Miscellaneous desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 19

What instruments can output to headphones?

I am thinking about learning a instrument, but I want one that can output to headphone (so I will be able to play shitty/crazy stuff without no one complaining or be able to play when people want to sleep....). So, what instruments can output to headphones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.179.77.154 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifiers usually have head[hone sockets, so anything that uses/can use an amplifier would be a good bet, such as an electric guitar. Failing that, anything which is inherently electric, such as a synthesizer, or electric piano. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are digital versions of many types of instrument, e.g. winds, strings, drums as well as the more obvious guitars and keyboards, so the world's your oyster, really. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.Anyway, is there a place I can find some list of instruments that need amps? PS: Forgot to add some extra rule, the instruments can't play loud sounds while I am striking it, or something else, because that would not fit on my original idea, while they would not hear the sounds from the headphones they would listen to the sounds of me playing the instrument.177.179.75.214 (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number listed at electric instrument. As for noise made while playing it: something like an electric drum set will be on the louder end, but there are basically no completely quiet conventional instruments. You'll be physically thumping around on guitar strings, piano keys, or whatever, so rather than "no noise", you'll probably want to determine whether something is "acceptable noise". Most stores that sell instruments will be happy to let a prospective buyer try stuff out, so that you can determine first-hand just how loud things will be. Or, you can go with a theremin. — Lomn 15:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you've never learnt an instrument before, and you want to play silently, the keyboard is an obvious choice. You should be able to find good ones second hand. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the instrument dont need to be completely silent, just have "acceptable noise". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.179.75.214 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with a piano is a good idea for several reasons, not only because it matches your constrain. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The electronic keyboard is a good first musical instrument because you can learn to read sheet music as you go along, because you can learn about harmony as well as melody, because the sounds you make at the beginning won't be unpleasant (they might be with the violin), because you can have fun making the sounds of various instruments, and because there is a lot of sheet music and a lot of beginner books written for the piano/keyboard. The downside is that it is bulky. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Noise Theory Article

Hi, I recently posted an article on the band White Noise Theory and I got a reply with a "non-notable". Why that? they exist.I can't understand why I'd get a label like that and others in Wikipedia have NEVER been notable and get a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1remains (talk • contribs) 01:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAND for the criteria we use to assess the notability of bands. The Help Desk is a better place for this sort of question. Tevildo (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable does not mean non-existent. I exist but I'm not notable enough for an article here. The same is true for many people/places/things/etc. Dismas|^(talk) 05:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said this isn't really the place. But while I don't know what the article you created is like, the article for creation you created here Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/White Noise Theory has a sum total of zero reliable secondary sources, let alone any covering the article in sufficient depth to establish the band is notable. There isn't even anything in the article which would lead one to believe the band is notable. Therefore even if the band is notable, we have no way of knowing it. This was all basically told to you when the article for creation was reviewed so you should already know what the problem is. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is "the wiki way" (OK, that's just an excuse to use the photo I took last week!) - but for an article on a band to be acceptable, you need to prove that they pass the "notability" criteria in WP:BAND. It's not enough to say "Band 'X' is obviously more notable than band 'Y' who already have a Wikipedia article." It might be that band Y is also not notable enough and shouldn't have an article about them and that it will eventually be noticed by someone who cares enough to get it deleted. That error for band 'Y' isn't grounds for making another similar mistake for band 'X'. But it's more than that. If both X and Y are equally notable - but you can't find proof of that notability in external publications that Wikipedia finds acceptable - then it could very well be that band X doesn't get the article it deserves while Y does - just because there is verifiable evidence that Y is notable. The problem is that our standard for acceptability isn't "TRUTH" it's "VERIFIABILITY". If we can't verify something in an external source - then we can't use it, even if it's "TRUE". SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's even simpler than what SteveBaker says above. Here's what makes a subject (any subject at all) worthwhile to have its own Wikipedia article: Is there enough reliable, independent source text to create a decent article about it? That's all you need to know. There needs to be stuff that's reliable (that is published in trustworthy sources) and it needs to have been written independently from the subject itself (that is, we need to see that people are writing about the band, not that the band is writing about itself). Wikipedia articles are built by citing those reliable, independent sources. If enough source material doesn't exist, then there's nothing to use to create an article from. It's that simple. --Jayron32 02:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown structure inside Mississippi river

Is this structure natural or artifical ? -- Juergen 91.52.187.117 (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a natural spit to me; I can't see why anyone would want to build an artificial one there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that whole area is part of the Old River Control Structure complex. The smaller waterway is probably man-made, or at least significantly enhanced by the Corps of Engineers, and there appear to be dredging operations underway there, so I would expect that the spit is also a man-made breakwater. That's the point at which the Mississippi is attempting to change course away from New Orleans to divert down the Atchafalaya River, and there's a whole industry devoted to engineering the river to prevent that transition. — Lomn 13:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that little bank of stone is supposed to help divert water from the main river up the auxiliary - which looks like it requires about a 300° turn. I wonder why they choose to build it at that location and angle. Looks like it would be more effective to add water to the river than to remove it which is apparently its purpose (flood diversion).Rmhermen (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think it's all that important for inflow considerations; if the structure is open, water will flow downward more quickly to the west than to the south without caring overmuch about the precise shape of the bank. Rather, I expect that the purpose is to shift the fastest part of the river current (which tends toward the inner edge of a bend) farther from the opening to help barge traffic stay clear of the structure. Grounded barges partially blocking the original structure helped contribute to its near-failure in the Mississippi Flood of 1973. — Lomn 18:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that particular structure, but I've seen similar-looking things on the Missouri river that were intended to change water flow so that the river would not eat into the bank at a particular spot. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats called a Groyne Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 18:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a great read about these control structures and the attempts to tell the Mississippi what to do, I highly recommend John McPhee's The Control of Nature (ISBN 0374522596). (It also deals with controlling lava in Iceland and controlling debris flows in Los Angeles.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, the portion specific to the Mississippi is available from the New Yorker's site. — Lomn 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along with most of his wonderful writing. I like the books 'cause I can read them in the tub. Sure wish someone would come up with a waterproof (and heatproof and soapproof) e-reader! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler Headgear

What is Hitler wearing in this gif? Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An extraordinary bit of footage. I didn't realize how old the using-the-back-as-a-table bit was. If you knew nothing about Hitler, you could swear he's a football player signing an autograph for a fan: "To Fritz, Best Wishes, Adolf #1". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Flight helmet, apparently just like thus one. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dismas|^(talk) 08:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

NON - CONFIDENCE MOTION

sir in any law whether for moving non confidence motion likely in a board of 8 members and need 2/3 of 8 members to move non- confidence motion which comes to 5.33 members. then how many members will be needed to move non confidence motion whether it is 5 or 6? please reply with any ruling or any evidence support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.165.77 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on the relevant operating rules of the board. Speaking generally, though, 5/8 is conventionally interpreted as "less than two thirds", and so I would expect 6 votes necessary to constitute 2/3rds assuming that all 8 votes are cast. Given absences or abstentions, though, 5 votes of 7 or 4 votes of 6 could also be sufficient. But again, this is entirely dependent on the particular rules used by the particular group in question. Those rules might say, for instance, that the number of required fractional votes is rounded to the nearest whole number of votes, in which case 5 of 8 could constitute the 2/3rds required. — Lomn 13:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Supermajority and Parliamentary procedure for our relevant articles. Tevildo (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellboy II - The Golden Army

In the titular movie, there is a scene in an auction house, where people in suits (I assume they are employees of the house) are recording the crowd of people who came to the auction with handheld video cameras and their feed is projected to big screens facing the crownd. Long story short, why? Thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l784ppxEpu4

193.224.66.230 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]