If you have Georgia in, say, a list of countries, then Georgia is not likely to be interpreted as the U.S. state.) 122.99.81.48 (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to create such a context. A list of world legal jurisdictions sorted by area or population, for example. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you want to use "Republic of Georgia"? As far as I know it is a republic, even if that is not its official name. Would you object to "Washington State"? That is not an official name either but very useful when disambiguating. Sussexonian (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Georgia" looks too much like an official name, and would be misconstrued by many as such. There are similar problems with Ireland (the republic) being called the "Republic of Ireland"; its full official name in English is just "Ireland", although WP has chosen in its wisdom to ignore that and call it "Republic of Ireland" (but it's a long-running debate and it will no doubt change). That one has a further complication: it's on an island that's also called "Ireland", but it doesn't occupy the whole island. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One workaround for both of these cases is to write "republic of", without a capital R. --Anon, 04:54 UTC, 2009-10-10.

Mmm. Prob with that is if the context demands the first word in the entry be capitalised, it will still appear as "Republic of Georgia". The fact that it's a republic, as opposed to a monarchy or whatever else, is neither here nor there. But we wouldn't write "nation of Georgia" or "country of Georgia", so why "republic of Georgia"? I like Tango's first suggestion: Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). -- JackofOz (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I like Georgia (Caucasus) vs, perhaps, Georgia (America). —Tamfang (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Operating temperatures

Most electronic items I've seen, have a operating temperature range listed in the manual. The temperature range is typically something like "0°C - 50°C". I was wondering how do people in very hot or very cold environments keep their electronics working? Obviously, homes and offices are heated or cooled to make for more comfortable temperature, but I was thinking more about needing to use electronic items outside. So for example professional photographer taking photos of desert wildlife in Death Valley, or Antarctic scientists taking measurements outside. Astronaut (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The temperature range given by the OP is typical for commercial or domestic equipment and components, for example plastic encapsulated transistor circuits in a PC. Equipments for a wider temperature range use "military" grade components which often use ceramic in place of plastic encapsulation, at higher cost. Both extremes of temperature and humidity affect the reliability of electronic equipment. Most items can be operated outside their ratings but they are not guaranteed to do so. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. The 7400 series of SSI chips are still used for cobbling bigger chips together forty years after they were first designed. There was, and may still be, a 5400 series that did the same things, but was sturdier and more expensive. At one time I wrote manuals that included temperature ranges, but it was mostly just making shit up. PhGustaf (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A further question is what limits the temperature: storage, operation, or condensation. As an example a battery or electrolytic capacitor might theoretically freeze and burst at extreme low temperatures. The metal connections inside a chip might open up due to expansion and contraction. These would be storage failures. Wax which insulates transformer windings might literally melt at high temperatures. For other components, the thermal rise plus high ambient might destroy them. Clearly electronics including computers can be made to work over very wide temp range. Electronics in cars in the US might encounter ambient of 109 F (42 C) plus heating due to solar flux and due to heat from the engine, easily reaching over 122 F (50C). In the winter, at night, the same car could experience -30F (-34C). A failure mode which is not strictly thermal is condensation, or dew forming when moist air encounters chilled surfaces, which may be alleviated by moistureproof coating on circuit boards. Consumer electronics left overnight in a cold car might have problematic condensation when they are brought inside later to warm up. Edison (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that Wikipedia links a word "antartic" that I find in no major English dictionary to Antarctica. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a common enough pronunciation that it's probably a worthwhile redirect for anyone who's young enough or sufficiently poorly-read as to not know the correct spelling. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that surprising. Most dictionaries only mention very common typos. On wikipedia it is usual to have redirects for many different typos even if they are unlikely to be found in a dictionary. Redirects are free after all. This Google search [1] while not perfect suggests it's a not uncommon typo Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my spelling, though of course my userID is "Astronaut" :-)) (Muphry's law strikes again!) Astronaut (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the blogs of a few Antarctic scientists, and the cold is one of the major challenges when operating electronics down there. The major problems I've seen mentioned are:

1. Batteries stop producing electricity. The chemical reactions that produce electricity slow down as the batteries get colder, and eventually come to an effective halt.
2. LCD screens stop working. Once they get cold enough, the liquid crystals in the display freeze and the screen goes black. CRT displays don't have this problem.
3. Lubricating oils solidify. Anything with moving parts (fans, hard drives, etc.) stops moving.
4. Parts go out of spec. Resistors are especially temperature-sensitive, but capacitors can also be affected, with thermal contraction changing the plate-to-plate distance, and thus the capacitance.

On the other hand, some things work better in the cold. The sensors in digital cameras are a good example of this: for every ten degrees C you cool the sensor, you cut the noise level in half. Most astrophotographers use actively-cooled sensors, but in the Antarctic, simply putting the camera outside is enough. --Carnildo (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When I bring in a chilled camera, I leave it in a moistureproof bag for the warmup, because condensation in the optical system, leaves streaks. Edison (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Beta

Hello, My name is Om Sinha, and question is about the Wikipedia Beta release. I want to know that what's this beta is all about? Is it like you people are going to add some new features or something? I just wanted a brief idea about this 'Wikipedia Beta' thing. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.8.6 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you open an account, free and very easy to do, and I am surprised you have not done that already given your wikihistory, you can try the Beta version for yourself, if you like it then provide some feedback, if you don't like it, again, provide feed back and revert to the main version. Good luck in Chennai.Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a new interface, which is called a "skin." If you register, there are a number of options to change the way Wikipedia looks when you view. The new option is called Vector, and is eventually going to replace the current default, called Monobook. Why don't you register and give 'em a whirl? I myself use Modern. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find some information by following the links from Wikipedia:Beta. Warofdreams talk 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

COCA COLA UK

Well i just recived the SMS on my mobile few days back that my mobile number has won the donation of 1 million pounds and it said that its its from Coca Cola UK, now m not in UK, m in a different country and have a different nationality. There was a number mentioned in it to contact them which i did, i spoke to the man who seemed to Irish from his accent said that we jhave to send them an email which was mentioned in the SMS.

Now i have not done that yet, because m not sure that i should do it or not, as i have heard lot many cases of the frauds who get hold of ur computer with the IP adres(m not too sure as m not that techy) details sitting in a different country and try to capture ur account details. Is it true ? And should i email them. I thought of emailing them from a cyber cafe but can not go there.

Also why would any coompany would donate such a big amount to someone like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

They wouldn't. It's a scam. See phishing. --LarryMac | Talk 14:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Avoid giving out any personal information and definitely avoid giving any financial information. An easy way to verify would be to contact the company's PR department directly (this is their corporate contact page); they will probably confirm that they have no affiliation to this scam. (Letting them know about this may encourage them to throw some legal effort at tackling the responsible scammer). Nimur (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there no one who can help me out with this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank U so much. I got the response late so i got impatient. But let me read that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank U so Much NIMUR. That was the best advise. I'l do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's too good to be true, it probably is a scam. Apparently I have won the UK National Lottery three times this year and am invited to share the contents of the wills of various unknown bequestors, mostly from Nigeria. Identity fraud is major business. More than 30,000 email accounts have been compromised recently, although this was apparently due to key logging, rather than users giving their personal details. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep - sorry to be the bearer of bad news - but it's spectacularly unlikely that this is genuine. Why would coca cola run a contest with such a huge prize in complete secrecy? Contests are run as a form of advertising...running a contest in secrecy is really kinda silly! Why would they award the prize to someone who didn't even enter the contest? Nope - it's a scam. If you are foolish enough to respond, they are going to start asking for personal details - stuff like "Please tell us your bank details so we can transfer the money into your account"...(or all of your money OUT of your account). Either that or it's some variation on the Lottery scam where they ask you to pay them money for some complicated reason relating to "transfer fees", or something similarly unlikely. SteveBaker (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I get about one a fortnight of this type of scam. A large 'win' or seeking help in getting a large sum of money out of some country or other. The most recent one said I had "won" umpty tumpt million dollars and please send all my details etc. etc. ITS A SCAM! Delete it and delete any further similar mails. This is an internet mirage, the appearance on the horizon of something desired but when you get there it's gone and you're worse off. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing which SteveBaker is thinking, and i also recieve the so many emails regarding the Lotteries, but i always delete them all because i undersatnd that its all fake but that was quite strange to get a message on the mobile.

Thank u so much to u all..... Got a very good advise and response... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A few comments. Firstly most scams last long enough that by the time you received one you'd often find it online if you search. In this particular case I easily found [2] which appears to be a similar thing. This doesn't of course mean if you can't find a scam online it's legit. Secondly most scammers of this sort primarily operate advance fee fraud AFAIK. They may ask for bank account and other private details but according to our article and supported by a reference this is usually primary as a test. This reference says a similar thing [3]. It depends what you mean by details of course. If you just give your name and account number this there's unlikely to be much they can do with it, this isn't exactly extremely secret/private information, it's something likely shown on your cheques and many people provide those very details to third parties when requesting legitimate payments, heck sometimes they've even available online. No bank worth anything is going to allow someone to transfer money out just because they know the account number and name. Of course if you have provided such details, it's still worth telling your bank about it. Even if you give other private details like copies of your national ID or US social security card or perhaps just the numbers, copies of your passport, and other stuff it's still probably not going to be easy to gain access to your account and risky to them too. It may be possible for a more sophisticated crime with local ties (either the scammers or someone they sell the information to) so it's a still a very bad idea. An exception is if they obtain stuff (whether to thorough phising or other means) like your credit card number, internet banking login and password or pin number that would generally be trivial for someone to use. Probably of greater risk if you provide such things is identity theft i.e. opening up accounts etc in your name. As mentioned all of these would generally take time, are more difficult to carry out and are likely to need local ties and therefore only likely to be used by a more sophisticated crime syndicate. That's why most scammers just take the easier route of conning someone into actually paying them money via Western Union or other nearly untraceable payment methods. BTW, you told us your IP address. While hopefully none of us have malicious purposes, it isn't exactly likely to put you at risk unless your computer is already insecure. The big risk from visiting such a website would be if your browser has security holes (and also the risk of phising etc). Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Using a Wikia photo

Dear Sirs: I would like permission to use a photo of a plant called Buddha Hand Citron in your recipes.wikia.recipes. If permission is given, do you have it in a higher resolution? Thank you.

Mike McLaughlin Director of Horticulture Marie Selby Botanical Gardens 811 South Palm Ave. Sarasota, FL 34236 (email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.35.157 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already licensed such that you can use it, under certain (very liberal) conditions. Here is the short version. Here is the long version in case you need a lawyer to read it (unlikely). Super-short version: somewhere on whatever it is you're doing, say "This [whatever] uses material from the "Buddha's hand citron" article on the Recipes Wiki at Wikia.com which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License." Alternatively, put a small caption next to the image that says: "image source: recipes.wikia.com CC-BY-SA". --Sean 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Homunculi

I need a list of artifical life and it along the lines of Homunculi so far i have Homunculi, Kelenthri, Golems Tulpa, and rokadamus

if you could give me any more it would be great thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogieene (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Were you unhappy with the answers given here? We usually prefer that questions not be posted in multiple places. Perhaps you could follow up on some of the comments already provided on the other page? For example, it might be helpful if you clarify what types of "artificial life" you are interested in (fictional versus nonfictional; biological versus digital). --- Medical geneticist (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How can it be?

Please explain how Obama is an African American?

His father was not an African American, but on a student visa from Kenya.

His mother was not an African American, but Caucasian American from Kansas.

The best I get is Obama is bi-racial. Please send info to

Virgilio San Andres

See the FAQ Question 2 at the top of the Obama talk page. TastyCakes (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The media is not always concerned with minute details. His skin is dark in color, and he is not from India so they call him AA. Googlemeister (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have a look at the definition at African American. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Kenya is in Africa. Hawaii is in America. (The USA,anyway.) So what's the confusion? He is an American with African ancestors. That's what "African American" means. APL (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but aren't all people originally from Africa? Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do not believe so. This idea if I remember rightly was noted by Dr. Leaky some time ago ( whom Dian Fossey later went to see ). Naturally, it all boils down to whether you believe Evolution or the Bible. My understanding is that mankind originated in the Mesopotamian Valley, which is Iran and Iraq. I also believe these people were relatively dark in colour, so that the traditional causcasiocentric view of blonde and blue eyed Adam and Eve is rubbish. Whites descend only from Japeth, the son of Noah, and did not exist before then. All men are related, stemming from Adam and Eve, but also from Noah's three sons, who gave us the three main racial groups we have in the world today. Africa was settled by the descendants of Ham. Although the Bible does not support Evolution, in the Book Of Genensis it actually speaks of Continental Drift, so those who claim it is not scientific need to read it for once and get their facts straight. Of course, after the Flood, those men whose ancestors did originate in the Garden of Eden, then landed on Mount Ararat in Turkey. But no where does it say man came out of Africa. I suspect certain people jumped on this to stick it up the White Supremacists who certainly would not desire to be descended from Africans. They forget that the Jews they hate so much are the same Jews of the Bible, and that the White Race is not even that old, and is in fact a mix of many white and probably nonwhite people. That is probably why the SS only got its prospects to prove their ancestry down to 1700 - may be they were afraid of what they would find. But yes, my understanding of the definition is that African American means a US citizen or resident of African ( that is I assume Black African ) descent, just as I can claim to be an Irish New Zealander - and the rest Scots, Welsh, English, French, and who knows what else ? Interestingly, if Mr. Obama had been born say five years earlier, before Hawaii became a state, would he be American ? Of course, I suspect you do not have to be born in a State to be a US citizen - just in their territory - like Kelsey Grammer, from the US Virgin Isalnds. Naturally you do have to be born in the US to be President - so never fair, old Arny can't get that far. My question on this though would be, if you were born in a US Embassy or a US flagged plane or boat, does THAT make you a US Citizen ? The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There's from Africa and then there's from Africa. TastyCakes (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, APL should have said "recent African ancestors", ie. since European colonisation of Africa. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a little ambiguous isn't it? ;) TastyCakes (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"recent African ancestors" could mean citizens of African countries with European ancestry. I'm afraid, if you want to be accurate, you are going to have to say that word. OK, here goes...deep breath...you mean "black ancestors". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. But if your dad was a white guy from Africa, I don't think anyone would argue with you if you called yourself "African American". You'd have to explain it every single time, though. That'd get tedious. APL (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but what does "black" mean? It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, you can't actually come up with an effective definition. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

America has come a long way since the antebellum period, but the One-drop rule still widely exists, not on paper but in people's minds. Black is sadly still seen as something different, and is therefore drawn attention to, whether for good or bad intentions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a plain English term Mulatto. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That term is right up there with Negro in terms of acceptability. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the definition in our article African American, I think that the ethnonym African American is widely associated with having been raised with African American culture. That is, it is widely understood not as a term indicating geographic origin (e.g., a white South African) or even racial origin (e.g., a Haitian American or Kenyan American) but an origin in the culture of the ethnic group that shared the experience of slavery in North America and subsequent systematic racial discrimination prior to the mid-20th century. Obama clearly does not have that cultural, or ethnic, origin. So, while it may be technically correct to say that he is "African American" according to some definitions of that term, the fact is that he is not African American in the same way as people such as Martin Luther King, Jr., or Michelle Obama. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's wishful thinking. I believe that for most Americans, "African American" is just a politically correct synonym for "black". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's true for common usage. But it's should be noted that Black is not a politically incorrect word in modern usage. You can speak of Black history and Black culture quite frankly and quite commonly. It's not a pejorative. See Black people, esp. the section on Jesse Jackson in the US. It is often capitalized in such usage as a sign of respect, but not necessarily. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I once heard an American speaker explaining the relevance of Soweto in South African history say: "Soweto is where the African Americans rioted against the regime". Given that the riot consisted of non-American Africans rioting against equally non-American other-Africans I find it hard to imagine a worse description. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The concept of race is entirely man made, there is no biological, chemical, molecular or hereditry distinction which draws lines between what we call "human races", at best they are rough stereotypes. At worst they are a ignorantly supersticious source of fear, hatred and violence. Vespine (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many things in the universe that lack clear, natural, distinct demarcations. It is still useful to place things in generally agreed upon groups. For description and ease of communication if nothing else.

Colors, as defined by the English language, are completely arbitrary and indistinct, but it would be tedious and hopeless if every time someone tried to describe something as "purple", someone showed up to explain that light is a continuous spectrum with no natural distinctions. APL (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

African-American implies legacy of slavery and the severe discrimination of the Jim Crow South. Michelle Obama is African-American, for instance. Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So what legacy does German American imply? Maybe African American, to most Americans, just implies "Americans with African ancestry," like German American implies Americans with German ancestry. See Italian American, Japanese American , Irish American, and Swedish American. So if you don't conform to some typical shared trait of one of these groups, should you be banished from membership? You are not Japanese American unless your ancestors were locked in an internment camp during World War 2? Edison (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Race is significant in America. The reality of that has to find a word into which to go. The word that is the present receptacle for all that racial content is African-American. German-American, Italian-American, etc. has none of the severely and uniquely American energy that needs a special term to express it. Italian-American simply dispassionately expresses a situation. It is not of any consequence. It merely denotes a country of origin. But African-American is a term that is culturally required. It doesn't merely denote a place of origin. It denotes a condition that is inextricably tied up with America's unique personality. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing all of those groups have in common is that they encountered varying degrees of prejudice from the established Americans. One difference is that most of them came here voluntarily. But in addition to the negativity that blacks and others had to put up with for generations, and to a notable extent still do in the case of the darker-skinned citizens, there is a more positive aspect to the xxxxx-American tag, and that is to highlight America's significant racial and ancestral diversity. A look through any big-city phone book is a smorgasbord of diversity of surnames. Basically, "we come from everywhere". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenated Americans are what America is all about. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I love being a Danish-Irish-German-Dutch-English-French-Italian-Swiss-Scottish-Swedish-American. Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's gotta be a pain to fill out on the census form. APL (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "English-Scottish-Native American-American." Edison (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have to fill it out like that? Here in NZ while there is a write in, you can also tick as many boxes as you want so most people (well I anyway) would just tick the appropriate boxes. E.g. Italian American, German American, Irish American. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre animal sex

Bet that got your attention :) Okay, I really have two questions here 1. Is it true that male Cape Ground Squirrels have penises that make up 42% of their total body length, and what evolutionary purpose would that serve? 2. What is the species of shrimp whose sperm are equal to or longer than their body, and again, what purpose would that serve? Library Seraph (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1: Yes, it's true (though pathetic, compared to the Argentine Lake Duck). This article discusses the possible reasons for the large size. The glib answer is that female Cape Ground Squirrels have enormous vaginas. I'm not an authority on shrimp sperm, so I'll leave that question to future respondants. --Sean 17:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The shrimps for whom size is so important are ostracods or seed shrimp[4]. Bizarre is a self-relative perception and the squirrels and shrimps might have a similar opinion of the OP, if they cared at all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnacles have penises five times their own length. Some species of fly has a sperm some multiples of its own body length. Just to put Opie's questions in true perspective ;) Vimescarrot (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a citation for that Vimes? Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

QI, of course ;) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Our own article has the details on barnacle penises. The Book of Animal Ignorance, page 73: One species has sperm that is 2.3 inches in length - the longest in nature - and its testicles make up a whoping 11 per cent of its body-weight. (whoops, I just realised I didn't specify - that last bit was about the fly.) Vimescarrot (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess when one spends one's life rooted to a rock, one must get one's kicks in whatever way one can Thank you for your answers, that was enlightening (For lack of a better word) I am having soem trouble accessing the ground squirrel link, does anyone have a version from a different site? Library Seraph (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

literature/genres

how can genres be conceptualised?Nomsi (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As many as you like. I don't believe there's any "hard" limit in what we can and cannot conceptualize. I could sub-divide existing genres into genres in their own right arbitrarily, if I wasn't being too creative...--Leon (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Leon, you seem to be answering the question "how many genres can be conceptualised", which wasn't asked. However I haven't a clue how to go about answering the question: as far as I can see a 'genre' is necessarily a concept, so I don't know what it would mean to conceptualise one. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copedit

Can someone copy edit this article for me? Showtime2009 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the reference desk, we help people find the information they are looking for. We don't do copy editing... --Tango (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You know who does, though? The Guild of Copy Editors. They can help. They currently have a backlog of 7,524 articles, so it may be a while (a shorter while, if, of course, we were to all join the Guild and help). Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) You can also do it yourself: see Wikipedia:How to copy-edit. It's really not that hard, especially if you do a lot of writing in real life as I do. This would probably be the fastest route; I think I requested that an article be edited by the Guild in November 2007, and still nothing has come of it. They're only human, and they're busy. Xenon54 / talk / 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited partway through it, but there really seems to be way too much detail about the minute by minute movements of parts of the storm. I removed a sentence about a business it "nearly hit." There seems to be too much microscopic detail about where it was at what time. That would have been news on the day of the storm,and useful to the people cowering in basements at the time, but is not of enduring encyclopedic importance. It reads more like the local paper the next day. Edison (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Broom handles

Trying to find out of which wood broom handles are made. Article Broom does not say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.114.101 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All are different —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.154 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Come now, 82, show some initiative. My assumption had been "always the cheapest wood available", which usually, I believe, means pine. However, this page, an online shop for broom handles, advertises handles that seem to always be called "hardwood", which does not include pine trees. This page about the history of brooms says that around 1820 in England they were using ash, hazel, or chestnut wood for the handles. One site that's obviously not going to be representative of the world's brooms, but which I found interesting: This page is a sourcing website for buying one million broom handles; most unhelpfully use the term "wood" to describe the handles, but the one that sticks out for me is a source from Brazil that says "Pinus and Tauari wood" in the description. (A little discouraging, as our article on the latter says it's a threatened species.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where I live the wooden broom handles are all bamboo. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, since bamboo is a grass and not a tree, that would make them not wood at all. --Jayron32 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wood is a material, not a clade; bamboos are unusual among grasses in that they have woody tissue. And "tree" is a shape, not a clade -- unless you want to claim that palm trees are not trees at all, since they're more closely related to grasses than to apples, lemons, or pines. The tree shape has evolved separately in several different branches (ha ha) of the plant kingdom. --FOo (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the UK some good quality broom handles are made of ash. In Spain many of the household brooms have handles made of a cheap steel alloy covered in a film of plastic. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In England, broom handles were traditionally made of coppiced wood. In a coppice, trees are cut back to the ground on a regular cycle, say every 10 years. That yields long straight poles, good for handles, fence poles, chair legs and many other purposes, as well as for charcoal and firewood. Ash is one of the most common and most useful coppiced timbers ("ash, for nothing ill" = good for all purposes). Chestnut, beech, hazel, oak, lime are other woods that might be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:In my house the Broom Handles we use are of 2 bountiful types of wood, Plastic and Metal... Gazhiley (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on professional users of low altitude brooms, where such matters may have been discussed by frequent flyers of the pointy hat squad. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

2 Misc. Questions, on general biology

Alright, so originally I had 4 questions here, but now I totally forget 2 of them, so I'll ask those that I do remember. For one, what is that "trench" below your nose? Between the nostrils, and leading down to your lips. I'm curious as to its function as well. Two, I'm looking for a specific type of flower, but I don't know the name of it. It looks like Jasmine and has a sweet smell. The flower is white, with five petals, it forms bushes approximately 1 foot tall, and grows in temperate/mediterranean areas (I live and it grows near San Francisco, California). Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.239.99 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The trench is called the philtrum; see that article for details. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If they're on general biology, you might have more luck on the Science reference desk. Intelligentsium^review 02:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your other question, five petals implies it is probably dicotyledous. Beyond that, good luck. Intelligentsium^review 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)