Miscellaneous desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

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 27

Supernumerary urogenital numbering system

When it comes to human excretory functions, "number 1" is a euphemism for urination and "number 2" for defecation.

But what about other stuff? Could menstruation be "number 3", or ejaculation "number 4", or childbirth "number 5", or some such system? Has anyone ever used these extra numbers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a little-kid thing, and the average kid is not likely to be very aware of or care about those other biological functions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if this isn't a 'trolling' question, nothing is..68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is not a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no you're not at troll, but we should not judge questions based on the username, in my opinion. If Jack had not been logged in and asked this as an IP, I'd hope we could treat the question in the same manner. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he might not be but that question....I'd like to take a vote on that...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack often raises what could be called "whimsical" questions, about oddities that pop into his head randomly and which might not necessarily be so easy to research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So can other people raise whimsical questions and not be called a troll? If not, why not? Who is to judge the excuse of whimsicallity? Either a post (not the poster) is trollish, or its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.96.35 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC) --178.111.96.35 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slight comment on Jacks Q: Defecation is not a urogenital function. (At least not in this hemishere)--178.111.96.35 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)didn;t[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know an expression that covers all expressions of "matter" from the body. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Biological elimination waste products". StuRat (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of number 3... watch the first 20 seconds. (Clip from Home (film)) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wiktionary's "Appendix:English toilet slang" assigns "number three" and "number four" to flatulence and vomiting, admitting that the both can be both, while "only numbers one and two are generally accepted as standard". Not referenced. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sluzzelin.

Right, so that makes at least 7 ways of expelling stuff from the body. Is there a general term for them? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a Fluid balance chart, the general term is "output". I'm not sure that would cover childbirth, though. Tevildo (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are other excretions such as tears, saliva, snot, sweat, earwax, and possibly pus or blood. Would you even count dead skin flaking off, or hair growing? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In one of Bill Cosby's early recordings, he talked about elementary school, and how if you had to leave to go to the restroom, you would raise your hand and display 1 or 2 fingers. Presumably this would have been around the mid-1940s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OP might be fine in general but this "question" at least goes against the not a chatroom guideline...it's more of a proposal for the sake of amusement with goofy title to boot..the firt part of the "question" isn't a question at all: yes, of course anything could be called anything if one wanted to...and the second part of the "question" is: please try to find examples of my goofy proposal for my amusement...CLOSE/DELETE 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was some comedy show where they went into numbers for all the various "outputs". StuRat (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll definitively answer this genuine "question": "could they be 3,4,5...?" Yes, nobody owns the rights to these numbers such that they couldn't be used by you or somebody else for such a purpose. "have they ever been used." Unknowable..but unlikely someone who is menstruating ever stated, "I just did a #5." or someone who is sweating stated, "I'm doing a #7." Hope that helps. Please let me know if I can be of more assistance.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Next time I have a whimsical query, you will be the very first person to whom I will trip lightly in search of instant illumination. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Varley's SF novel Golden Globe mentions a radio (or some future equivalent) show which challenges the reader to name the 36 substances which can come from a human body. You can find a discussion about it at straight dope.-gadfium 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. They get up to 38 substances. I get queasy just thinking about it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing human disgusts me, unless it's unkind." [1] :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was that Terence "Nothing human is alien to me" Williams? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you might want to look up perineum and the cloaca from which it evolved, and for which monotremes are named. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The death of the Donald

What would happen to the caucuses, the Republican party and politics in the US period if Trump 'died'. Somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read This. It should answer any question you have. --Jayron 32 01:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't address the question of what happens if a candidate dies or withdraws after there have been primaries and caucuses, but before the party's national convention. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the convention, they would decide what to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a historical precedent, see 1968 Democratic National Convention which took place after the assassination of candidate Robert F. Kennedy, who had won a number of primaries. It was messy, for all sorts of reasons. --Xuxl (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a campaign now to allow guns in the Republican convention, which is in Ohio, an open carry state. If this happens, combined with the hatred of Trump by many Republicans and the hatred of those Republican by Trump supporters, then the killing of one or more candidates seems like a real possibility. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your hopes up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't wish violence upon anyone, there would be a certain poetic justice if the party that demands everyone should be able to carry a gun anywhere suffer the consequences of their actions. But, my guess is that they are too smart to expose themselves to the dangers they expose the rest of the nation to. (Their position, of course, is that everyone having guns makes everyone safer, but they don't actually believe this, or they would have guns in their conventions. It's just a way to get support from the National Rifle Association.) StuRat (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the Republican Party would necessarily suffer if a candidate were removed. —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In discussing the rival contenders' chances of winning the GOP presidential nomination a journalist makes reference to "a brokered convention". Can someone explain this term? 78.149.118.97 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When nobody gets a majority they go back to the old way, where they wheel and deal and try to get each other's delegates by promising political favors. See brokered convention. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1968 DNC (cited above by Xuxl) really is the best example. The parties make their own rules, so it wouldn't play out the same way, but the gist of it is, Trump's delegates would all show up to the RNC as "unbound" delegates. The convention starts with the rules meeting. At that rules meeting, someone would bring up the RNC's peculiar, new eight-state rule, which requires someone to get the "support" of 8 states' delegations in order to even be nominated. If this rule were interpreted super-strictly, it could result in Ted Cruz being the only legal candidate. If it's interpreted in a way that lets the unbound delegates coordinate in advance to try to get 8-state coalitions, then we'd have a "brokered" convention, which means that the real action would happen in secret off of the convention floor. If the 8-state rule got weakened or eliminated, we'd have a "contested" or "open" convention, which means that the real action would happen live on the convention floor, because there would not be any rule that would let a "broker" force any delegate to coordinate with anyone else. --M @r ē ino 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]