Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of miscellaneous.

Welcome to the miscellaneous reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers,
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.
    • We are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Choose a topic:
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

December 5

Roots And Other Stuff In Place of Coffee

So, I was reading about coffee substitutes, like dandelion root and chicory, etc. And Ive always been a fan of adding apices, and such to my coffee grounds. So, I was looking for any suggestions on unusual things that could be added to coffee grounds, or other roots, etc., that could be ground up and brewed.

The result needn't be like coffee, just things that could be brewed and are relatively safe to try brewing if ground (I assume some edible substances in big quantities might not be wise). Any suggestions on where to buy things from a reputable vendor, online, would also be welcome (when searching for edible flowers, I always wondered how they were handled, if they were treated with anything, etc.).

Thanks for any help and suggestions, Ive always wondered why we don't roast and grind other things, or brew from ground roots, etc. (In a coffee like direction rather than a tea like one, if that makes sense). (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has everything! See Coffee substitute for a long list of alternatives to the real thing - not that I can understand why anyone would want to use a substitute for the heavenly elixir that is real coffee. Wymspen (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You can add cardamon, chocolate, coconut milk or even cow milk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Chicory-and-coffee mixtures are available on the mass market in many western grocery stores; it is very popular in parts of the American south; Café du Monde in New Orleans specializes in serving beignets with coffee and chicory; several major coffee brands in the U.S. sell coffee and chicory blends nationwide. For example, I live over 1000 miles from New Orleans, and my local grocery store stocks This stuff in several brands. Camp Coffee is similarly available in the UK. --Jayron32 13:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • To be pedantic, it is really coffee that became the 'substitute' for all the other infusions commonly drunk, long before coffee came to Europe. They to, often had psycho-tropic effects and included ingredients such nuts, herbs and tree barks. The list is too long to go into. Coffee may have taken over simply because it was original the drink of the rich so it became fashionable. The thing that puts most people off trying these traditional drinks a real try, is I think, because they have heard that they are coffee substitutes only to find they don't taste anything like coffee. Yet, with an open mind they are enjoyable as coffee. A coffee drink should be aware too, that they have developed a caffeine addition. So the full pleasure from imbibing (drinking) will not come until they have weaned themselves off caffeine and come to appreciate the different psycho-tropic effects (some of which are more narcotic in nature rather than stimulating like caffeine and some which are very stimulating but I will not mention -in case some idiot tries it out in his kitchen – as the amount (dose) is very critical.). Also be aware that infusions (made from say) Horse Chestnut bark may have pleasant astringent qualities together with the right amount of bitterness (like a good Arabica coffee), but in it raw form it too -is toxic. One really needs a good authoritative reference to describe how one's Grandmother used to make it and how long she boiled it for, before experimenting one's self. Aspro (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    Well, a more significant reason for drinking coffee besides the taste is the caffeine. People enjoy (or are addicted to. Same difference) the effects of the caffeine in coffee. Chicory doesn't have that. While I agree that other herbs, spices, etc. may have psychoactive effects, they don't have caffeine effects, which sort of misses the point. People don't take drugs just to take drugs, they take drugs because they desire a specific effect. Other effects aren't equivalent. --Jayron32 17:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You miss the point, that people continue to take caffeine, because relieves the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal. It is the monkey on their back that leads them to 'believing' that they like coffee, Coca-Cola, etc., above all else. Because if they don't take it frequently they suffer withdrawal symptoms. With caffeine it is often... see list: [1]. Stop drinking it for a while and the cup that one used to love creates unpleasant feelings of agitation and unease. One no longer desires its effects. So the "desire a specific effect" of which you speak is indicative of addiction and the avoidance behavior of withdrawal. Can't remember the last time I drank coffee or Coca-Cola but it must be many years ago. Aspro (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Caffeine has other effects beyond curing the headaches the lack of it creates, you know... People consume it because, independent of curing it's own withdrawal symptoms, it has other psychoactive effects. People desire these effects too. Regardless; why people desire caffeine is not germane to the discussion. People do genuinely desire to drink it for their own reasons. Some do genuinely also enjoy the taste of such beverages. The fact that you do not means fuckall, because you are not significant. Your personal experience means something to you, but means nothing to our discussion here. The point is 1) people want caffeinated drinks. Why doesn't matter. 2) Your experience is not germane to this discussion. --Jayron32 13:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This seems like we're steering WAAAY into original research. Any concerns regarding the consumption of caffeine should be taken up with a doctor rather than some anecdotal post on a Wikipedia reference desk.--WaltCip (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @ User:WaltCip. DSM-5 292.0 is NOT original research. It includes caffeine withdrawal. The headaches can be very painful an often come on at weekends when the 'addict' is not at work and drinking many cups of coffee. Ask a pharmacist when s/he sell the most pain-killers. It is on the Saturday and the most favoured brands contain apart from paracetamol... guess what? Yes, several hundred milligrams of caffeine ! If you doubt me look at the packets. Very odd don't you think, because caffeine doesn’t have any pain reliving action? The constipation can be also be like the worst constipation one has experienced. Yet, it magically goes away after after the withdrawal period, never to return. Again, you must have heard in passing, that Americans especially, don't like taking a vocation out-side the US because their kids get sick. Of course they do, because their kids are deprived of their day dose (fix) of caffeine drinks. This addiction to caffeine is well recognized. Very well understood and thus included in DSM-5. 292.0. The OP asked a good question and there are many alternatives to coffee. My vice (or peccadillo) is a good single malt whiskey but I would never consider drinking it every day! Aspro (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "caffeine doesn’t have any pain reliving action?"
Not of itself, but it's a common ingredient in proprietary headache cures for more reasons than to reverse caffeine withdrawal.
"single malt whiskey"
I have no idea what that would be, but it sounds like some heathen import from a place with a lack of whisky and a surfeit of es. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Scotland produces whisky, Ireland produces whiskey - anywhere else can take their pick of the two traditional spellings. Wymspen (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Caffeine has long been recognized as a component of pain relievers. The traditional mixture was APC (aspirin, phenacetin, and caffeine), now banned in a lot of places because phenacetin's carcinogenic potential. Whether caffeine by itself is an analgesic, I don't know, but it potentiates the analgesic effect of other substances (see e.g., I'm not sure why this isn't mentioned in our caffeine article.
As for the whiskey, Irish whiskey also comes in single malt. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The modern equivalent is aspirin/paracetamol/caffeine, in the U.S. commonly known as the brand Excedrin. -- (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
For those who don't know, "paracetamol" is the same thing as "acetaminophen", the active ingredient in Tylenol.
Acetaminophen is a metabolite of phenacetin, so it should be a pretty close equivalent, except that the former is not thought to cause cancer, at least as far as I know. I'm not sure there's any direct proof that phenacetin causes cancer in humans either, but there was sufficient evidence from animal models and epidemiological studies at least to raise serious concern. --Trovatore (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
On another note, I question User:Aspro's inference that the reason that headache remedies sell well on Saturday is that people are in caffeine withdrawal. People who drink a lot of coffee at work are in general perfectly capable of making it for themselves at home. Isn't a simpler explanation being overlooked here, a little thing called the hangover? --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
They may well be capable of “ making it for themselves at home”, but haven't cottoned on to cause and effect. Not realizing that all the meeting they go to during the week may included a really good cup of coffee to perk them up, providing them with well over a 1000 mg of caffeine per day. Come Saturday when relaxing at home, they may start the the day with a coffee but no longer having meetings to attend quickly enter caffeine withdrawal. So off to the drug store for 400gram doses of caffeine to substitute for the lack of strong coffee. As I said above, to relax one doesn't desire coffee to perk oneself up. These tablets help to maintain a viscous, non ending, cycle. You can say what you like but I have witnessed capable colleges suffer burn out and that wasn't due to a little too much alcohol on a Friday night. Aspro (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, of course the last thing anyone wants is viscous cycles in colleges, but there seems to be pretty decent science behind the assertion that caffeine makes pain relievers work better. At the original-research level, in my personal experience, fending off the caffeine-abstinence headache takes only a small dose (but you have to get it in time; if you wait till 2 PM you may not be able to reverse it), so I really doubt that caffeine withdrawal contributes much to painkiller sales on Saturday. I can't rule out that there's some contribution, but I think alcohol is a lot more obvious a culprit. (Note that strong coffee is also a folk hangover remedy.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It's completely wrong to say there's no "specific effect" from caffeine that isn't withdrawal related.
Caffeine is a stimulant. Like most/all stimulants, it has a clear effect, even on people who've never had it before. ApLundell (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

December 6


Why does it show two different birthdays for Florence Lake? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by George W. Meyer (talkcontribs) 01:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Find a Grave photo of her gravestone shows November 27 (despite the entry also claiming January 1 at the top of the page). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Gravestones are a good guideline, but they are not gospel. The date was posted in Wikipedia a couple of months after the Findagrave writeup was created.[2] The user who added that info has been blocked for the last couple of years, for copyright violation, which might tell you something. Looking at (a pay site), the obits that I'm seeing don't list a birthdate. Given the choice of the date on the headstone and the uncited date at the top of the Findagrave page, I would go with the headstone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that the Wikipedia edit does not mention Findagrave but does mention IMDb which, along with numerous other sources, gives the correct birthdate. Bugs correctly points out that gravestones can be unreliable sources, as was mentioned here:

According to our article, James Otis Jr was older than his brother Joseph. Both Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica give his birth date as 5 February 1725, which would have been recorded on his birth certificate as 1724 or 1724/5. He died on 23 May 1783 at 58. Joseph was born on 22 February 1725 "Old Style" according to the tombstone, which suggests that that (or 1725/6) was recorded on his birth certificate. Thus his year of birth would have been 1726 according to us. No way could James have been born in what we would call 1724. Joseph's tombstone mentions that he died on Sunday, 21 September 1810 at the age of 85 years and six months. That appears to me to be a mechanical conversion, and that he was actually 84 when he died. In any event, the tombstone may not be contemporary - 21 September 1810 was not Sunday in either old or new style.

– 62.30 21 November 2016.

Random devices, e.g. coin and dice.

A coin is a manual random device for two random options. The same is true for a dice, but for six random options. Is there a manual random device for three random options? What about four? HOTmag (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A six-sided die, repainted. Or a six-sided die rolled, then counted modulo 3.
a tetrahedron - although these are hard to roll, as they're quite easily "thrown" by a skilled player to give a particular number. Games that need a lot of dice often use a dice tower to drop them down and roll them automatically and fairly. d4 can also be emulated by a d8 (a pair of square-based pyramids), but these should be numbered on both sides, as again they're easy to force onto one side or the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
here are some alternate designs for d3 dice. --Jayron32 14:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Two coins give four outcomes. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring the one or two zeros, a roulette wheel can be used for both the above scenarios and many more besides:
  • Taking three equal groups of twelve numbers gives modulo 3
  • Taking four equal groups of nine numbers gives modulo 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Our Dice#Variants lists them. (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that Wikipedia does not seem to have a general article on such things, which we could just have linked to here. This article would refer to

I would have expected the lead sentence of dice to read something like "A die (also dice; plural dice) is a simple randomizing device consisint of a small throwable object with multiple resting positions..."; but not only does that article not link to Randomizing device, there is no such article. (Randomizer, the other obvious title, is not a red link, but it just redirects to a telecommunications scrambler.) Anyway, the most general simple randomizing device is a deck containing selected cards, or a spinner. Either one is easily constructed to randomly select one of N values for any reasonably small number N. -- (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't actually need a device to do this. You can draw up a randomisation plan and apply it to the last digit of the date on the coins in your purse. In the days when car registration numbers included a number up to 999 either at the beginning or the end you could apply the same technique looking at the numberplates of passing vehicles. You could open a book and note the number of the page which appears. The possibilities are endless. (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Do people even carry coins around anymore?--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations, Walt, you fail the Turing test! Interesting to learn that at least one of our editors is not a person. μηδείς (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Huh?--WaltCip (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Silly wabbit. Humans still use coins, though pennies have gone the way of the dinosaur in my neck of the woods. Still, Walt could be an alien. Aliens are people too. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
If we restrict ourselves to dice, any even number n can be generated using a bipyramid with n sides (like the 16 sided die shown in the dice article). Any odd number m can be generated using either a bipyramid with 2m sides (with 2 faces for each number), or an m-gonal prism, with the ends shaped so they cannot be landed on. Some of these will result in edges facing upwards when the die is rolled, but that can still allow a number to be read with the right markings. MChesterMC (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
We had better not restrict ourselves to lists, since in any human generated list of numbers, a number beginning with the symbol 1 is anywhere up to 30% likely, if I remember correctly. This is an artifact of counting. Say there are three hundred items. One third of them will be numbered from 100-199. (likewise 10-19, if we don't count the leading zero.) So book pagination or selection of a finite number of countable objects is not a good way to randomize things.
Ah, a google search shows we have the relevant article, Benford's law, which agrees exactly with my recollection. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
If you're caught short, you still need to spend a penny. (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
That's why I specified "the last digit". (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Your example of coins on hand was (I took) a very narrow one, with the only possible leading digits of 1 or 2 assuming the Gregorian Calendar. Even then, the last digits will not necessarily be random, given the length of circulation and the number of coins minted in a year, both of which vary non-regularly. In any case, your suggestion will approach randomness better than a leading digit sample, obviously. My post was a bit more general and explanatory. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I read through this because I do a lot of work with PRNGs. I didn't see mention of tops. From 3 sides to many sides, a top is an effective random number generator. You spin it and it eventually settles on a side. Simply weight the tip to ensure it doesn't flip onto the top of the top. (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 7

Pull-Up Variation

Hi all. Not sure if this is the right place for this but will ask anyway. I saw a video once of a pull-up variation but can't find it now and don't know the name of the exercise. Basically, the guy went from a dead hang into the pull up position. He then holds his legs out straight so that they're parallel with the ground. He then moved himself backwards and forwards in this position, legs parallel with the ground at all times. Anyone have any idea what it's called? Thanks. (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"L-sit pull-up" (aka L-hang pull-up) fits the first part of your description; however, this is not listed in the article: Pull-up (exercise). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E0C2:7665:8339:5B1F (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"L-Sit Chin-Up" also has a lot of Google results; we used to do "chin-ups" at school in the UK rather than "pull-ups". Alansplodge (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Gah, chin-up and pull-up (exercise) should surely be merged, as both discuss that their respective terms can include both grips, but pull-up perversely retains "not to be confused with chin-up" right at the top. (So far as I can tell this is not so much of a US/UK thing, as terminologies that have swapped back and forth over time)SemanticMantis (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


Under the subtitle "demographics" for all articles in Wikipedia that contain demographics, "white" is listed first. Why? If there is no scientific reason or contextual framework, then groups should be listed in an alphabetical scheme as a matter of order and reading ease, or racial and social neutrality. I suspect "white' is listed first habitually, or because of an implicit bias that "white" should be listed first as an order of importance, or that more "whites" may populate a certain area; but not in Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Memphis, Baltimore, Birmingham, Cleveland, New Orleans or Newark to name just a few major cities in America with a majority "black" populous. So why then?

I propose that the policy, if one exists, for listing groups under the subtitle "demographics" be changed to reflect an alphabetical listing of racial groups.

E Thrower — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ediththrower (talkcontribs) 20:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The main reason for the order used is probably that it is the order in which the data is presented by the US Census Bureau - which is the source for most of the figures. [3] Wymspen (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This reminds me of a bigoted airline joke. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a lot of tedious work. You could start with Detroit: check the talk page and its archives to see if this was previously discussed, and then seek consensus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It may be that in the articles you are looking at, the racial groups are listed in order by proportion. In many U.S. places, "whites" are the largest racial group. --Jayron32 01:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • In the Memphis, Tennessee article, African-Americans are listed first (in the paragraph list, not in the chart) as they are the largest racial group by proportion in this city.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This discussion belongs elsewhere. Luzerne county, Penna., is the only Polish-majority county in the US. Likewise, there are Finnish majority counties in Minnesota. Should we list these counties as "white" majority, since Poles and Finns are "white"? In any case, posting this here is (however unintentional) a form of forum shopping. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with absolute statements like the OP is that they can be disproven with a single contrary example. E.g. Demographics_of_South_Africa#Ethnic_groups. More contrary examples can be provided if need be. Furthermore, all demographics articles I've looked at list groups in order of proportion of population. Iapetus (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 9

Vintage Toy Easy to Do

Easy to do was a toy back in late 80's to 90's I believe it was for jewelry making. Can't find reference of it anywhere! Anyone have? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"EZ 2 Do", by Kenner.
Looks like there were a handful of different toys under that name, all diy fashion related.
This site has scans of the manuals of those toys.
Hope this helps.
ApLundell (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 11

What comes first, Hindusim or Buddhism?

What comes first, Hindusim or Buddhism? (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Buddhism, in the dictionary at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talkcontribs) 15:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Buddhism - "Buddhism originated in Ancient India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE"
Hinduism - "This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE,"
(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The Hindu scriptures are 4,000 years old. The Buddha lived 1,500 years ago. (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
They weren't called Hindus yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
They were the Indus scriptures (of the Indus valley). People who followed them were the Indus people. Their religion was the Indus religion. When English-speaking people found out about it, they called them Hindus. It appears that your claim is that they weren't real until English-speaking people gave them a name. I know that isn't what you want to claim, but that is what it looks like. (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Both religions are syncretic (less so some atheistic forms of Buddhism), but the Vedas, the oldest stratum of Hindu literature continues terms (deva "god") and names of figures traced back securely and sometimes speculatively to the Proto-Indo-European religion. The earliest Vedic texts date to 1700BC and are obviously of even older provenance. Buddhism originated much later and within this setting. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions consists of various denominations. Please name.

Abrahamic religions consists of various denominations. Please name. (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

See Abrahamic religions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 12

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA