Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• 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 don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 26

Who are the caricatures in this image?

https://i0.wp.com/craphound.com/images/ai-force-feeding.jpg

They're "grotesque plutocratic heads", or so says the alt-text in the source. The drawings look old, but don't belong to the original (which is at Kansas–Nebraska_Act#Debate_in_Senate).  Card Zero  (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The full alt attribute in the <img> element in the page source has:

alt="The head and shoulder of a supine bearded man in a chambray shirt. He is tied down with ropes around his shoulders. Four tiny figures with suits and grotesque plutocratic heads are prying his mouth open by yanking at his hair and beard. Once [sic] of the men is shoving an evil robot into his mouth."

You'd expect the "tiny figures with suits and grotesque plutocratic heads" (how are plutocratic heads different from common people's heads?) to be drawn from AI tech bros such as Dario Amodei, Demis Hassabis, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman. ("Five men control AI. Who should control them?") The figure at the far right might represent Dario, except that he doesn't wear glasses, and there is a certain likeness of the figure at the far left with Elon, but there is no match for the other two figures. The other figure at the right looks like Nietzsche, but that doesn't make sense in the context.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the website (a blog) and it is full of images that look to me like AI regurgitation of turn-of-the-century political cartoons. If it possible that the heads are regurgitated mixes of Lincoln and Taft mixed together or FDR and Teddy mixed together. That alt text could very well be the AI prompt used to generate the image. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe. I suppose to the author (Cory Doctorow) that would count as being a "centaur" rather than a "reverse centaur" (as specified in the blog post). Still, in context it seems like a strange choice to use the same AI that the blog post is complaining about, especially considering that back in 2021, before such options were available, he was making similar cut-and-paste images. The quality of the cutting and pasting has perhaps suspiciously improved in the intervening years. Possibly he pasted the robot on by hand, but asked an AI to replace the heads with "plutocratic" ones. The risk of the AI then choosing a head that resembles some real figure with unintended significance would then be rather great. I agree that they all look vaguely presidential and we perhaps have, on the left and right, two demilincolns. My bet though is that they're all genuine caricatures extracted from Puck.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

There's also a possibility that the base for this version was some intermediate historical cartoon that was spoofing the original. -- Avocado (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The figure in the blue suit resembles Grover Cleveland in File:President_cleveland_wedding.png. The drawing of the White House wedding appears on today's front page. --Amble (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a close match. Much chasing through cartoons of Grover Cleveland later, I still can't confirm it, but thanks.  Card Zero  (talk) ※ 21:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Criticism of Scholastic Book Fairs

On the section of criticism section on the Scholastic page, this reads on this page:

Scholastic has been criticized for inappropriately marketing to children. Also, Scholastic now requires parents to submit children's names with birth dates to place online orders, creating controversy. A significant number of titles carried have strong media tie-ins and are considered relatively short in literary and artistic merit by some critics. Consumer groups have also attacked Scholastic for selling too many toys and video games to children, rather than focusing on just books.

This criticism section got removed on March 9, 2023, . However, could there be an actual reason on why is this considered to be a negative thing for Scholastic to sell "too many toys and video games to children, rather than focusing on just books"? Honestly, I do not understand on how video games, jewelry kits, and toy cars, could be education, despite its not in general. And how could this actually be detrimental to having access to a library? I knew that the fairs are frequently scrutinized over several major points of contention.

Here is this general source for this topic, if anyone needs to seek for: New York Times 2009 ~2026-31563-27 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The NYT link returns a page not found error for me. I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. At one point, Scholastic was almost entirely book-driven. But, like many real and virtual bookstores, they've found that selling non-books can be much more profitable. And, like Hollywood, they've found that content-driven properties (Disney, Marvel, anime) are much more reliable sellers than original and bespoke creations, even from established authors. Groups, like some parents and educators, decry those realities and demand that the materials should be of better quality and more educational. Which is fine, but it's a bit like yelling at your local theatre to stop showing so much Star Wars media and focus more on independent auteurs: both Scholastic and the theatre are for-profit entities that are trying to stay in business. Matt Deres (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Matt Deres @Lambiam @Chuntuk The correct link is there: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/books/10scho.html ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A source for the fact that there has been this specific criticism, viz. from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (now named Fairplay), is found here: "Scholastic chided for selling toys in book clubs". The mention of this specific criticism, originally added on February 11, 2009, was already removed on July 8, 2021. Whether the criticism is fair is irrelevant to the question whether it should be mentioned in the article; for that, the basic criterion is notability. If included, however, Scholastic's response ("This [book club] model is 60 years old, and it has to stay relevant to do the work it does. To the extent we put in a few carefully selected non-book items, it's to keep up the interest.") should also be mentioned.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If there has been criticism of Scholastic in reliable sources, then it probably deserves a place in the article, regardless of whether we think that criticism justified. But the passage you quoted was properly deleted in my view - full of things that "some critics" have said, without any citations of where they said it. Chuntuk (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The passage that was removed included a citation to a reliable source precisely identifying who said what where:

Consumer groups have also attacked Scholastic for selling too many toys and video games to children, rather than focusing on just books.^[32]

---

    32. ^ "Scholastic chided for selling toys in book clubs". msnbc.com. Feb 10, 2009. Retrieved Jun 24, 2020.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 21:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I found the quote for the evidence: “Scholastic exploits their reputation so they’re engaging in behavior other companies couldn’t get away with. Toys ’R’ Us wouldn’t be able to get away with what Scholastic does.” (Paragraph 21, MSNBC, Scholastic chided for selling toys in book clubs) ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

May 27

EU Electric Motorcycle sales 2025

What percentage of 2025 EU Motorcycle sales were Electric Motorcycles? (~2026-31443-16 (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC))

5.3% (including mopeds). According to Google. TIOLI. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. (~2026-31443-16 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC))

I think the European Association of Motorcycle Manufacturers provide the data here in the january-december spreadsheet, though I haven't been able to view it properly.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

According to data from https://insightev.com/europe-after-a-bad-year-we-have-a-wore-one/, 27,000 new electric motorcycles were sold in the EU market in 2025.

According to the link you provided, new motorcycle registrations in the five largest European markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) reached 1,002,848 units in 2025.

Does this mean that electric motorcycles accounted for a maximum of only 2.7% of all motorcycles sold in the EU market in 2025? Stanleykswong (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Historically, the top five countries accounted for about 80% of total sales in Europe. Does this mean the actual figure might only be 2.1%? Have I overlooked something or made a mistake that I'm not aware of? Stanleykswong (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The UK isn't part of the EU, remember.

And the 5.3% mentioned above is reported to include mopeds. I suppose the line between mopeds and motorcycles is quite clear (riding a motorcycle requires a specific driving license). On the other (light) end, the line between mopeds and electric vehicles that aren't really regulated or may not even be allowed on public roads all over the EU (pedelecs, e-scooters, segways etc.) is rather vague, so it's unclear which of those electric devices are included to come to that 5.3%. Rules vary by country and change often. PiusImpavidus (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, riding a moped requires a moped driver's license (Category AM). A moped driver's license can be obtained either as a standalone moped licence or come with a full Category B car driver's license. However, no driver's license is required to ride an electric bicycle (with a power of no more than 250 watts) or an electric scooter (in most EU countries except Poland and Switzerland). As for the Segway, the situation is more complex. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, Segways are strictly prohibited on public sidewalks and bike lanes in most cases. In other countries, such as Spain and France, while there is no nationwide ban on Segways, local regulations (such as those in Barcelona) may prohibit their use. Stanleykswong (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

For the record: in the Netherlands, electric stand-up scooters are illegal on public roads. E-bikes not only have a limit of 250 watts, but also of 25 km/h. Any faster than that and they are mopeds, requiring driving license, number plate, helmet and banning them from bikepaths. The rules are sometimes ignored.

Actually, it's a mess. Many people (in particular real cyclists) are very annoyed by all those new electric vehicles that pretend to be similar to bikes but behave more like mopeds and are believed to be pretty bad for traffic safety. Legislators can't keep up with the technological changes. Attempts at regulation may be framed as attempts to block innovation and it's claimed that it's good when people switch from cars to these electric things, but it seems that most riders of these electric things switched from regular bicycles, which are getting pretty rare away from the larger cities.

PiusImpavidus (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

May 29

Need help finding citations

I have recently been trying to add citations for things on wikipedia but cant find any records or stuff online i can use. Is there a way to easily get sources or have i just been stumbling onto information that doesnt have a source? Dibosaurus (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I use Google Books a lot. A trick for searching is to use "speech marks" for pertinent words or phrases, which often avoids red herrings. Google Scholar is useful for science subjects. Also archive.org - you can open a free account to see books that are still in copyright. Ditto JSTOR. Our you can ask us. Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources. I think in practice I've only turned to that list for inspiration about twice, ever - and that's not even its intended purpose - but it might put you in the general picture about what shapes sources can take.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

May 30

Place in photo

Hallo. Where is this photo? I don't mean where it was taken, i mean what place is it supposed to represent. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Favril-lavigne-2002-v0-5zv87vypslac1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D2cf9c4146138749503784f1dfd4733eec5365b49 ~2026-22534-68 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

This is one photo from a photoshoot of seven photos by professional photographer William Ciccocioppo, taken the year when Lavigne's debut album, Let Go, was released (so before she was replaced 😜). I don't know who commissioned the photo shoot, but this was plausibly Arista Records as part of the promotion of the album, and the setting may have been chosen to fit in with her then skate punk persona, not further representing any specific place in particular.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe they were going for a little of a femme fatale vibe? ~2026-22534-68 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe just the contrast between presumed womanly beauty and a presumed rustic setting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation, but I don't see it. This isn't a rustic setting, it looks like a studio for artists (ballet studios often look like this) or a residential loft. Many cities used to have these kinds of stairways before elevators became standard. I also don't see her womanly beauty as a theme here at all, as it is intentionally androgynous. Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

"Rustic" in this case simply meaning "an old wooden staircase in an old building." Contrasting with the young woman sitting on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's the "look". Everything about that image tells me that building was modernized and restored to look like that. I am familiar with old buildings, especially their stairways. They don't look like that. This is a modern, restored building intended to look old. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Was the model also modernized and restored? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn't the "look" the point of artistic photographs? If the building was intended to look old, is not the intention for it to look old? How can any deliberate visual choices be dismissed? ~2026-32986-49 (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking at the photo right now. I see an image of an androgynous musician sitting at the bottom of a flight of stairs. I don't think the age of the setting has anything to do with this. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The best you could say is that this image of her sitting at the bottom of a flight of stairs points to her future career trajectory, working her way to the "top" of the charts. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Um, a normal photograph? ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If you get sufficiently desperate, you might try contacting someone involved in creating the photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

June 3

O-Block Raid

any News or references, (yes its me again)

Draft:Raid of Parkway Gardens EndermanSurfgo (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

What is your rationale for this raid and arrest of four murder suspects meriting its own article separate from that on the Murder of FBG Duck itself? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

its a FBI, Chicago police, and SWAT raid, it says NOTHING about the raid EndermanSurfgo (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The question raised is whether this raid is sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article. Every new day brings dozens of police raids; was there something special about this specific raid, such as evidenced by widespread media coverage?

If it worth being mentioned at all, why not simply include it in the Arrests section of the article, by changing the first line of this section to read:

"On October 13, 2021, following a two-month investigation, the Chicago Police Department, in cooperation with the FBI, conducted a raid on an apartment in O Block in the South Side neighborhood of Chicago and arrested five individuals in connection with the murder of FBG Duck."

This addition would, of course, also need to be cited to a reliable source. Even if one can be found, the question remains, is this encyclopedic information? Is it

sufficiently relevant to be mentioned at all?

FYI, SWAT is not an agency like the FBI and CPD. The way in which the term is used in the draft makes no sense.  ​‑‑Lambiam 04:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, god every time I make a draft I get opposed EndermanSurfgo (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey, we've already got upwards of 7.19 million articles: finding a suitable subject for a new article is hard. I've been working on Wikipedia for nearly 25 years and I've never managed to do it (or seriously tried), but there's a lot of other tasks that Wikipedia needs, and fortunately for me some of them suit me better.

Maybe, for example, improving existing sub-standard articles (or deciding that they're unsalvagable and getting rid of them via WP:AfD) might both appeal to you and give you good practice for assessing what new subjects might be better article candidates? Whatever you decide, good luck and happy editing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Your first para could come across as quite off-putting, even intimidating. Sure, we have protocols and policies that ensure articles about trivial stuff will have an extremely short life. That's as it should be, but there are still plenty of topics that need articles. That's what redlinks are for: to prompt someone to take up the challenge, find some sources, and write at least a rudimentary article. I've written well over 700 articles, and maintain a long list of topics of interest to me that still need articles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok EndermanSurfgo (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

June 4

Brands, Companies, and Corporations commenting on TikTok, like a normal person

Hello there, I never discovered this trend on so social media, especially Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram, until 2026 and beyond, when brands try to be relatable on social media platforms, by not commenting on these posts or media, but using slang, memes, or jokes, like if they are a normal person. For this issue, aside from relatable marketing, what is the issue of the brands or billion dollar corporations pretending to be the normal person, by commenting on TikTok shorts or Instagram photos, using slang? Why can not these companies act like teenagers or Gen Z randoms? What is the analogy here though? I'm just wondering though. For extra, take a look at user generated content and more on Social marketing.

Sources:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i3y2rd/cmv_corporate_brands_being_relatable_on_social/
• https://nogood.io/blog/commenting-as-a-social-media-strategy/#commenting-etiquette-and-mistakes-to-avoid
• https://leftisbest.medium.com/why-are-brands-attempting-to-be-human-on-twitter-df847bcb2f76
• https://www.reddit.com/r/BeautyGuruChatter/comments/1honmmu/the_brand_comments_on_influencer_videos_are/
• https://nathanallebach.medium.com/good-and-bad-ways-to-criticize-brands-being-human-on-social-media-cf61665fe7ca
• https://www.tiktok.com/@talkden69/video/7530833129825635639?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7196434443573331502
• https://www.tiktok.com/@the.unpaid.interns/video/7517771783521537335?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7196434443573331502
• https://www.vogue.com/article/should-brands-really-be-popping-off-in-the-comments#:~:text=Last%20year%2C%20the%20number%20of,who%20see%20through%20traditional%20ads.

Here are these links to those videos:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1gsdKHUWIw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEorvZtyyw&lc=UgxG2a-GjFfOYL8MUjp4AaABAg
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AyzQKyg2gw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5KyqxO-HSY
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX7hwX-2IN8
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhF3VkyPb0&t=410s
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U5Ooc3ZyZs&t=541s

Thanks in advance! ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

"What is the issue . . . ?" Is there an issue? It's a thing that they do – advertising strategy has sometimes included adopting a "faux-chummy" attitude probably since advertising was invented, and anybody who pays attention is aware of it.

"Why can not these companies act like teenagers or Gen Z randoms?" What's your evidence that they don't?

"What's the analogy here though?" Why should there be an analogy to anything?

Your questions are vague and your premises questionable, consequently meaningful answers are difficult to formulate. Is that your intention? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Not my intention, I encountered this on social media sites, such as TikTok. ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

June 5

Why do some historical inventions appear in multiple cultures independently?

Throughout history, inventions such as agriculture, writing systems, pyramidal structures, and various tools seem to have emerged independently in different parts of the world. How do historians and archaeologists determine whether an invention was independently developed versus transmitted through cultural contact? Are there notable examples where a technology was once thought to have spread from one civilization but is now believed to have arisen independently? ArcadeFair (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

See Multiple discovery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I bet this is scientific. ~2026-33106-46 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a famous saying, "Steam engines appear when it's steam-engine time", whose original formulation appeared in Charles Fort's 1931 work Lo!, ""A tree cannot find out, as it were, how to blossom, until comes blossom-time. A social growth cannot find out the use of steam engines, until comes steam-engine-time."

The "time" in question is when a society has developed the collective knowledge and technology necessary to make a particular 'invention' viable, at which point any of several people in that society might think of it. That said, humans have always been more globally mobile that is often imagined, and it only takes one adventurous or fortuitous traveller (usually anonymous to future history) to carry an idea from one culture to another to another where it may be taken up. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw an example made of the plains Native Americans. They didn't have a wheel. They used long logs pulled by dogs. It worked. They didn't need a wheel. Horses arrived. They could use longer logs and move more things, still without wheels. So, it isn't that they didn't comprehend the concept of a wheel. They simply didn't have the need for a wheel. Therefore, lack of an invention in a culture isn't an indication that it couldn't have been invented. It is more an indication that the need did not arise. The "time" never arrived. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The travois. Our article claims, without sources, that they work better than wheels over some types of terrain. There's a picture of one in use in Finland.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The short version is that they don't and often can't know for certain if something was invented independently; the archaeological and historical record is often incomplete and prone to being overturned. Articles that will be of interest include Cultural diffusion and especially Hyperdiffusionism. At one point these were fairly mainstream concepts in archaeology and almost every example now known to be an independent invention had to be chipped away from the diffusionist point of view. Matt Deres (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I can agree. ArcadeFair (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)