Miscellaneous desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

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 19

Small letters

Is there any where in wikipedia where i can find a collection of puns and jokes from ref desk? i find it amusing to read those, and im sorry im not sure if this is the right place to ask MahAdik _usap 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors keep their own personal selections. Maybe one will happen along and give you a link.

Btw, what does "small letters" have to do with what you're asking about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always see jokes and puns in small letters, im just trying to be creative. ;-) MahAdik _usap 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<small> tags produce small letters. Jokes are usually between these tags. Dbfirs 08:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I started using small text after I was asked to minimize my puns. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

You can also put small in braces and it will come out slightly smaller, except it won't allow links from within. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used small braces since I was in short pants. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Back in the old days, there used to be pages called Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, containing assorted silliness from all over Wikipedia. But that got killed. You can still find copies of it, the top google hit I find is bjaodn.org. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia still has these pages at Wikipedia:BJAODN.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of mine: User_talk:StuRat#Puns_and_jokes. The Darwin one was my fave, but has since descended. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a natural selection! Edison (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the male:female ratio on Wikipedia?

This seems like a dumb question to ask, but what is the male:female (male-to-female) ratio on Wikipedia? I know it is unimportant, but I have a funny feeling there are more males than females here (yes, I do take a sneak-peek at userpages and userboxes out of curiosity). Or is it my perception? SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite true, and there was a bit of a media fuss about it earlier this year. See, for example, this piece in the New York Times, which says that less than 15% of Wikipedia contributors are women, and consequently topics of interest to women are covered less thoroughly than topics of interest to men. Since editing Wikipedia is an entirely voluntary activity, it's hard to know what might be done to change that. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that anything need or should be done about it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, depending on the problem, there can be things which can and should be done. If the problem is only that it is an activity which interests men more than women, then obviously you might look at that and say it is the way of things. If it is because the wiki is often an unpleasant place for women, because of unthinking comments and jokes by certain contributors that make it feel hostile and unwelcoming to women (I have certainly witnessed many unthinkingly sexist comments, or comments that assume a default male audience, although these are less common and less tolerated than they used to be), then we can and should do something about it. Many people do. If it is because female contributors feel unsafe, because they experience stalking and hounding by creeps who latch onto women when they see them, often crossing over into real life stuff, then we can and should do something about that. We should also bear in mind that this will suppress the apparent proportion of women, because a lot of women will not admit to their gender.

This is largely coming up as a talking point precisely because most of the internet is no longer like this. 5 to 10 years ago, most of the internet was a fairly hostile place for women, and women overwhelmingly used neutral or male identities to avoid the negative side of things, even joining in with pretty unpleasant misogyny to avoid being targetted themselves, because they wanted to join in with other aspects of communities. Over the last 5 years, at least, there has been a significant change in perceptions. Part of this has been that enough women are now online that once one comes out, enough others join them that it counteracts a lot of the previously kneejerk reactions. Part of this is that female-friendly communities developed online, which have led to women no longer assuming that they have to hide their gender online: these communities have grown users who expect to be able to contribute confidently as women online, and they carry that into other communities. And these combine to change expectations, so that the culture changes across the internet and people generally expect different things.

I would guess that this has unfortunately changed at a time when Wikipedia has actually become less welcoming to new and casual editors, meaning it has both taken a smaller share of the newly confident female internet users, while becoming more harsh towards 'outgroup' contributors. Established users mostly come from the old culture, long before the general change, and (worse) many of the contributors who bought into many of the old wiki ideals (who objected to the Protecting of pages, who objected to the widespread use of semi-Protect, who objected to the restrictions on un-signed-in editors, who objected to personalities affecting rating of edits and judging of behaviour) have disproportionately left as the project evolved, when they might be expected to be the most tolerant of 'outgroup' editors. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is important and is almost central to the way Wikipedia is constructed. The New York Times article strikes at the heart of the problem - and it is a problem. I also wonder whether women are more likely to attract unconstructive attention by having a name like bubblygirl246 instead of trident 3452324.

I am male by the way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.89.20 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody's perfect. (source). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of "IMO" here but popular sports have the same problem of a gender gap. We don't seem to have an article of Women in sports or Gender gap in sports but I imagine if someone figured out the "sports problem" it would also address the gender problem at large regarding the Internet. I have my own opinions why WP has a lack of female editors and what we could do about it, but this isn't the place for that discussion. Cheers! :) Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sports issue and the Internet issue are related at all. They're two totally different issues — the fact that the Internet is co-ed and sports are not is a huge, huge, huge difference, aside from the fact that sports are public (in the sense that you must self-identify to participate) and Internet usage is relatively private (in the sense that individuals are harder to identify). Anyway, the issue isn't whether women use the Internet — they do. They just are underrepresented in specific communities on the Internet. It's a very different set of issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the overall diversity of subjects is not affected but the importance that subjects are given is, the New York Times article suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.132.117 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for gender ratios is not a dumb question, here or in many other places from the boardroom to demographics. Sue Gardner, the chief exec of the Wikimedia Foundation, has written about the issue of systemic bias, particularly with regards to women. Here's a relevant entry on her blog. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that article reminded me how I found the Reference Desks, why I haven't signed in for years, and why I no longer contribute substantial text or reworkings to articles, like I used to. We did used to have attempts at social networking and friending, as well as spaces to chat generally about our experiences editing. All deleted in the move towards We Are Respectable. But it would take a lot to get past the great tiredness I feel at the thought of the conflict and fighting involved whenever I consider making a substantial edit, and I don't think I'm alone in that. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water billing in Ireland

How does it work right now? I've read that they don't even have water counters and are pissed off for having to pay from now on. So, can Irish people simply leave the tap running and still pay the same? Quest09 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that in most of Canada. You pay a flat rate for municipal water, and you use what you use. (Hot water is different because you have to pay the cost of heating it.) Where I live, out in the country, we have wells hooked up to the house, for which there is no charge, except that keeping the wells and the piping in good condition is our responsibility, as would be the drilling costs if we needed a new one. Bielle (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article on the controversy in Northern Ireland at the moment. Bielle (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so in these places, it's theoretically possible to attach a generator to your tap and get energy for free too? Quest09 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A generator to your tap"? I know little about science, but have never heard of a generator fuelled by tap water. (Niagara Falls, yes, but not tap water.) The only limits I know for water use occur in times of water restrictions (watering ban or, in the UK, hosepipe ban). This happens rarely in eastern and western Canada, but drought sometimes affects the central regions. Bielle (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's technically impossible to build one, however. Out of curiosity, I did the back-of-the-envelope calculation for how much power might be available from the tap. Water supply talks about a typical residential pressure of 4-5 bar (60-70 psi), which corresponds to 40 or 50 meters (150 feet) of hydrostatic head. If we assume that we can get 20 liters per minute from the tap still under that pressure (which is probably a generous assumption) the amount of energy available there is 150 watts, or 3.6 kWh per day. So depending on the efficiency of your generator and electricity rates in your area, you'll be able to harvest between ten and thirty cents' worth of electricity per day, while wasting thirty thousand liters of water. And that dribble of energy is 'free' only if one assumes no cost to the equipment required to generate and store it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that people indeed do it. Just asking is it's theoretically possible. Obviously, you can do better than just one tap. You get the idea: if water is completely free, you'll end up using it for any imaginable purpose at any possible amount without thinking about those thousand liters of water. Quest09 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not 'obvious' that you can do (much) better than just one tap—there is a limit to the amount that a standard municipal water connection will supply to a given household, based on the diameter of the supply pipe and pressure characteristics of the municipal water supply. The pressure you see at the tap (or taps) decreases as the flow rate increases, and there is an absolute limit to the amount of water you can draw per minute through a supply pipe of a given diameter. There's a reason why your shower gets so uncomfortable after someone flushes the toilet.

Also, even in areas with completely unmetered usage, it is likely that the utility company will eventually notice that a home is drawing tens or hundreds of times more water than it should. There will definitely be restrictions and regulations regarding permissible uses of unmetered water, and I expect that home hydroelectric generation would probably fall afoul of those rules. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales where water is normally unmetered in various areas, the water companies have the right to force you to use a meter if you use lots of water for a swimming pool, running a garden sprinkler, or other purposes.[1] If you run a business you're also billed differently. It's not much different from other "unmetered"/"unlimited" services like unlimited internet, unlimited phone calls, etc: there's a combination of technical restrictions and contractual fair usage restrictions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One is reminded of the "prosecutions for water wastage" endured by that unfortunate Irishman De Selby: "At one hearing it was shown that he had used 9,000 gallons in one day and on another occasion almost 80,000 gallons in the course of a week. The word 'used' in this context is the important one. The local officials, having checked the volume of water entering the house daily from the street connection, had sufficient curiosity to watch the outlet sewer and made the astonishing discovery that none of the vast quantity of water drawn in ever left the house." Deor (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a little snippet of personal knowledge that can't be sourced: Living in an apartment complex the head maintenance man (who also lived there) and I became friendly. He told me to run my clothes & dish washers on cold water b/c the meter only monitored the hot water line. Everything else was just based on an average, largely depending on how many people you reported living in the unit. Following his advice, my water bill decreased dramatically. My neighbors did not believe me until we followed the water lines and realized there was only a single meter reporting for the entire building, with a second meter that ran back to the hot water heater in each unit. Also, I one time left my outdoor water hose (for the plants, etc) on accidentally for three days before it was noticed, and my bill was still the same (despite flooding a good part of the commons lawn), so I think there is probably something to what you are saying. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets driven by tap water:

In a British school chemistry lab I have seen simple suction pumps that one attaches to a water tap (US: faucet). They have no moving parts and are somehow driven by water flowing through them to waste.

There is a device for squeezing water out of clothes that consists of a metal cylinder with a rubber balloon inside. Water fed from a tap through a hose to the balloon causes it to swell and press clothes against the inside wall of the cylinder.

I have a shower head that lights up when the water flows. It's sealed but I assume it contains a tiny turbine generator of enough power to light a few LED's whose colour shows the water temperature. It's impressive if you shower in the dark. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regions where this sort of thing is legal, there exist water driven sump pumps. Presumably on the theory that power failures are common, but water failures are not. 76.127.236.202 (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J J Kent Inc.

I have been trying for months, including asking the British Library, If there is such a publication, beside that found on the www, called, 'PRECIOUS STONES IN THE EARLIER AND LATER BREASTPLATE' by J. J. Kent. Especially Volume 9. All I get is "J.J. Kent is closed for business.". I simply wish to purchase the complete work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LenBee (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err , it looks as though Vol 1 to 11 is only available to be read/copied from online? [2]--Aspro (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sacred music during the Middle Ages - instruments or not?

Hello.

I'm a student at the Lemmensinstitute for Arts and Science in Leuven, Belgium. Since I study the Flemish bagpipe I'm doing some research about the use of (bourdon)instruments with plainchant in medieval churchmusic. Very little is known about this subject and therefore I'd like to ask you kindly for your help. Does anyone happen to have a bit more information on this subject?

On Wikipedia, in the article called "Hymn", I read the following:

"Music and accompaniment In ancient and medieval times, stringed instruments such as the harp, lyre and lute were used with psalms and hymns. ..."

This suggests that indeed there were instruments being used in church. I also found an article that says Hildegard von Bingen (not on Wikipedia) composed sacred music with instrumental accompaniment. Also Boethius accompanied his chants with instruments, so says another article.

However, these articles don't mention anything more about it, nor do they refer to the source of this information...

Can someone help me on this one? Thank you.

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedontree (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but we do have an article on Hildegard of Bingen, including a discography. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry, I may have misunderstood your parenthetical comment "(not on WP)". --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this essay called Musical Instruments in Medieval Psalm Commentaries and Psalters. As you say, very little seems to be known for certain. Alansplodge (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is known for certain that cathedrals had organs as early as the 9th century. During the high and late middle ages (Gothic period) all of the more important churches had organs. However, according to the German Wikipedia's article on church music, other instruments were hardly ever used in churches at that time. Marco polo (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google search on "illustrated manuscripts with instruments" you will find many references. Here is one you might like to pursue. Here's another one. Hope these help and you can find more with the Google search. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility to consider is that masses and other liturgies performed for a lay public might have been treated restrictively, while liturgies and less formal performances in an ecclesiastical or monastic environment might have been treated more liberally. I am pointing this out because the depiction of instruments on a composition by a monastic such as Hildegard von Bingen doesn't necessarily show that such instruments were used in churches during public rites. (On the other hand, I am no expert, and for all I know they were used.) Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While that is possible, and one cannot necessarily extrapolate back from current behaviour, that is the opposite of what I would expect based on current practice in the Catholic Church. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The essay I linked to above says that the evidence that exists is a) plenty of illustrations of instruments being used in worship and b) plenty of tracts from senior clergt explaining why instruments shouldn't be used in worship. What conclusions can be drawn from this can only be conjecture. Alansplodge (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my speculation is that in medieval times, monastic communities and clerics posted to major cathedral churches formed a privileged, elite, and sophisticated class. In such a context, it would not be surprising if one set of practices applied to liturgies performed for the masses — particularly in rural parish churches which would not have had the funds for an organ, much less instrumentalists — while another set of practices applied to liturgies performed within a privileged, wealthy ecclesiastical community. If this was the case, I suppose it wouldn't be surprising if lay aristocrats also sometimes enjoyed instrumental accompaniments to liturgies in their private chapels. The present-day context is of course very different. The Catholic Church, under attack from Protestants and secularists since the time of the Reformation, has in modern times tried to improve its image by reducing the privileges enjoyed by "insiders" and trying to cultivate an attitude of service toward the lay congregation (disservices to the congregation's vulnerable youth notwithstanding). Marco polo (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]