Miscellaneous desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7

Us supreme court

Members of — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B110:AD58:B910:2463:23C2:CAE6 (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Supreme Court of the United States. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See misogynists. Fgf10 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTFORUM. --Lambiam 18:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chewing gum sticks availability in Poland

For some weird reason I couldn't find chewing gum in sticks (except for kids) in several convenience stores, shops and supermarkets in Warsaw, as all had it only in pellets or tablets. Particularly, there were no Wrigley's Spearmint or Juicy Fruit in sticks at all. Is it some local problem or part of wider picture? Brandmeister^talk 17:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing chewing gum in sticks for grown-ups anywhere in Europe in the last umpty years. --Lambiam 18:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of chewing gum being categorized into kids and grown-up varieties. Our chewing gum article doesn't seem to have heard of this distinction either. Is the difference simply in the packaging or what? Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most chewing gum cannot be used as bubble gum. I consider blowing gum bubbles to be somewhat childish, and if a branded chewing gum has a bubbly name, such as Bubble Yum or Bubblicious, and is also advertized as "bubble gum",^[1][2] I think the branding aims at kids. --Lambiam 06:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better that than chewing tobacco. See also Big League Chew. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's Orbit for Kids, which is marketed for them and this is the only stick gum available in Warsaw. Looks like I have to contact local supermarkets to clarify the availability issue. Brandmeister^talk 16:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is BrainPOP considered a reliable source by Wikipedia’s criteria?

Courtesy link: BrainPop

The question is in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primal Groudon (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more appropriate venue for this question is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please note that the notion of reliable source is not absolute, but also depends on the context in which the source is cited. I must say, though, that it appears unlikely to me that encyclopedic material that needs to be sourced cannot be sourced from a more appropriate source than BrainPOP, accessing whose content costs money while the permanence of their content is iffy. Do they allow archiving their content? I don't think so. --Lambiam 06:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's of marginal utility at Wikipedia, it's a low-level tertiary source, meaning that a) pretty much everything they cover is only at a very basic level, and b) literally nothing there is not already well covered by other sources. I can't think of a single reason why that would be the best source. Note, however, that this has nothing to do with paid access: WP:PAYWALL makes it very clear that we are agnostic on paid vs. free sources. However, in this case, we're essentially looking at multimedia, general knowledge encyclopedia aimed at children. I can't think of any reason that another source wouldn't be better. This applies to other similar sources like Crash Course (YouTube) or even things like Khan Academy that might be aimed at a more advanced audience: the information contained therein is fine, but there's nothing from those tertiary sources that would not be better served by citing more appropriate secondary sources. --Jayron 32 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]