Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 June 22

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.

June 22

Concentrating mind on study

What may be the list of tips for best concentration on study? (Tips for higher secondary students ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.255.74 (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Study skills which may have some ideas, and if you follow references from that article, it may lead you to better places. --Jayron32 06:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you ask about concentration, see also Attentional control and Mindfulness.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Attentional shift & ADHD might also be articles of interest. --107.15.152.93 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

England National football (soccer) team questions

First, England invests enormous amounts of money in football, as far as I know more then Germany or Italy. However, England are demonstrably not that good. Why not?

Second, whilst England are not that good, they are demonstrably not that bad. Yet from what I have seen England are technically weaker than many demonstrably worse teams, like Slovakia and Russia. What are England doing well?--Leon (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, why do Scotland never seem to qualify? Shouldn't they be much better with the second oldest league system in the whole world? Pablothepenguin (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The explanation which is often given is that because English football is so rich, the top teams prefer to employ international superstars, which means that there are far fewer English players reaching the top ranks than used to be the case. I am not an expert, so can't say if that is the main or only reason. Wymspen (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Any word on why Scotland is so bad at qualifying for football tournaments? Pablothepenguin (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Small population?--Leon (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Haggis, bagpipes, whisky, caber tossing? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Scottish football is shite"... they say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I presume you're aware that the vast majority of money invested in football in England comes from Sky and sponsors, and goes to Premier League teams who comprise dozens of different nationalities? In qualifying for Euro 2016, they were the only team to win all qualifying matches. They are notoriously weak in tournaments. I don't think there's any real answer to why that happens... The same logic is true in Scotland to an extent, many mainland Europeans play up there, and as the population is so much smaller, their starting point is substantially weaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Typically, the explanation given for England's poor performances is that for all the money available, they do not play a very tactically advanced game and are therefore fairly easy for a top team to contain. This is said to be a result of favoring players who have a lot of grit and resolve, but who are not necessarily very gifted technically. Their best performance in a World Cup since winning in 1966 came in 1990, when they actually had such a technical player, Paul Gascoigne, as their offensive leader. Now, Scotland has not always been bad at qualifying for major tournaments: they had quite a good run of qualifying for the World Cup from the 1970s to the 1990s, being successful in 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990 and 1998. They didn't do anything once they got to the tournament, but that's a very nice record of qualifying for a small country. They haven't been much good since, but a lot of countries go through similar phases when they are very god for a coupe of decades, then fade away. For example, Hungary was one of the powerhouses of Europe from the 1930s to the mid-1980s, and then disappeared off the football map until qualifying for this year's European championships. These things are cyclical, that's all. --Xuxl (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that Scotland has a relatively low population, but why are New Zealand better at rugby then when they have an even lower population? I don't get it! Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason for that is that rugby has always been New Zealand's national game and New Zealanders are extremely passionate about it. Akld guy (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But passion is not enough. We Scots are very passionate about football, but that doesn't help. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

We're into POV here, but when this question is raised, it often moves on to consider how many different sports England perceives itself as (or thinks it ought to be) a powerhouse in. A quick resume would include football, cricket, two codes of rugby, snooker, darts, athletics, swimming, cycling, various equestrian activities, golf, Formula One, boxing and more. For most of my life there's been much teeth gnashing about how we ought to be at the top table in tennis, too, somewhat relieved by Andy Murray winning some major titles and then the Davis Cup win.

An insight into this can be gained by looking at this chart of which sports were represented by the winners of the (misleadingly titled) BBC Sports Personality of the Year since its inception in 1954.

Your analogy with NZ is interesting. I'm not sure a New Zealander would agree, but the perception here is that NZ has an overwhelming love of rugby union and flirts a little with cricket. It's a stereotype and therefore probably badly flawed, but I think there's some truth in it, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why New Zealand are better than Scotland at rugby, when Scotland has a larger population. Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Could be because New Zealand's national anthem is a prayer, whereas Scotland's is, well, non-existent. ;) Akld guy (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand's national anthem is, presumably, "God Save the Queen". 92.23.53.54 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"God Save the Queen" is one of the two national anthems, with great preference being for the "God of Nations" version, which is the only version performed at sporting fixtures. In fact, God Save the Queen is reserved only for state occasions when the monarch or a member of the royal family is present. It is seldom heard, and will likely be dropped when the Queen dies. Soon after, the flag will also likely change, and the monarch will no longer be head of state. There have been moves already along each of these lines. Do not underestimate the level of antipathy toward the monarchy here. We are only being polite until the Queen dies. Akld guy (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't NZ have two referendums on the flag only very recently, and wasn't the result to keep the existing one, to the confoundation of most pundits, and wasn't the view of most people that the whole exercise was a waste of time and money? What makes you believe the matter would be revisited again any time soon? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

What pundits were these who were confounded? From what I saw, most commentators quickly recognised the flag process was having problems and I don't think that many were surprised by the outcome especially since it agreed with polling (polls on that sort of thing may not be that great but the margins were large). There was limited enthusiasm, interest and participation in the early process, it got some attention but there weren't that many who bothered to actual do anything. (I wanted to change the flag and voted for change, but didn't get involved in the earlier process.)

Even the long list was somewhat derided, the shortlist much more so especially given the similiarity of 2 or 3 of the designs. There was also question whether there was sufficient involvement or consultation with vexillologists or designers. Red Peak got some viral interest, enough to get it added but frankly as often the case, it quickly fizzled, i.e. by the end no big change from the early process. (Some suggested the flag consideration panel just gave Key what he wanted but far more likely they followed the limited feedback they received.)

The referendums themselves had two significant problems, One is as a separate postal vote, ilikely had lower turnout than if held during the general election. (Second referendum turnout not bad but still potentially 10% below a general election one. First referendum was low by NZ non CIR election standards. I'm sure partially due to people not wanting to change or thinking it was a waste of time or not liking the options but also partially because it was a postal vote and they couldn't be bothered.)

Also from what I saw, likely some negatives votes were for dislike of the process or Key in general. Key is still popular but for various reasons not likely many positives votes an indication of support for Key. Some also felt no point changing flag until and unless we decide to become republic even if they wanted that or weren't certain (at least after the Queen's gone). Obviously some support a flag change but not a republic.

P.S. The other anthem is God Defend New Zealand.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@JackofOz: The referendum was hijacked. Most people wanted a change of flag, and in particular wanted the Union Jack gone, but the thousands of designs submitted were narrowed down to 4, with a 5th later being added because it was thought to be popular (it wasn't, and polled worse than another). The first vote, for one of the 5, had a low turnout. The second vote (Change/No Change) had a good turnout and was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the current flag. The reason? Nobody truly liked any of the 5 choices. The Prime Minister had made clear his choice at the outset, and the selection committee felt obliged to include it in the 5. The result was that voters disliked the choices offered, so the only option was to vote for the status quo in order to block the introduction of a flag that was even worse. Akld guy (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Akld guy, thanks for that. Is there a cite that confirms all this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow football and don't have much to draw on, but you should be willing to consider the possibility that it's a coincidence. A team can be very successful on the backs of very arrivals of talent and expertise that are in retrospect quite random. (Who would have predicted fifteen years ago that Gareth Bale was going to turn up for Wales but not for Northern Ireland?) In addition, national football teams really play very few matches together, so how well the players are able to get used to working with each other under pressure may be very variable (although of course they may have a more stable team than a professional team, which can make trades). Smaller countries may counterbalance a weak selection pool with the players knowing each other better.
What football fans maybe don't want to realise is that England is far from terrible. Many big countries with a strong footballing culture do about the same or worse. Poland, the Ukraine and Russia are clear examples. Small European countries that I think probably do worse than their population and resources might predict are Switzerland and Austria; Japan is not great either in world football. For some years around and after the 2002 world cup I know there was talk of Senegal's football team breaking out to become a major world-class contender, that never happened. Let's look at it another way: the dataset is actually quite weak. There have been about 16 world cups since the last war and 14 Euro championships. England has won one of world cups and none of the euro cups. I can't be bothered to work out the population of the countries that care about football, but the world cup result at least is surely better than what chance would predict weighted for population size, and based on the population of the euro cup countries you would not expect England to have won any of those on average yet. It's just that some countries have managed to be a thorn in England's side more than a few times (Sweden and Portugal in particular; also Spain) that makes people think of them. To have a really reliable dataset to see statistically significant differences, I suspect you'd really have to run a Euro competition every six months or so or (given the greater number of teams) a world cup every other month since the war. (It's an extremely rough rule of thumb in the sciences that no dataset is really reliable without about ten observations of the thing you're interested in. Applying that rule of thumb, we wouldn't know if England was really bad at football before you'd lived through enough world cups that you'd seen England lift the trophy ten times.) Someone must, though, have worked out a statistical study of if England are really significantly worse than one would expect. To get an idea of how hard this kind of analysis really is, this paper is a good example of trying to work out if bad results can really be blamed on the manager. Since Germany has mostly done consistently well in football in Europe, though, it would be interesting to see how willing England is to hire German coaching staff - perhaps an unwillingness to take ideas from other countries might be the problem? Blythwood (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, here's another comparison of why you can't necessarily reject the null hypothesis - that much of what happens in a football match is a coincidence. Here's the Guardian's list of candidates for Premier League manager of the season, 2014-5. Most of them - three out of five - were fired/forced out within a year. Here's their list from 2013-4; four of the five have since been fired. Since one assumes that the strategies of successfully running a football team should not change much from 2013-6, it is hard not to wonder if really it's all a coincidence - a team gets lucky for a bit and the manager is hailed as a genius, they get less lucky for a bit and the manager is blamed and sacked. An upswing follows, and the new manager is hailed as a genius... See also regression to the mean. Blythwood (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

List of exercise movements sought (with or without mechanisms)

Tutorial or step by step guide sought, with images of:

1. Basic
2. Intermediate
3. Advance
4. Mastery level

Apostle (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hair fall issue

Reason(s), condition(s), list of mitigation steps and so on, sought. -- Apostle (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hair falls for the same reason as everything else, gravity. If you're asking about hair loss, then I suggest you click on that link and come back here with more specific questions. Dismas|^(talk) 13:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lmao. Thanks. -- Apostle (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Last week you were trying to get rid of your hair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Q is: when are we going to be rid of our hare?--178.103.190.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently little pressure to get rid of hares. Their gestation period is extremely short (~30 days), their young are very precocial and none of their species are currently listed on any endangered lists. We do have a section of Hair you can read if you are asking when humans may no longer have any hair or when body hair will be significantly more sparse. uhhlive (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Chart sought

A chart sought where it displays all sorts of holidays, memorial days and so on, e.g., Fathers Day… -- Apostle (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Every country has its own list - which one do you want? Wymspen (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Go to any stationary store and ask them for a calendar. Dismas|^(talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Even the mobile stores have them.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This site [1] has a chart of international holidays. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I desire something like this view, with all the holidays existing in this world... -- Apostle (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's something I realized around 3rd grade: If every independent country has as many major holidays as America (New Years, MLK, Presidents, Valentine's, St. Patrick's, Good Friday, Easter, Memorial, Independence, Labor, Columbus, Halloween, Election, Veterans, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas, New Years Eve, maybe Fathers Day and Mothers Day) a worldwide 12 page calender would be crowded like shit (paraphrase on the last phrase). And just the most important National Days alone (like Independence) would be once per 2 days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to see what goes on day-to-day in this boring world, you know... -- Apostle (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your first port of call (timeanddate.com tells me that tomorrow is the worldwide Day of the Seafarer): List of holidays by country. 80.44.160.251 (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

How did you find what you stated i.e. Seafarer? I found this but it starts from "Friday Jun 24 Midsummer Day Andorra"... Am I in the right page? -- Apostle (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at [2]. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks. -- Apostle (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

wagon tracks

Could you introduce to me something more about wagon tracks in the Middle West of America that pioneers left? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.215.130 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about "Midwest", but some of the wagon train ruts from out west still exist. Oregon Trail Ruts (Guernsey, Wyoming) for example. You could probably use Google to find a lot of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hull's Trace North Huron River Corduroy Segment is the remains of an early military road in Michigan. Rmhermen (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of shareholder resistance to Google's continued standoff with Chinese government

The search ad market in China is worth about 20 billion dollars these days. If Google were to get half of that market share it would add 10 billion dollars in revenue to its 75 billion dollars in annual revenue. Presumably if Google were to cave in on censorship demands of the Chinese government it would be back in China (as Google did by launching a version of Youtube this year in Pakistan that was more sensitive to government take down demands on grounds of blasphemy, allowing a ban on Youtube to be lifted there). Anyways this is not a soapbox statement, I want to know why, given shareholders really like their dividends and since Google is missing out on billions of dollars in profits annually from China, isn't there any shareholder activism urging Google to cave in and return to China? I mean it seems like there isn't a peep of protest from Google search results for this subject. Even assuming a lot of investors care about taking an ethical stand against Internet censorship, a lot of really money hungry tycoon and hedge funds don't and own a lot of Google and have the capability and self interest to organize shareholder activism. Any explanations for the total lack of such activity? Muzzleflash (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note this item at the top of the page "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." As there will be no one definitive answer this is one of those questions. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

In principle we could give references to other sources that discuss this issue. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a request for debate (not arguing about merits of positions), predictions (not asking will Google cave in?), or opinion (just want to know about the thinking process of shareholders). Muzzleflash (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you expect us to provide references to the "thinking processes" of each of several hundred private individuals most of whom have never commented on such matters?--Jayron32 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I did reference tycoons and hedge funds which because of their sophistication and a lot of skin in the game tend to weigh this kind of question with organized thinking. In any case I hope you guys can refrain from talking about rules when there's no clear violation. It takes away from the discussion. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you've provided no references. You've asked a question that we cannot provide you references to. The purpose of the desk is to provide references, that is further reading, about a subject. There is no Wikipedia article, nor is there a reliable source outside of Wikipedia which explains the "thinking process" of each of several hundred private individuals. --Jayron32 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did reference tycoon and hedge funds. Look at the text of the original question. They might be private individuals or small groups of professional investment managers but again given their sophistication and huge investments, their thinking process tends not to be random and follows principles that are understood by other professionals. Muzzleflash (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources did you cite? You keep asserting things that we can all see you aren't doing. And what reliable sources do you expect us to find you? --Jayron32 20:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. What do you mean by citing reliable sources? Muzzleflash (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There are several possible explanations, but one of them is that shareholders think that the Google brand is worth more when people associate a principled stand against censorship with it. Alternatively, Google might think that its a slippery slope, and if it gives in to demands by one government, it will be subject to more pressure from other governments, eventually resulting in fewer business opportunities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And when a company is as large as Google, they need to be keenly aware of public perceptions, as those might have quite an impact on the bottom line, say when Google attempts a major merger in the future. If they are seen as respectable, the merger may be approved, while if they act like they will do whatever it takes to make a quick buck, the merger may be rejected. StuRat (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• WP:OR, but I don't think it's just censorship that's keeping Google out of China. There's a couple of Chinese cell phone manufacturers (Xiaomi and Oppo Electronics that I know of from experience) that use open source code released by Google but regularly ignore the GPL that requires them to release their modifications to said code. Those two manufacturers in particular have gone so far as to completely lock the bootloaders on newer phones (in ways that people outside the company can't unlock), and Oppo has even removed recovery mode (I know this from experience -- my last paycheck was totally blown just scrambling to get an Android phone I could install an English OS on). Those companies like to present an original image despite piggybacking off of foreign design and most large companies here have ties with the government (at least heavy backing from them if nothing else). Also, making that code public would also make it easier to close backdoors and security loopholes on phones. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Completely locking the bootloaders isn't unique to Chinese companies, actually non Chinese players significant in the Android world have been doing it before many in the Western world had even heard of Xiaomi or Oppo. And AFAIK the practice isn't forbidden by any of the open source licences (none of the code is licenced under GPLv3 or any other licence with an anti-tivoisation clause) nor Google Mobile Services's licence. However the problem of companies not complying with copyleft licences does seem to more common with Chinese manufacturers. Of course these 2 factors combined does mean third party ROM support for these phones can be limited. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian mind control device

What is the blue and black device that Gary Johnson is wearing around his collar in the lede photo of this WSJ article? When I first saw him wearing it in the video of his and William Weld's talk with the editors of the NYT, I assumed it was a wireless microphone pickup to improve the audio quality of the primary subject of the recording, and that Gov. Weld didn't get one because he came in late, but now I figure that it must belong to Gov. Johnson himself, but I can figure out if it is a pair of sunglasses turned around, a personal music player, a telephone Bluetooth headset, or what. If he's wearing it during tonight's CNN Libertarian Town Hall Meeting, I'd like to be able to explain to friends what it is. -- ToE 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a Bluetooth headset. As for why he'd wear it up there to give a talk, I don't know. Dismas|^(talk) 18:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec - too slow) A headset I guess?--TMCk (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't view the video. I'm just going from the picture but it looks like this. Dismas|^(talk) 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That put me on the right track. It appears to be the LG TONE Active™ Premium Wireless Stereo Headset HBS-850 Blue. As for why, well he is a both eccentric and physically active, so it isn't out of character for him to be wearing a product "specially designed to accompany you on your longest training runs and your most punishing sets". Thanks all! -- ToE 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice question titul. 104.229.143.192 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is it mainly the UK that leads the rejection front against inviting Turkey to join the EU?

HOTmag (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Scotland does not reject Turkey, by the way. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The UK government has previously expressed itself as being in favour of Turkish membership - the current publicity about this is entirely down to the referendum campaigning, and is an attempt to scare people. Even Boris Johnson has previously expressed his support (he does, after all, have a Turkish great-grandfather) In the long run, if the Turkish application progresses, it is going to be far more difficult to get approval from Cyprus and Greece because of the continuing division of Cyprus. Wymspen (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Partly Islamaphobia. Partly the general anti-immigrant mood stirred up by UKIP and others, which applies to all countries, regardless of religion. The idea of a country with a massive population that is mostly poorer than the UK's joining the EU makes some people think that huge chunks of Turkey's population will want to move to the UK, with the UK having no power to turn them away, as EU citizens. That some people overlay this with the bonkers perception that vast numbers of Turks must be Islamic extremists doesn't help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

But this may apply to any country in the EU, not only to the UK. HOTmag (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This article (admittedly from 2013) blames Germany. Greece is none too keen either. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There are many variables-some people just don't want ANY more countries in the EU-they feel it's large enough already.Turkey is predominantly an Asian country too,and having borders with Syria can be seen as an 'easy route' for IS supporters to get into the EU-once they are in Turkish territory,they can travel anywhere in the EU. Some people will not support it because they feel that its unsuitable for a country that is occupying part of an EU country to be admitted. Lemon martini (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Puke yellow?

Is there a name for the greenish-yellow color commonly seen on safety vests, etc.? The article has a link to Chartreuse (color), but I suspect there is an "official" name for the color (cf: safety orange, international orange) --107.15.152.93 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's an analogous official name. There is an official ANSI spec for high-visibility garments though, see e.g. here [3] for a summary. This is also discussed a bit at our article on high-visibility clothing, and note that many/most ANSI-conforming products are not just colored but also reflective, often using 3M Scotchlite [4]. Many places simply call it "high-visibilty yellow" [5], though "lime" seems to be used other places. I can't find easily find the exact text of the ANSI spec. Our article says the garment must be "conspicuously colored." SemanticMantis (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when Chelsea FC released a football shirt of a very similar colour, they called it "electric yellow". AJCham 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

English zoologist Edward Bagnall Poulton coined the term Aposematism from the Greek ἀπό apo away, ση̑μα sēma sign for the evolution of warning colors in nature. AllBestFaith (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Shades of yellow says "Safety yellow is... defined by ANSI standard Z535." OR: In the commercial automotive industry, safety yellow is a commonly used term. ZMBrak (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll use "safety yellow" in formal communications. --OP:107.15.152.93 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

chickweed

I have a problem with chickweed taking over my lawn and would like to eradicate it without killing the grass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.52.24 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Selective herbicides control specific weed species, while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed. BTW you can eat chickweed (Stellaria media). AllBestFaith (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And if you don't know what herbicides to use, well, this is why landscapers exist. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks pullable. Probably one of those ones where you've got to get a root bulb. Try to grab hold of the whole thing and rock it out of the ground so as much of the root system as you can. Or use a screwdriver to loosen it up and pull. Put pulled weeds in a bag to properly wither before disposing of them. You probably shouldn't use them as mulch or compost. Be careful about herbicides. We got a guy from one of those lawn services a couple years back whose fertilizer/herbicide cocktail contained crabgrass control... which killed all the crabgrass, and then left bald spots that we couldn't fill with seed. Turns out one the main ways they inhibit crabgrass is by inhibiting germination of the seed... so then weeds that weren't inhibited spread into the bald spots. That said, lawn looked great that year outside of those problem areas. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Chickweed is about as "pullable" as freckles. Go to the local gardening store and ask for something that kills dicots, but not monocots. Given Mendaliv has no BA in plant ecology, or even HS experience in biochemistry, ignore all she says. Pulling don't work. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Any annual lawn weed is controllable by pulling. The difficulty in doing so is related to the size of the infestation and time available. I cleared my lawn from eyebright but it has taken 3 growing seasons and I am retired (and a bit sad). I assume by chickweed you are referring to stellaria media or something similar, that is an annual. The major work needs to be carried out in spring and early when the plants are actively growing and before they set seed but vigilance is required throughout much of the year to prevent seeding. Another possibility might be to buy or borrow some chickens, for the short term, to help you. This plant is enjoyed by chickens and their vigilance is san pareil. I think any system that avoids slathering your garden (and our earth) with potentially toxic chemicals is preferable. I do not possess a degree in plant ecology but I have some experience in the task and an average amount of common sense. Persistance pays - Good luck. Richard Avery (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's both rude and unnecessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to ~85% of medeis' recent comments, see also e.g. this helpful gem [6]. Oh well. I'd mention to OP that chickweed, in addition to being edible, is a good dry season ground cover. I don't know where OP is but my back yard (in TX) is ~95% cool season grass until May, and now it's ~95% chickweed, that takes over once the grass has died back. That doesn't really gel with how the plant is described in our page on Stellaria media. Depending on local conditions, OP may find that removing chickweed just results in bare spots. Frequent, low mowing with plenty of water tends to favor grass, that might also help, again depending on environment and location. Finally, chickweed is an annual, and does not have a large ability to resprout when pulled. It is also a highly prolific seeder though, so targeted mechanical control is not usually ideal. Here [7] is some information on chickweed control from PSU extension service. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@ 222.153.52.24. Is this on well drained chalky (alkaline) soil?--Aspro (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)