Miscellaneous desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10

Wikipedia article "House of Lords"

Footnote 19 for "circumnavigation of power theory" reads "Treadwell (2010)" but does not link to that reference.

I have searched extensively, cannot find anything on Treadwell and the circumnavigation of power theory. Can you find it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garthpool (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When complaining about a lack of links, you should provide a link to the article in question: House of Lords#1997.E2.80.932010. StuRat (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that took quite a bit of homework. The full details of the citation were removed in this edit. Either the full citation should be restored, or, if it's not a particularly scholarly work, all references to it should be removed. I don't know which it should be. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I see no point in doing what they did in that edit. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Shaq's dissertation available?

(No need to repeat the question, I think.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to explain it. Does he have a PhD ? StuRat (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He recently received an EdD. --Trovatore (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to one of the sources in the Shaquille O'Neal article, he did not do a dissertation. This is the source: [1] RudolfRed (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA is that way

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What is Shaq? Is it the aforementioned Shaquille O'Neal, of whom many in the world would know very, very little? Whoever it is, the question is very presumptive. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be paying us a visit, HiLo. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I find that an offensive post. Comment on the post, rather than the poster. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take orders from you. --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you want a comment on the post, here it is: Those who do not recognize the context of the question are free to ignore it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We will do that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to improve the standard of this global encyclopaedia. Experienced editors should do better. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a guy whose stated goal is to improve things, this is very trollish. Shaq redirects unambiguously. You are playing dumb to prove a point. That doesn't help anything. At least choose your battles more carefully — this (that a person by the name "Shaq" an English-language forum somehow might be interpreted to mean someone other than the famous basketball player and movie star and thus should be clarified or is worth an argument about clarification) isn't going to be the argument that convinces anybody of anything. Especially on the Reference Desk, where one should be ignoring questions you know "very, very little" about. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no link attached to the question. It was crap. Report me if you think this was a terrific question and that I am trolling. Trovatore should be reported for his personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This the Reference Desk. We don't waste time calling other questions "crap". We don't waste time being pedantic. I see zero personal attacks from Trovatore here. You're acting like a jerk. Get a grip or take a break. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

98, the point is that saying Shaq is rude and presumptuous, since it assumes that everyone here knows who Shaq is. --Viennese Waltz 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not in fact assume any such thing. --Trovatore (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very similar reaction to HiLo. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People, life is too short for this stuff. A few questions:

Would HiLo have reacted had the question come from some editor he'd never heard of before (and, in particular, someone not known to be an American)?
Would HiLo have reacted had the question come from some editor who isn't a Ref Desk regular?
Is it disingenuous of HiLo to say he's never heard of any notable person called "Shaq"? He's done a fair bit of travel in the USA, so he's ahead of me on that score, but I had no trouble understanding who "Shaq" is.
It is unreasonable to expect readers not in the know to search for Shaq and see what comes up? Or is it a grievous omission not to link every possible word in a question?
Does HiLo have a point in wanting people to explain their questions clearly enough for all possible potential respondents to understand without any further effort on their part? Well, sort of, but precisely because this is a global encyclopedia there are always going to be questions that seem clear enough to you but which someone else is going to struggle with. So, what about them? Is it fair enough to say "I understood the question and therefore it passes my personal criterion of clarity, and I don't care who else doesn't understand it as long as I do"?
Is it enough that one person understands the question and has the answer the OP wants, even if everyone else is completely in the dark? That would seem to do the job, on face value. Are we here to be of service to the OPs, or to make life comfortable for ourselves?
Was Trovatore deliberately baiting HiLo?
If he wasn't asking the question in order to get a rise out of HiLo, was he nevertheless asking it knowing it would get such a rise? That seems to be the case. Is that Trovatore's responsibility?
Is there an element of personal animus at work here? "I don't take my orders from you" seems a somewhat reactive comment in response to a HiLo's pointing out a Wikipedia policy of commenting on posts, not on editors.
This could go on forever but, as I say, life is too short. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm — interesting questions. I did not ask the question specifically to bait HiLo, but his potential reaction did occur to me, and frankly that was OK with me. I generally think HiLo is a valuable contributor, but this particular anti-American obsession of his (and I am not even particularly patriotic) is beyond annoying. --Trovatore (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short and complete answer is that Hilo is first and foremost a drama queen. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice who had made the initial post. I just noticed that it was a very poor post. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the most interesting post ever. However, your particular criticism of it is essentially meritless. --Trovatore (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay marriage

If Gay marriage was legalized at the US federal level would that override state constitutional bans or would the US supreme court have to override all state bans by saying it's unconstitutional? Source if you have one, thanks! CTJF83 05:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "legalized at the Federal level" applies here, since the states control this area. The closest to that would be a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage and denying states the right to redefine it. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Marriage Act is federal legislation on this topic, so apparently the federal government does not agree it is a state issue. I think the courts are still sorting it out. RudolfRed (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The few parts of that which have been found to be Constitutional don't really do much. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The repeal of DOMA could reasonably be described as "legaliz[ing gay marriage] at the US federal level", and in and of itself would certainly not invalidate any state-level bans. States (well, most of them anyway) did not perform gay marriages before DOMA, so there's no reason they would have to if it were repealed.

If DOMA were struck down, then it would depend on the reason. The most likely reason, in my inexpert view, would be that DOMA violated the full faith and credit clause. If it were struck down for that reason, then states might possibly have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but would surely not be required to perform them themselves.

If DOMA were struck down on the grounds that marriage is a fundamental right, then I suppose it would depend on whether the court considered that right to be incorporated into the 14th amendment. But now I'm really out of my depth; hope this is helpful but I can't be remotely sure. --Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would almost certainly have to come down to whether these various state-level amendments, as well as the federal law, violate the 14th amendment, which is the closest thing the US has to an "equal rights amendment". With a Supreme Court divided along partisan lines, this means that this entire issue will most likely boil down to Anthony Kennedy's opinion on the matter. So it would be worthwhile to see what, if anything, he's had to say about it in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to "legalizing" via congressional action, it might be that certain state laws would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, thus invalidating all such laws. The obvious analogy would be Loving v. Virginia . --LarryMac | Talk 11:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great name for a case about marriage, sounds like "Sex v. Virgins". StuRat (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

OK thanks for the answers CTJF83 11:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summing all this up, Congress and the President cannot legalize marriage at the Federal level, since marriage, under the Constitution, is considered a state matter. Congress and the President could repeal DOMA, in which case the Federal government would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are allowed. The status of those marriages in states that ban such marriages would be uncertain, due to the full faith and credit clause, and would depend on a US Supreme Court ruling. I don't think that the Federal government can compel states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples unless there is a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional state laws denying marriage on the basis of the gender of the persons involved. There are a number of court challenges of laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals that are now underway, and the Supreme Court will begin ruling on them over the next few months. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! CTJF83 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a misconception here. Same-sex marriage is not "illegal" anywhere in the US. What's illegal in many places is granting recognition and consequent legal benefits to those types of marriages. They are unrecognized by the federal government, and by most of the states. But same-sex marriages or civil unions are de facto recognized by no small number of companies and their benefit plans. For example, the much-less publicized portion of the recent North Carolina amendment affirms that the amendment does not encroach upon private arrangements. Its scope is restricted to public policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're talking about 2 different things.

One is two males or two females who live together as a couple and are regarded generally by their friends, family and employers as partners, and are (ideally) treated accordingly. Many of the benefits once available only to people married to other-sex spouses are indeed now available to same-sex couples. Far from all, but it's a start.

The other is two people of the same sex entering into a formal marriage under exactly the same arrangements and using exactly the same forms as straight couples take for granted. This is relatively rare, because relatively few places permit it to occur. The question of recognition is a further layer of complexity, because even where one jurisdiction permits a same-sex marriage ceremony to take place, that's no guarantee another jurisdiction will recognise it as a legal marriage (as they almost certainly automatically would if it were a straight couple who married). In some cases, the people in the first group have become formally married, but most haven't, either because they just don't want to, or because there's no provision to do so in their jurisdiction, or their jurisdiction wouldn't recognise a same-sex marriage contracted elsewhere.

So, really, the question of the "illegality" of same-sex marriages ia a furphy. They're obviously legal where they're permitted; and where they're not permitted, they wouldn't happen to begin with. Unless you're talking about a celebrant in a state that does not permit same-sex marriage, who publicly and flagrantly flouts the law by "marrying" same-sex couples to make a point. IANAL, but I'd say the law would be indifferent to such spectacles, because the "marriages" would not be recognised anyway. Maybe if the minister continued to do this, he/she could be had up for making a public mischief or something like that. But they couldn't be prosecuted for marrying people in contravention of the law, because, as I say, the law would not accept that any marriage has taken place. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed talking about two different things. Marriage has two components, what I call "spiritual" and "legal". There is no issue with obtaining a "spiritual" same-sex marriage. A liberal preacher from a liberal church will be happy to conduct one. It's just that that marriage has no legal standing, except in a few places that permit it. The fight for legal recognition of same-sex marriage comes down to strictly material things: money, property, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legally-recognized marriage also has implications for family-related decision-making, choices, and rights: issues which are not purely material in nature. Very basic rights, like the ability to visit a partner in the hospital or in a nursing home, are not automatically extended to same-sex couples in the same way that they are to legally-married couples. That leaves aside any question of legal rights surrounding actual decision-making in health care, which is its own morass. The rights of a same-sex partner in childcare are similarly patchy; however 'spiritual' their marriage, a same-sex partner may encounter difficulty with simple things like talking to a child's schoolteachers or signing permission slips for field trips. If partners separate – or if one dies or is incapacitated – many states offer them very different privileges regarding child custody compared to 'legally' married couples. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same issues may often be true for opposite-sex couples who are unmarried, depending on the laws of a given state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely true. When it comes to decisions about pulling the plug, for example, someone who's been the patient's life partner or live-in close friend for 30 years but has never married them may find they have zero say, and it may come down to a decision by some long-estranged relative the patient detests. I know this because there was an episode of The Golden Girls on exactly that premise, involving Rose's long-lost daughter (I always rely on impeccable sources). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the dilemma there is that the life-partner (who should know of that issue unless they've been living under a rock) can remedy the problem by getting married. And that's the inherent unfairness from a legal standpoint: opposite-sex can marry and remedy the potential problem. Same-sex cannot, at least in most American states. I think the core problem in the US (aside from prejudice) is the gay movement's insistence on the term "marriage", which puts off a lot of people. If unmarried couples of both kinds had focused on the idea of a "civil union", their cause might be further advanced. However, as I've said before, it's going to boil down to Justice Kennedy's interpretation of the 14th amendment, "equal protection under the law". It's unfortunate that it has to come to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is now getting wide of the topic, but I dislike the idea that marriage can be prescribed as a "remedy" for anything. If they've lived together for 30 years without the benefit of a legal marriage, clearly they have chosen not to go down this path, as is their right. In saying that, I know there are many such couples who would eventually say "Time's getting on, and I want each of us to have the final say about the other, so let's quietly tie the knot without any fanfare, before it's too late". But that would be their choice. There would be others who prefer to fight the system on natural justice grounds, without capitulating to what they see as the line of least resistance. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "remedy" in the legal sense. And I don't like it either, on principle. One thing, though, is that everyone acts like they're immortal, and they could be in for a shock at how little the law cares about their happy unmarried arrangement. There are good practical reasons for getting married - and in general, those practical reasons are unavailable to same-sex partners. That's the inherent unfairness that may lead to a Supreme Court case, though it will probably take some years to get resolved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The debate between 'marriage' and 'civil unions' or 'registered partnerships' or whatever isn't just about the words, though. In the places where some form of same-sex civil union, but not marriage, has been recognised, it usually does not confer the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, even where politicians insist it does (see: the UK). There is also the argument that by accepting a lesser or different legal status for same-sex couples, you are helping to entrench the idea that same-sex and opposite-sex couples should not expect the same treatment more generally, as well as making it harder to campaign for full equality in the future (as opponents will claim that civil unions are enough). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many American states have passed amendments against same-sex marriage, thanks in part to the insistence on calling it "marriage". So how's that working so far? And do you really want to put all your faith into the assumption that Anthony Kennedy will be sympathetic to the 14th amendment argument? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why shouldn't there be such an insistence? The idea is that all adult couples should have access to marriage, no ifs or buts. Is that so hard to understand or support? To create some legal status for gay couples that's for all intents and purposes marriage, but is not formally called that, is just playing with words. To give them access to anything that's different in some significant respect to that which straight couples take for granted is just a continuation of the discrimination that has been outlawed in virtually every other context. Marriage is a special relationship, which shouldn't lightly be amended, but I don't see the straight world making a particularly great fist of making their formal and binding lifetime commitments work. Gays also want a chance to make formal and binding lifetime commitments that fail. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There "should" be, ideally, but the USA still has a lot of folks who either think same-sex violates Christian principles, or think it violates "nature", or violates what they think "marriage" really is, or are simply personally repulsed by it. It's come a long way in the last 50 years, from the time when homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness and/or a gross perversion. But it's not there yet. And pushing too hard can create setbacks, as with these many states that have passed marriage-restriction amendments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying. There's a time to bide your time and get by on what crumbs fall from the table of justice, and there's a time to stand up and overturn the table. For some, that latter time will and should never come, so in a sense they're irrelevant to the struggle. For others, it's way overdue. These things are never easy, and reactionary attitudes are to be expected, but more and more people have stood up (not all of them gay, btw) and said the time for change is here. In a number of countries, the tide has not only turned but has well and truly come in, making it easier for some to come out and be who they really are. It's only a question of time now for the hold-out countries like Australia and the US. Sure, conservative legislators can change laws to make it harder, but laws can and will be changed. Bunnies can and will go to France. Cinderella will go to the ball. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interim, the US President "came out", so to speak, and endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage. A very courageous thing to do, and something that could both gain and lose him some votes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see he's been labelled "America's First Gay President" for his sins. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but Michelle might have something to say about it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, how quickly they forget James Buchanan. (Although considering his presidency, maybe just as well forgotten.) This, of course, is similar to Bill Clinton being labeled our first black president. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacture of cars requiring leaded fuel.

I was told in the early 90s that there were road cars (as distinct from race cars like NASCARs) in manufacture at that time that required leaded fuel, and from the context, I believe that this meant for Western markets, including the UK. However, the only evidence I have found of vehicles requiring leaded fuel in the UK today are "classic" cars made long before 1990. I ask: which cars were being manufactured in the 1990s for Western markets that required leaded fuel, if any?--Leon (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British AA claim that the last cars requiring petrol which were available for sale in the UK were pre-1992 - so, presumably, they were built in 1991. Unfortunately, they don't specify which cars they were. Warofdreams talk 15:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - page 1 of this DEFRA publication: all cars sold in the UK which were manufactured after 1 April 1988 had to take unleaded petrol. However, catalytic converters (which are incompatible with lead petrol) weren't compulsory until 1993, so some cars manfactured in the meantime had owners' manuals which advised the use of leaded petrol. Warofdreams talk 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! Regarding the document you cited: it mentions that unleaded fuel went on sale in 1986, at a time when several countries had already phased out leaded petrol completely. Why was unleaded petrol introduced so late to the UK?--Leon (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, it was because HMG was unwilling to legislate (Mrs Thatcher didn't approve of the "Nanny State" you know) and the Great British Public didn't really want it, because (I think) it was more expensive. It wasn't until there was an incentive in the form of lower duty for unleaded petrol that people began to ask for new cars that ran on it or got their old cars converted. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This paper on Environmental taxes backs me up; "Tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol introduced in 1987 at 0.96 pence per litre, subsequently widened to 4.8 pence per litre by 1995. Initial aim was to offset the higher cost of unleaded petrol, and subsequently to provide an incentive for fuel switching. Leaded petrol was removed from normal sale in the UK market in 2000." Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

average UK weekly shop content

Hallo all - I was wondering if anyone could help me find an article on what's contained within the average UK weekly food shop? Whenever I go looking, articles talk about 'a 5% increase in the weekly shop', or 'weekly shop stays the same', but it never seems to explain what's in that shopping basket - does anyone know? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.230.34 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When retail price inflation is calculated, they use a "basket of goods" which is described here, which links to the specific items and has an indication of the comparative weightings they give to the different categories. It's not quite a "representative Tesco receipt" per se,, as they're trying to capture the statistics of a broad swathe of households with one calculation. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this used to measure CPI ? StuRat (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defra produce a family food report which gives a great deal of insight into British food shopping habits and may be of interest to you (http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-food-familyfood-2010-120328.pdf). Not exactly an average weekly basket but it does offer very interesting analysis in this area. ny156uk (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

graphic designers

i am studding graphics at the moment and am wondering what skills you nead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyxxx247 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching online will get you some good results...E.g. (http://designreviver.com/articles/10-essential-skills-every-graphic-designer-should-have/ and http://www.prospects.ac.uk/options_graphic_design_your_skills.htm). Your tutor should be able to give you good guidance on the skills required to be a graphic designer, similarly any decent university course descriptions should give you some 'outcomes' or list of skills you will learn that are directly useable in the line of work you are studying towards (or at the very least generically transferable). ny156uk (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

production

list and explain the importance of production — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.229.193 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Notes version: Without production, there are no products. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you for asking. If I were presented with that as a homework question I would be stumped at the first word. It makes no sense as written.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only, he didn't ask. He just parrotted the ~~demand~~ question. He might have said: What does "List and explain the importance of production" mean?, but he chose not to do so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been a hard question to answer. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you haven't missed out a word or two from your question? "Explain the importance of production" is a tricky and massive question, but "List and explain" makes no sense. If you had the missing words, you might be able to answer the question yourself. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP appears to be from Ghana, so perhaps English is not their first language. But obviously it's a little insulting when it's assumed we will answer things like this. Shadowjams (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the OP's defence if English is not their first language:

The word "question" has two meanings: (a) an interrogative sentence requiring a question mark in writing, or (b) a task in an assignment or exam. The latter form of "question" may well be interrogative ("What were the causes of the First World War?"). Or, it may be written as a command ("Explain the causes of the First World War"). That's all grist to the mill in the exam/assignment/homework context, but ESL speakers may not be aware that the sorts of questions we ~~invite~~ expect here are the strictly interrogative kind. Yet, to my knowledge, we have never made this distinction clear in our instructions, so it may not be unreasonable for an ESL speaker to assume that any homework "question" would be acceptable as a ref desk question, regardless of how it's worded.
This is all completely aside from our policy of not doing homework questions; but again, the OP might be thinking of this as an "assignment", and might not cotton on that it fits into what we mean by "homework".
Then there are cultural differences in how people ask for things, so what may feel very rude to us natives may be quite normal and considered not impolite where they come from. And vice-versa, of course.
Or maybe they're just trying it on and hoping to get something they can use. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic congestion: Reconstruction with Kerner's three-phase theory

I'm rather confused by this article. Is its subject substantially different from Three-phase traffic theory? The title makes me think that it's about a book, but the title of the article doesn't appear anywhere in the text. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should definately look into merging one into the other. The Traffic congestion: Reconstruction with Kerner's three-phase theory is the newer article, and any of the material there can be merged into Three-phase traffic theory. This sort of thing looks a lot like a class project. Wikipedia gets a lot of good content from class projects, but sometimes new users mistakenly create a brand new article which duplicates an existing one. This looks very much like something like that. There's good stuff in both articles, so WP:MERGE seems the way to go. Tag them both, start a discussion and wait a week to see if anyone objects, then merge them if they don't. --Jayron32 03:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]