Miscellaneous desk
< October 16	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 18 >

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 17

Plants in China and Japan

What kinds of native trees (or other plants) were common in China and Japan prior to significant trade with the West?--168.7.232.77 (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the same ones that are common there now. Your question presumes that trade with the west had a significant effect on the native vegetation, but you offer no evidence to support that assumption. Roger (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you set the cut-off as before Columbus, you can say China and Japan had no New World plants - maize, chili peppers, pumpkins/squash, tomato, potato, etc. See Columbian Exchange. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A great read on this is 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created which spends a considerable portion on the ecological changes wrought in Asia as a result of introduction of New World species. Indeed, one of the great things about the book is the way that it emphasize the importance of America-Asian exchange in the way that other works, like the Columbian Exchange doesn't; which tended to focus heavily (perhaps too heavily) on America-Europe exchanges. --Jayron32 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget rubber! --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another angle on this is "what plant species have been introduced to China and Japan after trade with the west?" As Roger points out, most of the plants that were there before are still there, but there are new additions to the communities. For starters, seeList_of_invasive_species_in_Asia#Plants. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What plants are common in China and Japan? --128.42.223.58 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An uncountable number of them. It'd be well beyond the scope of a board like this to start listing every "common" plant in China and Japan, for any definition of "common". --Jayron32 19:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trade went the other way really; European plant hunters scoured Asia for exotic specimens to sell at home. Trees that spring to mind areJapanese maple, Dove tree and swamp cypress, but there were many others. Alansplodge (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; one major introduction has been the Eucalyptus, "China has the second largest (to Brazil) planting of Eucalyptus in the world"[1], although it actually came from the south east rather than the west.Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blank?

I have just received a sheaf of papers from an insurance company, (OK Saga, if you must know), one of which, suitably with the companies headed paper has the note "Left intentionally blank" on it. How can it be 'blank', with that wording on it? Are they or me mad?,--85.211.148.178 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Intentionally blank page. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for your second question, we cannot give medical advice here. Please consult an appropriate health professional to confirm that you are in fact insane, or not, as the case may be. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has blank pages got to do with insanity/mental health. It is not a subject to joke too much about, it results in misconceptions about the behaviour of mentally ill people. I find it offensive. HiLo has clarified the first part of the question, I would not for a moment think of saying you are less than wordly-wise. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's Daddy - Jack of Oz stated that his reply was in relation to the second question, which was "Are they or me mad?". It was a light hearted comment on that part, and on it's own that could be considered a request for medical help... FYI on this desk most things written in small font are tongue-in-cheek, or an attempt at humour........gazhiley 14:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the question "Are ..me mad?" suggest multiple personalities? Edison (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of you said that? Hi, Lo, or one of the other 48? -- Q Chris (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recall IBM computer manuals from the early 1970s that had pages with that self-contradictory statement. I assumed then, and still do, that its purpose is to let the reader know that there isn't any important text missing from the page. It's amusing, but it's not madness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GUNS

WHAT GUN MAKER MADE OVER &UNDER GUNS WITH A RIFLE OVER A SHOTGUN — Precedingunsigned comment added by 67.142.181.27 (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't type in all capital letters. It makes it appear as though you are SHOUTING. To answer your question, Wikipedia has an article titled Combination gun that has some information. You can also type "rifle over shotgun" into Google, and you getresults, the many of which contain information you could use. --Jayron32 13:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of teenagers making up personas and telling complicated made-up stories about their lives on the Internet

From some teenagers I know, I heard some rather incredible stories about the lives of their "friends on the Internet." Apparently these young people have really sad and complicated lives - something I'd think of as "daytime talk show material." I'm incredulous and suspect that those young people are just making up stories to make their lives sound more interesting and to mess with their "friends" on the 'net. Is this a know phenomenon? How prevalent is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by98.114.98.54 (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks have always told tall tales about themselves to impress others, whether on the 'net or on the streetcorner. I knew an instance of some junior high students telling about a begger they had met on the street who was "actually an African prince who'd fled his country and was living as a street person as part of his training before he became ruler later on." I met a woman who said her boyfriend had tried to kill her and had cut off her arm, but surgeons had sewed it back on (it looked pretty healthy to have gone through such trauma.). Wikipedia has people who misrepresent their circumstances, such as was disclosed in the Essjay controversy. How does one deal with it? Not all amazing stories are false. Everyone has had some interesting experiences, and it is annoying when you tell someone about one and they respond dismissively "Well, at least that is a good story." One can be polite and still take someone's amazing story with a grain of salt when it triggers the bullshit detector.Greater caution is indicated when the tale teller needs something like a place to stay, the loan of money or the use of your car, than when they are just looking for sympathy or admiration.Edison (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Münchausen by Internet is certainly relevant here. - Ka renjc 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymity of the internet allows people to choose any persona or personality they want. It's just unfortunate that many, especially young people, choose the 'idiot' personality. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teenagers (and adults!) told tall tales long before the discovery of electricity, let alone the invention of the Internet. Far worse are the professional skeptics, who disbelieve anything out of their version of ordinary and bring sneering, withering, jackholean contempt to every conversation. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's constant. Get over it. Don't give them WP:BEANS. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ever see someone die of an allergic reaction after a contemptuous sneering jackhole decided to "prove" that their allergy was in their neurotic inferior subhuman little head, and slip an allergen into their food? Distrusting other people is putting one's own irrational, narcissistic need for ego-stroking ("look how smart and superior I am compared to inferior gullible you") over other people's safety. Stupid, dangerous, and something any sensible person "gets over" by the time they reach fourteen. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an example of scepticism, that is an example of general ignorance, and I can't really see the relevance (or the logic) in regard to the OPs question in your heated ~~rant~~ reply. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, people (especially teenagers) will make stuff up, create sad or dramatic personas. On the other hand, just about everybody has some sadness and difficulty in their life that they rarely talk about, and they are more likely to bring it up pseudonymously online. And the more difficult it is for someone to spend time doing things in the fleshworld, the more time they'll spend doing things online.86.159.77.170 (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, like 'Nigerian princes' or 'American soldiers who serve in Afghanistan' suddenly finding huge amounts of money they don't want to give to their commanding officer, but would, instead, like to give it to YOU, via a courier (suspiciously) from Ghana, so long as you continuously pay the courier's fees. They think we are all stupid, but I can actually find out where the messages are coming from. Simple IT stuff that I teach tochildren. KägeTorä - (影虎)(TALK) 10:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP - this kind of perception is why young people talk about killing themselves/shooting up the school/running away etc on the net and people don't take them seriously and are then surprised when they do exactly that. Unless someone has a previous history for "crying wolf" then you should always give them the benefit of the doubt. Suicide threats should ALWAYS be taken seriously as should threats to shoot bullies, even if previously nothing has come of them - the very fact they are even thinking about this kind of stuff is a danger sign of emotional disturbance that needs professional assistance.Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to strap two hand grenades on either side of my ex-mother-in-law's head and make her choose which pin to pull out first, but I wouldn't consider myself emotionally disturbed or in need of professional assistance or in danger of actually doing that (I can't find a place that sells hand grenades). However, any talk of violence on the internet, whether it be self-harm or violence to others should be taken at least a little bit seriously, as the above poster says, as it may come to fruition. It may just be a little rant, as people like to get stuff off their chest and typing it anonymously on the internet is the easiest way to do it. Why do you think confessional booths in churches are private, and the priest can't even see you without sliding the curtain? It's the same thing. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncirculated Coins

After a bit of WikiSurfing around today's featured article, I ran across pages about bullion coins like the American Silver Eagle, which mentions that the mint makes several varieties of these coins, including "uncirculated" coins. This puzzled me, as bullion coins don't do much circulating to begin with. The article Uncirculated coin explains that the US Mint uses "uncirculated" to refer to a special minting method, but doesn't go into details. What's the difference in minting process between a "regular" US coin and an "uncirculated" US coin? --205.175.124.30 (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should start by reading our article about uncirculated coins. Also, the U.S. Mint has informationhere. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read the uncirculated coin article, hence my linking to it and discussing what it said. Your second link was quite helpful, though. Thanks. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As that article says, uncirculated coins can be bought directly from the Mint and collectors do this yearly. I have sets going back decades. However it'd be trivial to open them up and use them, and they're otherwise identical to normal coins (I think... correct me if I'm wrong). Proofs, the article says at least, are a type of uncirculated coins, but if you ever look at pricing guides they'll distinguish between "uncirculated" and "proof" coins, proof being more valuable. Modern U.S. proof sets are buffed and polished so the raised features are matte and the low ones are shiny. Uncirculated coins are not, however they're otherwise in flawless condition. Shadowjams (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article in question, so I suppose I should answer the question. The short answer is, there is none. "Uncirculated" is a generic term for coins which are not proofs in the condition they come from the Mint, or only slight wear. Even though the Silver Eagles do not circulate, that is their condition (although they are available in proof). Coins struck for collectors in uncirculated don't differ from their circulating equivalent, although the Mint will take care to have well-struck coins with the minimum of contact marks (abrasions). Proof coins are struck on polished blanks from dies which are usually polished to some extent, and most proofs today (some in the past differ) have a mirror finish. So uncirculated means the standard method, but for proof coins, it is a careful process, with high quality control.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of drawing gadget needed

I'm trying to recall what an item for tracing I used years ago is called, but I'm not having any luck. It was very simple, possibly aimed at children, and was basically a dark blue, transparent piece of plastic that you put by a picture you wanted trace, and it reflected enough that you could look through it and copy the picture on the other side. The closest thing I've found is a lightbox, but it's nowhere near as complicated as that. Can anyone help me? Thanks! Snorgle (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the Camera lucida. These were advertised in comic books years ago with the claim “You Can Draw Your Family, Friends, Anything from real—like an artist, even if you can't draw a straight line." The ad made it look like there was an image projected on the paper of the subject in front of the artist, but rather than an elaborate projector it was just a piece of plastic at a 45 degree angle which reflected the image of the subject toward the artist's eye, while letting him see the image he was drawing on the sheet of paper. Skill and practice were needed to make a good drawing. If the artist moved his head a little, the drawing no longer lined up, and the image was washed out and indistinct. Some of the old masters may have used an earlier version of the camera lucida to get the perspective right in their photo-realistic paintings. Edison (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A magic tracer also known as a camera lucida? 212.183.128.70 (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "magic tracer" is what I was looking for! Based on the camera lucida though, which I didn't know, so thanks for the information. Snorgle (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be yours for $11.75 [2].Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These days there are far better ways to do the same thing. The simplest is to put a photo under some tracing paper. That way you don't have to worry about the subject moving. Or, you could scan the pic (or start with a digipic) and do the tracing over it on computer. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you'd think tracing paper was a better option: do you think microscopists just didn't think to buy some tracing paper? When you trace onto tracing paper, you have to press (however lightly) onto the thin surface over the image you are copying, and you need a pre-existing flat 2D image. Your final image will be on a piece of tracing paper, unless you now trace it a second time from your copy, using one of a variety of techniques. The opportunity for error multiplies. 86.159.77.170 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This device came before photography, so tracing a photograph wasn't an option. StuRat (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of you have a point. It's true the Camera lucida was invented before photography. It's undoutedly also true that what you describe was a better substitute for camera lucida at various times. In fact our article mentions how 'photographic pioneer Henry Fox Talbot' may have been partly inspired by disappointed with the results of a camera lucida. However 86 has a point that there was clearly many cases when tracing paper wasn't suitable hence why as our own article mentions, it continued to be used by 'comprehensive ("comp") layout artists' in the 'early 1950s to late 1980'; and why as our article also mentions it was a standard tool for microscopists until a few decades ago. And unless Edison and Snorgle are actually older then the oldest known people in the world, we can safely assume they're referring to cases well after photography was not only invented but likely somewhat mainstream. Of course photography was still somewhat expensive, more so if you needed to attach one to your microscope (as our article mentions) hence why even after photography was fairly mainstream, a camera lucida still had an appeal to a variety of people. Perhaps the largest nail in the coffin of the camera lucida was what you hinted at near the end of your post, the move to digital both in image construction, capture and reproduction and the resulting changes, particularly cost savings and ease of use. (Although our article suggests it's still a key tool for palaeontology.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better (non-digital) method than either tracing paper or the camera whotsit, is the pantograph, which was used to accurately copy engineering drawings. It also allows you to reduce or enlarge the image. I had a toy plastic one in the 1960s which worked rather well until it broke when I stood on it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a "proper" one, designed for copying engineering drawings. I don't use it, of course, but it's a nice antique, along with my slide rules. StuRat (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Building at a 2012 chinese postage stamp

Hi, maybe somebody from London can help me. I need to know which building or house is depicted at chinese postage stamp dedicated to the London Olympics (the one with the jockey and horse)? Thanks. Leonprimer (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venues of the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics suggests that Greenwich Park may be depicted there. Not sure which building exactly. --Jayron32 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather amusing - they seem to have depicted Old Greenwich Church, Connecticut by mistake. Unbelievable. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snort. That's funny. I don't know if it is positive they did depict that church, but it is strikingly close. --Jayron32 22:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the notable churches near Greenwich Park in London are St Alphege's Church, Greenwhich, Our Lady Star of the Sea RC Greenwich andAll Saints, Blackheath. All of these have prominent spires rather than a tower. The famous Royal Observatory in the park has a tower witha sort of dome affair. The most famous venue for equestrian events is Badminton, Gloucestershire, but the church there has a quite distinctive tower. I found the Greenwich, Connecticut photo doing a Google image search (probably what the Chinese post office did too). Unless anyone has any better suggestions; there are many hundreds of churches in London, but this certainly isn't a notable one. Alansplodge (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must not to be only a church, but another king of building, isn't it? Leonprimer (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tower resembles that of the Globe Theatre, but the rest of the shape is not quite like that. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the reconstructed Globe doesn't seem to have a tower.[3]Alansplodge (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Well, the lower section of the roof on the left is strongly reminiscent of a chancel - that combined with the bell tower andgothic windows is typical of a British, or indeed American church building. I don't live very far from Greenwich but can't think of anything there that it could be. Why they didn't depict the World Heritage view[4] that the equestrian events overlooked, I can't imagine. If it's supposed to be somewhere else in London, then I am still completely baffled - I have lived in London all my life.Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Londoner here - it really doesn't look like anything around here, and conversely, it really does look like the Greenwich, CT image mentioned above. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the better pictures then the one linked above of the church that I'm missing? From the sole picture I've seen, I wouldn't say the church is that similar, there seem to be a number of differences. It's perhaps similar then all of what's been presented so far, but that doesn't really tell us much. In particular the fact that people familiar with the area can't think of anything it would be could just indicate it's not that great a depiction and people who actually know the building may therefore not recognise it. A better sign would be someone from Greenwich, CT saying they think it's the church or even better someone intimately familiar with the London particularly Greenwich area and also the Greenwich CT church. Nil Einne (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]