Miscellaneous desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 24

Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops and TK-komppania

The article Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops is linked to fi:TK-komppania on WikiData. I fail to understand why. The two entities do not seem to be the same thing at all. Most importantly, TK-komppania was a unit of the Finnish Defence Forces, which is not the same thing as the Wehrmacht at all. The fact that both units were used to record and propagate material for use in the same war does not mean they were the same unit.

In my opinion the article fi:TK-komppania should be delinked from Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops and a new article about it should be written instead here on the English Wikipedia. I have already asked about this on the Finnish Wikipedia but so far got no response. What should be done here? JIP | Talk 00:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: I've removed the Finnish claims from the Wikidata page - this should resolve the incorrect inter-wiki links. The incorrect information appears to have been added in this edit by @Kulttuurinavigaattori:. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As is written in the Finnish article, the TK-komppania organization was formed according to Propagandakompanie organization during the truce between Winter war and Continuation war by Kalle Lehmus who visited Germany. The title "propaganda" was not adopted however, because it sounded too harsh in Finnish language. The purpose of both organizations was the same, to convey propaganda for both soldiers and civilian population about the war, to act as an operative in information warfare.--Kulttuurinavigaattori (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there was a shared interest. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of which affects the fact that they were not the same thing. DuncanHill (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-US Border

Man made monuments mark the border between Canada & the United States. Some of the monuments are "off" the originally described location as much as 100 feet (for instance, along the 49th parallel) due to inaccurate measurements made by surveyors in the 19th Century. So my question is, do the monuments simply represent the "visible" border, while the true border line may actually be a few feet to the left or right? Or have the monuments come to be accepted as the literal border despite the deviations? A little clarity would be appreciated. (It would make the difference between pertinent fact vs. pointless trivia in something that I am working on.) Thanks! Ditch ∝ 17:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The official site implies that the modern boundaries are the result of work done in 1925 after the original "slash" had become overgrown. This other article also suggests that the current markers are much more precisely aligned to the hypothetical "true" border. Neither are 100% conclusive, though. Matt Deres (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer the question (which the article Canada–United States border doesn't seem to, unless I missed something), the monuments (and unmarked points in water) now define the border. --184.145.50.201 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That link does not state the monuments define the border. Otherwise we sneaky Northerners could gobble up a few square miles of USian territory in the dead of night. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look again: "a series of straight lines which intersect at boundary monuments". --174.94.31.124 (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC) (formerly 184.145.50.201).[reply]

The northernmost of the “49°” markers is near Sumas, Washington; it's off by three city blocks, about nine hundred feet. Yes, that's where the border is. The discrepancy was the subject of litigation in ~1995, which was mentioned in an article of ours that I couldn't find when last I looked for it. —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy freeholy (frijoles?). According to a March 14, 1998, Vancouver Sun article, "the U.S. government signed a treaty [with Britain] in 1908 accepting the border monuments as the actual boundary", though Washington state's constitution specifies the 49th parallel. A map in a companion article shows the ~~underhanded~~ poisonous Sumacians have indeed encroached on the Great ~~White~~ Multicultural North; on the other hand, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario are a little bit bigger than they should be. Overall, the US comes out ahead by 37.6 square kilometers. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BrewDog Pink IPA

The BrewDog article says there is a new beer called BrewDog Pink IPA. According to BrewDog's own site, it's the same as Punk IPA, only in a pink can rather than a blue one. Is this correct?

BrewDog's site says the beer is available on their online shop, but I haven't been able to find it there. Is it available on the online shop, and if so, where?

I'm asking all this because I found out that the picture of the beer on the article appears to be a photograph of an image of the beer shown on a computer screen instead of a photograph of the beer itself, so I started to wonder how I could actually buy a can of it to get a better picture. JIP | Talk 23:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a limited edition release in 2018, and the CEO later called it a big mistake. If you could not find it in their store, I expect that they don't sell it any more. RudolfRed (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a blog on BrewDog's site states: This is our overt parody on the failed, tone-deaf campaigns that some brands have attempted in order to attract women. [1] --2603:6081:1C00:1187:D850:7CD2:B521:2587 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]