Miscellaneous desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

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.

December 5

Most recent US Medal of Honor recipient not personally decorated by president

The Wikipedia article Medal of Honor says "Since 1980, nearly all Medal of Honor recipients—or in the case of posthumous awards, the next of kin—have been personally decorated by the Commander-in-Chief." When was the last time the recipient or next of kin was decorated by someone other than the president?

Looking through our articles on Medal of Honor recipients, it appears that all the post-Vietnam War awards have been personally decorated by the President. I've not been through the lengthy list of Vietnam War recipients, but the most recent exception I've identified is William McGonagle, who was decorated by the Secretary of the Navy. Warofdreams talk 01:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you War of dreams. I suppose the "nearly all" wording might just be indicating that they weren't certain that every single one since 1980 had been presented by the president, not that they necessarily knew of an exception. Captain McGonagle's 1968 award is described as being the only one "awarded in such a manner", but it isn't clear if it is the secrecy or the presentation by someone other than the president which was unique.

Newcomen atmospheric engine exhaust

In a Newcomen atmospheric engine, does the condensed steam turn back into water, or does it stay in vapor form? Either way, how is the condensed water/steam expelled from the cylinder before the next stroke? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does turn back into water: it is this change – which greatly reduces its volume – that lowers the pressure in the cylinder below atmospheric pressure so that the greater pressure of the atmosphere pushes on the piston to generate power. The condensed (though still hot) water then runs down into the steam-producing heated reservoir below the piston (due to gravity) via a valve that is opened to allow the water out and more steam in, before being closed again ready for the next charge of cold water (which is what cools the steam) to be delivered into the cylinder via another valve. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.56 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Fandom Wiki

Wikipedia is not the place for this discussion. Matt Deres (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there, I have a question: What's the difference between Wikipedia and Community Fandom Wiki? --Manwë986 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like there's a connection between the two, other than being wikis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of Disney Fandom Wiki?--Manwë986 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manwë986: The Community Fandom Wiki started off as Wikia. Jimmy Wales co-founded both Wikipedia and Wikia, but beyond that they're not really connected. Wales makes money off of Wikia, I'm not seeing him getting a penny off of this site (especially since it killed the print encyclopedia).

Wikia can sell adspace. We're pretty much only ever going to show ads for fundraising.

Wikia as a whole has a few loose policies and then leaves a lot of rules up to whoever starts individual Wikias. We've got plenty of policies and guidelines. Most Wikias generally rule that something gets an article if it's part of some specific canon. Wikipedia really only cares about summarizing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

There's not really any centralized force in Wikia, so you could probably start up the upteenth Star Wars wiki that will forever remain overshadowed by Wookiepedia. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki to prevent us from having a dozen Esperanto versions of Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he also founded Wikia? My problem here is that an editor placing contents of insults at the page of Mickey Mouse at Disney Wiki at his own opinion. And yet he's the bureaucrat of Disney Wiki. I visited the Disney Company.com for help and they directed me to here. And that bureaucrat is very stubborn, and he's not affiliated with Disney. Can you provide solutions?--Manwë986 (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, Manwe986. You're in the position of somebody who goes into a bar and says "They were very rude to me in the bar down the street. Can you help?" We have absolutely nothing to do with any other Wiki. All I can suggest is that you stop going there. --ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not uses Fandom/Wikia because they are often unreliable and have no real policies unlike Wikipedia I think it would have bean a good idea if Wales thought of policies for all Wikis on their Abote2 (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also an editor in Disney Wiki. And the bureaucrat, Hey1234, is not even affiliated with the Disney Company. I must put an end to his insults against Mickey. He even dare to say the insults are Mickey's traits. But I just don't know what to do.--Manwë986 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you still don't get it. Whatever problems you may have on the Disney Wiki have nothing to do with either us or Disney. There is nothing we or Disney can do about it. If you have a problem on the Disney wiki, you should try talking to the people there and explaining what your problem is etc. Note that in any discussion you should be prepared to accept your view is not well supported by the community of that wiki. If this happens, you can either accept that or leave the wiki. Also there is no requirement or expectation that people on the Disney Wiki will be affiliated with Disney. Actually while wikis on fictional works tends to mostly attract fans, I think it's still common that official representatives are viewed with suspicion out of fear they want to only present whatever the company likes. And for various reasons companies are often not particularly interested in having much an official presence on fan wikis anyway. Rarely companies may run official wikis but even when they do these are often only editable about by the company and there are various ways other ways to allow collaboration among staff that are often preferred. Anyway back to fan wikis, even many fans are often interested in full coverage including any controversies and other information that a company may not like. Most popular wikis on fictional works are definitely not a place for fans who can't tolerate any negative information or information which disagrees with their POV. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about that. I must stop this before the public viewers and fans who love Mickey see this, even if going against the bureaucrat. That guy don't even think about the concern of the public.--Manwë986 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are misintepreting something ( in truth I once found the same kind of stuff after buying a Mickey Mouse comic book but I decided it might be a trend, see Mickey_Mouse_(comic_book)#IDW ) I'm affraid the point could be that they are thinking about the concern of the public, or something that looks like that. He may be only provoking you. --Askedonty (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Askedonty: No, I strongly doubt that's the case, see below. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well yes. That system of nomenclature applied to characters is leading to all possible damaging quotations. --Askedonty (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Manwë986: This is not a general discussion forum. Whatever options you have, you will not find them here.

I think the best approach you can take is to realize that Hey1234 is a fan just like you, who cares about Mickey just like you do. They are probably doing what they're doing to prevent the article from getting too cluttered.

Looking at what I suspect are the relevant thread and the relevant edit in question, I really get the impression that you're just taking things way too personally. Here on Wikipedia, we have a rule that no one owns their edits to the site. The only words you removed were "scrappy" and "disobedient," and the words Hey1234 removed largely overlapped with existing traits (e.g. "shy" and "soft spoken"). Hey1234 was also not the only person to revert your changes. Hey1234 mentions prior discussion and they should have linked to it because the depreciated talk page doesn't feature this discussion and the comments section is useless for discussion.

I recommend toning down the zealotry, and politely ask for a link to the discussion since it's pretty well hidden. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion has now been linked to I'll point out the OP has been trying to get those edits in for months. There has been at least one previous discussion which is probably what the other editor is referring to [1]. I'll be blunt here, I know very little about Mickey Mouse, but if I were involved in that wiki, the edit summary and your messages would probably be enough for me to revert. Manwë986 to be clear, your way of approaching this is never likely to win over anyone whether ~~or not~~ you're right or wrong about the substance. If you can't edit the Disney wiki without getting so emotionally involved, perhaps it simply isn't the right place for you. You need to calmly explain why the info is wrong based on the info in the source material, not get so worked up about how offensive it is or how some fans aren't going to cope. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't give me much hope for improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I removed disobedient because it doesn't seem to fit as one of Mickey's traits, even if that Hey1234 explained his reasons. To me, disobedience only fitred with children. It's not about myself, it's about the public. If the public viewers and fans who love Mickey find out what the bureaucrat did, what will they say?--Manwë986 (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwë986 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Wasn't he disobedient in The Sorcerer's Apprentice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take "collective apathy" for $200, Alex. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add signature again.--Manwë986 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC) He did disobeyed, but it doesn't fitted into his personality overall.--Manwë986 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generation

Is there not a precise definition for how many years makes a generation? Dictionary.com says that it takes "about" 30 years. Does the "about" mean its not exact or precise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation 110.151.86.119 (talk · contribs)

No, there is no precise definition. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no precise definition. The article states: "the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own". The key word is "generally" because this is a thing. 196.213.35.147 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Within any single line of descent from a given ancestor, each generation takes whatever time it takes for the person lowest in the line to produce a child. That might be as short as 18 years (or even earlier) to 60 years (or even older). Take the British Royal Family from Queen Victoria: one well-known line goes Edward VII, George V, George VI, Elizabeth II, Charles, William, George (so far). The ages of the relevant parents when each child was born were: 22, 23, 30, 30, 22, 33 and 31. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is the same as when you asked it a couple of weeks ago. A generation is not a measure of years, it's an indicator in family trees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asked on the 21st and then erased by a different IP on the 28th.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is referring to the more broad use of "generation" to refer to a generational cohort, such as Generation X, rather than the specific ages in a family tree. For generational cohorts, thirty years is a rough value because it's influenced by the decision to have it partly reflect a common cultural background. For example, the G.I. Generation is obviously influenced by the desire to have them identified based on the shared experience of WW2. Similarly, some definitions of Generation Z link it to the shared experience of the September 11 attacks. Matt Deres (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 2000-borns remember. That's not Gen AfterZ yet right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same Australia-based guy asking the same question as he did on the 21st. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude or dudette. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloke or Sheila? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the educational reference. I wasn't aware of the term sheila. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware it was derogatory. In this case, just plain "Aussie" will do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As so many terms, it is derogatory or useful in its context. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A counterpoint: there are precise definitions. What there are not are universally-agreed definitions. The Pew Research Center, for example, defines Silent, Boomers, X, and Millennials (and by inference, Greatest and post-Millennial) for purposes of all of its publications. They also note that the Baby Boomer generation is formally defined by the US Census Bureau. Not everyone will agree with these definitions (or, outside the US, agree that they're even necessarily relevant distinctions, such as in the Boomer case), but they are indisputably precise. — Lomn 15:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to the dictionary definition using "about", the Pew link above notes that this is a case of factors other than years elapsed being the relevant reasons for defining generational boundaries. Significant global events and societal shifts do not cleave to calendars. Also note that modern "generations" as used in this sense are far below 30 years in length; the Pew definitions are 16, 16, 19, and 18 years in length (and Greatest likewise would likely have been around 15 years, though Pew now artificially compresses that one by capping evaluated populations at 100 years of age). — Lomn 15:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the Pew definitions are only precisely defined for Pew-written things, not for everything ever written. While the Pew Institute may use those precise dates for all of its writings, there is no guarantee that other people will use them. Generally, the definitions are pretty fuzzy around the edges: Boomers born between WWII -- Early 1960s. Gen X between early 1960s-early 1980s. Millenials/Gen Y born between early 1980s-early 2000s, Post-millenials/Gen Z born since the early 2000s. In those fuzzy terms, the length of such a cultural generation is about 15-20 years, with probably a fuzzy 2-3 year "transitional" time where people can identify with one or the other (or a blend) of the two generations. For example, someone born in 1981 may more identify as Gen X, or may more identify with Gen Y, or maybe identifies with some of the cultural traits of both. It's not meant to be strictly, rigidly defined, except for groups like Pew, who use such cohorts for their own limited data reporting purposes. --Jayron 32 17:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a generation for pop culture? -- 193.116.208.86 (talk · contribs)

Yes. It's all of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Durak game: who begins?

The rules say, the first attacker is the player with the lowest trump card. How is that determined, given that all cards are hidden from one another? Gil_mo (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the trump suit is revealed when the cards are dealt - say 7 of diamonds - the other players simply ask. "Who has the 6 of diamonds?" and off you go. 196.213.35.147 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or I just go "Ha! I start. (neener neener) 196.213.35.147 (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what if nobody has the 6? Do you go on asking "Who has the 8? Who has the 9?" and so on? And what if nobody has a trump suit? Gil_mo (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - to the first part. That is clear in the rules. The second part (which is not clear and we play this way) - if nobody has a card from the trump suit - the dealer picks up from the talon. Should he not draw a trump, the next player to the left of the dealer draws from the talon - and so on until somebody draws a trump. 196.213.35.147 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit) Oops! Just checked with my mum - it's been a while since I played. ALL players starting with the dealer pick up from the talon so that everybody has the same number of cards. Rinse and repeat. 196.213.35.147 (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rules (dealing) 196.213.35.147 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]