From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< May 22	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 24 >

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.

Contents 1 May 23 1.1 Toaster ovens 1.2 Is Maryland a northern or southern state? 1.3 Bush choking on pretzel??? 1.4 Movable Kitchens 1.5 How to create a reference list? 1.6 What is the Middle Class 1.7 Sorting 1.8 St. Paul's Churchyard Fountain, City of London, 1930s 1.9 Suggestion 1.10 MLA Citation questions

[edit] May 23

[edit] Toaster ovens

Toaster ovens are very popular in North America but, from my experience, almost unknown in Europe, where everyone just uses old-fashioned slice toasters. Anyone know why this is? -- Mwalcoff 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Marketing? When I had a toaster-oven, I only ever used it for the oven part, I had a "real" toaster for bread and such. (and that's my OR post for May). --LarryMac | Talk 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Same here, although I used the toaster oven for rolls that needed to rise, as well. StuRat 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There once was an interesting story about showers. In germany almost every shower has a rod that can be used to adjust the nozzle height for the height of the person using the shower. I learned from a documentary that an engineer was inspired by this system to design a mechanical device used in repairing the hubble telescope when he was attending a conference in germany. Until that documentary, I was never aware, that the system is not in worldwide use. Now I notice the fact whenever I am in a foreign hotel. There are large people awkwardly kneeling in strange sideway poses, trying to catch some water, because the local plumber does not know primary school mechanics. It is bizzare. I am sure we are doing equally bizzare things, because we do not know better. Even the most simplistic and useful devices are not demanded, as long as the customer does not know about them.

What is an old-fashioned slice toaster? Do you have a picture? A.Z. 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the simpler solution is just to have the shower nozzle mounted on the ceiling in the center of the shower stall. That system would be simpler, support any height individuals (up to the height of the ceiling) and also handle problems with weak water pressure. I hate it when I get a weak dribble down the wall under the shower nozzle. At least the weak dribble would be in the center of the shower stall, with my system. StuRat 04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you been to our toaster page? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read it now. "Toaster ovens are small electric ovens with a door on one side and a tray within." I thought Americans used old-fashioned slice toasters, because in movies they always do. A.Z. 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Old-fashioned slice toasters are more recognizable, even iconic, so are often used in movies. StuRat 05:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is weird how some things you take for granted don't exist everywhere. Hardly anyone in Europe, it seems, owns a tumble dryer, which is strange, since our article says it's a French invention. The only places in Europe you can buy root beer are special stores for American ex-pats that sell it for $18 a 12-pack. In Canada (southern Ontario anyway), Chinese food doesn't come in paper cartons with metal handles -- it comes in ordinary styrofoam. And speaking of Canada, I've met Canadians who are surprised the rest of the world doesn't buy milk in balloons and eat ketchup-flavored potato chips. -- Mwalcoff 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! I would add myself some of the things that are unique to Brazil and some of the things that would surprise us, but I can't, since I don't know the rest of the world. Well, here a huge number of middle-class families have maids. Milk comes in cartons or balloons, you get to pick, but old houses still have a little door for the milk delivery guy to leave bottles of milk and the bread in the morning. Of course, there is no milk delivery guy anymore, not in São Paulo anyway. And we call those breads French bread (pão francês), though they don't have them in France. I saw on a movie (does anyone know which movie?) that French people (or Canadians maybe) ate French fries with Mayonnaise. A.Z. 04:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't people on the beach in Brazil (even men) wear thongs, with both butt cheeks showing ? If so, this type of swim wear is considered "indecent" in most places in the US. It might be OK in Europe, though. StuRat 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Only women wear that here. It's pretty decent. They wear it to have lunch with their family (at the beach, of course) and things like that. In Brazil people show the butt cheeks, as you say, but, strangely, top-less at the beach is generally considered indecent. A.Z. 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me somehow: the whole "creationism vs evolution" thing is an unique feature of the US. There is hardly any debate of the kind here, and in other places. A.Z. 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so. The UK, Poland, Serbia and Eurasia (PMID 11360976)(PMID 17215823) all have had problems with creationism. Interestingly, though, it appears Central and South America is one place that isn't blighted with a significant promotion of such psuedoscience (PMID 16272103). Rockpocket 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is a tiny thing in the UK, though - the sort of thing that pretty much everybody just laughs off. Actually, the whole thing of religion being regarded as pretty much irrelevant is probably one of the major UK things that you don't tend to get anywhere else. Take into account self-proclaimed atheists, agnostics, people who call thmselves Church of England out of habit rather than actual affiliation, and people who are apathetic to the whole caboodle, and I'd wager that upwards of two-thirds of the population are essentially non-religious. -88.110.31.201 11:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The only regions with significant belief in creationism (and against evolution) are the US, Turkey, Cyprus, and Catholic countries in Eastern Europe (where I imagine it is an anti-Soviet sort of thing more than an anti-science sort of thing). There was an article in Science not long ago about this. --24.147.86.187 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen Chinese food in paper cartons with handles. It comes in flat aluminum containers (like pie plates) with foil-lined paper lids. Rice and some things (dry spareribs, for instance) come in styrofoam containers. Also, I haven't seen a toaster oven in twenty years. --Charlene 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, it always comes in paper cartons, but with no handles. A.Z. 04:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I live in the US and I see it in styrofoam more than paper cartons, but they do exist. Even if you buy microwavable ones at supermarkets, they're paper cartons. I know people in China get shakes with their McDonald's meals and often dip their French fries in them. I also know non-Americans know about Tim Tams and you won't find those in the US. People in a lo tof other countries tend to use internet cafes a lot, and I don't see that much here. There are other things, but they escape me at the moment. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What's this about milk coming in balloons in Canada? Do you mean, as in normal, everyday balloons? Surreal! Our charming article List of balloon uses (which I hesitate to link to, lest it fall foul of the deletionists) doesn't say anything about this. Enlighten me, please! --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the encyclopedia nearby seems to completely ignore the existence of milk bags (see also ways to store and transport milk). Fortunately, Google doesn't. Just search for "milk bag" in Google images. A.Z. 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here in the rebellious colonies one can generally find a drinking fountain in any large public building. I was surprised that I couldn't find one in England. —Tamfang 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have lost the Ref Desk. Did we answer the questions?Bielle 07:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Milk in bags! Who would have thought our sensible cousins would have a bizarre practice such as this [1] Mhicaoidh 11:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My wife, who obviously gets out more than I do, says New Zealand restaurants, cafes, coffee carts get milk in bags because its cheaper and more efficient storage wise Mhicaoidh 11:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I have never EVER seen a milk bag in New Zealand... Maybe I didn't spend enough time at the back in the kitchen but I don't see how is milk bag more efficient than the normal plastic bottles you get... --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto and Ive designed a few restaurant kitchens too. My wife has been tasked with providing evidence of her assertion. I can see how they would be cheaper to package and there is less rubbish to get rid of. Interesting you say "the normal plastic bottles", don't you fondly remember the glass bottle... ; ) Oooh I feel a new wikipedia article coming on... Mhicaoidh 11:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For our information, Antilived, from Wiks milk article: "Milk comes in a variety of containers with local variants: Australia and New Zealand: Distributed in a variety of sizes, most commonly in Tetra Pak cartons for up to 1 litres, and plastic screw-top bottles beyond that with the following volumes; 1.1L, 2L, and 3L. 1 litre. Bags are starting to appear in supermarkets, but have not yet proved popular. Most UHT-milk is packed in 1 or 2 litre paper containers with a sealed plastic spout." Mhicaoidh 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any articles on 1001 ways to reuse your milk bags. My mother-in-law used to save them all, and package river-caught fish fillets in them. --Zeizmic 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Those of you enjoying this thread, might also like to check out the culture tests at Zompist.com. One of the recurring questions is what sort of packaging your milk comes in. 194.75.128.200 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

milk bags almost sound like a good, idea, especially compared to our ridiculously badly designed 6 pint bottles. I assume it would be a lot easier to pour milk out of them, once you get used to it. They sound similar to the bags wine used to come in. But have nothing to do with toaster ovens.

Now dont get me started on wine bladders, though at least they have a tap...Yes, nothing to do with toaster ovens but still cultural learnings of North America for make benefit people of the world. Perhaps the toaster oven is used primarily to toast the fillings on open top toasted sandwiches? Mhicaoidh 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about going away from this fascinating milk bag discussion (what an odd idea!), but going back to tumble dryers: they seem to be quite common in the UK in my experience. I have one, but NEVER use it. For some reason, one of things I miss most when travelling abroad (in various European countries) are British road signs, strange I know. One thing I don't miss are the multiple redundant traffic lights at EVERY SINGLE junction in UK town centres. We seem to take safety to the extreme: we also have an insane number of CCTV cameras. In the news today: some British traffic wardens are to start wearing CCTV cameras on their heads. Honestly. Oh well, it's always greener on the other side, I suppose... Bistromathic 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As to who watches the watchers closed-circuit television has a nice picture of a surveillance room being surveilled itself.Mhicaoidh 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To add about milk bags, when I first heard about Canadians using milk bags, I wasn't actually very shocked like most of the people who heard at the same time. But that's because when I went to elementary school in Houston, TX, they switched to half-pint milk bags. You had to puncture a hole in the pouch with the straw to drink it. It took most people a few tries to get used to them, but they were pretty normal after that. And back to the original question.... This is actually original research, but most people I've talked to about toaster ovens etc don't have them. I guess they are getting more common, since I remember them being about $100 before, and I see them now for $40 normally. However, conventional toaster ovens are so common since they're only about $10, and so easy to recognize, whereas the toaster oven might be confused with Ronco products, roasters, and the such. But all that is pure speculation, though I doubt there's anything concrete on it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I commend this article to anyone interested in toasters: toaster although its obvious milk packaging is a more fascinating topic and a desperately required new WP article. My opinion on the poularity of the toaster oven? Why buy two appliances to do two jobs properly when you can buy one appliance that does the job inadequately. Mhicaoidh 10:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, I suspect that toaster ovens are unpopular because we have much smaller kitchens than here in the USA and counter-top space is in high demand. The oven part of a toaster oven is already covered by your stove - and a bread toaster can be put away in a cupboard when not in use and takes up much less worktop space when it is in use. A similar observation applies to tumble driers - we don't have the space for two large laundry appliances - most homes either don't bother with the drier and air-dry their clothes on outdoors rotary clotheslines - or they have those fancy washing machines that have a tumble-dry function built in. Those are more expensive (sometimes more expensive than a washer AND a drier) - but they take up half the space and that's a critical thing in a smaller home. Kitchens in the UK are also much less likely to have one of the massive upright fridge/freezers that are common in the USA - in the UK, we're more likely to have a much smaller under-the-counter fridge with either a separate under-the-counter freezer or a big chest freezer out in the garage someplace. It's all about space - which probably relates to population densities, land use and such. SteveBaker 14:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why anyone with a kitchen would want a toaster oven. If you have an oven already, what's the point? I can see the point of a normal toaster, as it is a quick, easy, compact way of toasting bread and bready things. So what's the attraction I'm missing? Skittle 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They're in many cases the best solution for toasting/warming oversize bready things, or bready things that may have icing or other drippy bits, like a cinnamon roll or hot cross bun. You can use the oven, but it's less convenient, and a slice toaster simply won't work. (Toaster ovens also, in my memory, preceded wide-slice toasters -- so bagels and the like were at one point toaster oven fodder.) A second occasion for using a toaster oven is that in the summertime, it's possible to prepare oven products without all of the heat that an oven creates, so you don't heat up your house as much. Plus, they're portable and small, so they're attractive in cases where a real kitchen isn't available (my office has a toaster oven in our break room, for example). Not that I personally use them -- they're pieces of junk that clutter up your kitchen. --ByeByeBaby 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Small frozen pizzas. Toaster ovens are smaller, and don't use the 220V, and it just uses a lot less energy than using a large oven when you aren't cooking/heating a lot of food. As for the space thing, my toaster oven is smaller than most, and it's barely any larger than a conventional two slice toaster, so I can't really see space as a reason for not having them. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A full-size oven takes five minutes to heat up. A toaster oven is ready to go by the time you get whatever-it-is out of the packaging. --Carnildo 20:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who first started this sub-thread, but I was wondering the same things (why people buy toasters, why people buy toaster ovens) and your information was really useful and enlightening. A.Z. 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And people sell all these things. Some people will buy almost anything just because it is for sale.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean, but since having a toaster oven, I use the normal oven a lot less. And it really is more convenient. In fact, we used to have two normal toasters. Together, those take up more room than a toaster oven by far. Now those toasters are gone, and the toaster oven acts as a replacement for toasters and ovens. So why is it so bad in having them? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. Interesting. So, does a toaster oven heat from both sides, like an oven, or just from the top, like a grill? I couldn't see this in the article. From both sides, I can kind of see the point, if it heats up quicker. Skittle 13:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A toaster oven has heating elements on the top and bottom. A good toaster oven has heating elements, reflectors, and shields arranged to heat things evenly. --Carnildo 19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Maryland a northern or southern state?

Is it a north or south state? I've seen WP article, which says it's south. But, I've seen other sources that say it's a northern state. Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a border state. It had slavery but sided with the North during the Civil War (after the forced suppression of Confederate sympathy in the state). It had school segregation but dropped it fairly quickly after the Brown v. Board of Education decision without much trouble. The Eastern Shore retains some South-like qualities -- a sizable population of rural African-Americans, an agriculture-based economy and a conservative Democratic-turning-Republican political orientation. But the middle part of the state is very much part of the Boston-to-Washington megalopolis -- urban/suburban, ethnically diverse, somewhat socially liberal and solidly Democratic. The western part of the state is part of the Appalachian region -- white, mostly rural and less well-off economically. But exurbanization is pushing westward. -- Mwalcoff 04:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was interested to read how West Virginia is even more geographically ambivalent Mhicaoidh 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush choking on pretzel???

Is it true that President Bush has done such pathetic things such as choke on a pretzel? I got the information off of a TV show. I googled it and it seems that everyone thinks its true. This is just an IQ type question but is it true he is that dull witted??? I personaly dont think he would have became president with the IQ of a third grader. Thank-you

First, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Second, please don't write your headings in all cpas.

Third, we have an article on everything. see 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident. --Ybbor^Talk 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, Wikipedia really does have an article on this piffle. I guess it helps that it's American piffle. -88.110.31.201 11:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry... this was somthing my friend asked me and I couldnt answer, so I thought I'd ask the experts...

I can't believe I'm actually coming to the defence of Dubya but can only stupid people choke on food? Vespine 03:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, people who are drunk often choke on food as well. But Dubya swore he was off the sauce, and he'd never lie to us, right?

Atlant 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've often choked on water when friends made me laugh. A look at my contributions should show that I'm not what one would call "stupid." - AMP'd 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that someone choked reveals anything about their intelligence. A.Z. 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

According to our list of choking deaths, Tennessee Williams choked to death, and he wasn't stupid. -- Mwalcoff 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bush didn't exactly choke, either. He swallowed an unchewed piece of pretzel that probably rubbed against the side of the esophagus, triggering a vagal reaction. He then passed out and scraped his head. --Charlene 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does choking have to do with being stupid or pathetic? Of all the Bushisms you could insult him with, this one makes no sense at all -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 07:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Choking on something obviously does not necessarily argue against one's intelligence, but very well could depending on the object in question. This particular incident doesn't seem revealing of stupidity one way or another but if, say for example, someone were to choke on their own foot after repeatedly inserting it into their own mouth, well then, questions might arise. -- Azi Like a Fox 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the president, but this doesn't seem to be evidence for his intelligence or lack thereof; just the sort of accident that could happen to anyone. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The president can't have the IQ of a third grader, only third graders have that. IQ is based on someones age, and should therefore stay the same as they get older. Children that score less than adults in an IQ test can still have higher scores as they are children.

What in the freakin heck does choking have ANYTHING to do with being smart or stupid??? I've accidentally choked before & so has everyone else I've known. Many of them have straight A's, too, so choking has nothing at ALL to do with stupidity.

Does having straight As have something to do with intelligence? A.Z. 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've all got the wrong end of the stick, and the question was asking two questions:

• Is it true that Bush choked on a pretzel? (Has been answered)
• What is his IQ? (Has not been answered)

I don't know the answer. Who does? Aaadddaaammm 07:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, try this Bush IQ . Its not his IQ that worries me its his personality type, I understand he is under the impression he is doing God's work Mhicaoidh 10:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Here's a man who was an idiot until September 11th, and now he's a genius, and in between he reminded us he was an idiot just recently when he choked on a pretzel. You gotta be an idiot to choke on a pretzel. No one has ever choked on a pretzel, no one. You've never heard of it. No one's ever heard of it. You can get on the phone and call all the people you want. Have them call everybody you want. You won't find anybody who choked on a pretzel, and if they choked on a pretzel they're smart enough not to tell anybody." —Lewis Black: The End of the Universe. --jh51681 10:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush is the first right-handed president since Jimmy Carter, could it be that Whitehouse furniture is arranged for lefties, constituting a variety of hazards for the right handed such as awkwardly placed pretzel dishes? Mhicaoidh 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movable Kitchens

I've heard that European kitchens are modular and frequently taken with you when you move house. Is this true? Wikipedias kitchen article doesnt mention it and googling variations of this question just generates chaff Mhicaoidh 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

IKEA sells many kitchens that are either full-movable or at least partially movable. Except for the granite countertops, it'd be pretty easy to disassemble and re-arrange our IKEA kitchen.

Atlant 12:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In the UK kitchens are "fittings" and are sold along with "fixtures". In France virtually everything is normally taken. This includes light fittings, even the telephone receiver(s). Naturally anything can be taken over**, if so specified and included within the sale.**Except phones which are issued by France Telecom to individuals.90.14.22.153 14:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

I'm a Brit who has lived 12 years in Texas - I don't see any difference in the way these things are handled in US and UK. "Fitted" kitchens are built specifically to one room and it would be a pain to move them - all of the countertops would have to be remade - it's not really worth the effort. There are "Modular" kitchen units - which you could (in principle) disassemble and take with you - but still, with plumbing to undo it would leave the house you are moving out of in a terrible state and people don't commonly do that. In France (where I visit with family I have out there) they also have both fitted and modular kitchens - which are again similar to those in the USA and UK - but there are also 'farmhouse' style kitchens which don't have fitted units and continuous countertops - just separate pieces of furniture which you'd obviously move with you. I've seen these in the US and UK too - but they are much rarer. I don't know about the rest of Europe though. SteveBaker 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In residential property sales in Ontario, Canada, things in or on the building are either fixtures or chattels. In very simplified terms, anything attached to the building -by nails, or screws or hinges, for example-, or sunk into the ground, like a swimming pool, is a fixture and fixtures are sold included with the property unless specifically excluded in the agreement of purchase and sale. Things not attached are chattels, and are not included in the sale of the property unless specifically included in the agreement of purchase and sale. So, kitchen and bathroom cabinets are usually fixtures, as are all the plumbing and equipment in a bathroom, built-in bookcases, furnaces, central-vacuum systems, light fixtures, mantlepieces and the like. Chattels are things like stoves and fridges, and dressers. This is not legal advice; I am not a lawyer. I have bought and sold many properties, however. Bielle 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"If you are planning to buy or rent a German apartment, be aware that it usually comes with a “bare” kitchen. “Bare” is indeed the right word. Your new kitchen may be nothing more than four bare walls with roughed-in plumbing and electrical connections—even the kitchen sink may be missing!" from The German Way by Hyde Flippo [2] Mhicaoidh 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And incidentally in Germany it is apparently common for complete strangers to sit at the same table when a restaurant is crowded. Usually you politely ignore each other. Mhicaoidh 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to create a reference list?

I have been unable to find instructions about how to create a References list, using the reflist tag (and, apparently, some additional list or document not seen in the References editing window). Some of the entries have both a ref list (with this tag), and a separate "Sources" list, and as often as not these can be combined. My example refers specifically to the Philosophy of History page, where two lists can be combined. Thank you. Who wields me, wields the world! 14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You might get a faster response if you post your question at the Wikipedia help desk, which is for questions about using Wikipedia. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Citing sources is the page you need. Come back with more questions when you have read that. --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] What is the Middle Class

Hello - In the USA what income range defines the middle class. Please advise.Thanks...............Rick

See American middle class. Friday (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting

After reading a bit about sorting algorithms on here, I began to wonder if any studies have been done into which methods of sorting are best for humans. For example, given a set of x objects, would it be better to work through it pair by pair and then repeat, or would it be better to divide the items into y number of groups, sort them, and then sort the members of the group, or would it be better to do it another way? Does anyone know of a study of this kind?

P.S. I personally think I would find it easier to split the items, but I am not sure if this is the most efficient. --80.229.152.246 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally use a variation of the radix sort. --Carnildo 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. While I think this is one of the most efficient ways of sorting numbers (and as such, I will do so from now on), I also wanted to know how people sorted things such as sticks of different lenghts (i.e. where the are no such things as most significant digits or least significant digits). --80.229.152.246 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer is very likely to depend on what sort of things you're sorting and how many there are likely to be. When sorting a hand of cards for bridge or similar games, many people use an insertion sort; I prefer a selection sort. Either way, the number of items is small enough you can do all the comparisons in your head and just move each card where it needs to be moved. But if you're given 500 books with Dewey Decimal numbers on them and have to sort them numerically, something like a radix sort will be a lot easier. --Anonymous, May 23, 2007, 23:13 (UTC).

Humans have some advantages over computers - we can do lots of stuff in parallel. So an insertion sort is a great way of sorting a deck of cards because you can spread out the sorted deck and easily see where to insert each card. Where that fails is when there are a lot of things to sort - when finding where to put the new item starts to require searching through the sorted object pile, you start to run into the same problems the computer has and you'll naturally take longer to do it. Sometimes a recursive bucket sort works well - when I tidied up my amazingly messy garage, I started by putting objects into piles that related to very general categories - tools in this pile, plumbing parts in that pile, cleaning products that other pile. Then, when the entire pile of junk is sorted into general categories, I go to each pile in turn and sort that out - so I go to the tools pile and take woodworking tools and put them in one place, wrenches in another pile...then I'll go to the wrench pile and sort the metric sized from the imperial - the box wrenches from the crescent wrenches - then finally go to the pile of metric crescent wrenches and put them in order of size. This progressive approach keeps the number of piles of things to a reasonable scale at which your brain can parallel process. The radix sort is really a specialisation of a recursive bucket sort. SteveBaker 23:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One advantage people have over computers is the ability to easily push a stack of objects down. For example, when inserting a shirt into a shirt rack sorted by size, you can just push them apart to make a space. This is far more work on a computer. So, I echo the above and recommend an insertion sort for most human sorting needs. Assigning different people to sort different things works similar to a parallel processing computer, too. For example one person can sort long sleeve shirts, another can do short sleeve shirts, and a third can do sleeveless shirts. StuRat 05:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have that kind of problems if you use linked lists instead of arrays though. When I sort cards, I use both insertion and selection sort myself too. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Another kind of tricky sort is when you have to sort things in place. In other words, you can't take the pile of unsorted things and make a new pile for the sorted stuff. That's a common problem in computing when you don't have enough memory to make a new pile. Things like the good old 'bubble sort' come to mind - but I don't think humans would approach it that way. Suppose you have a parking lot with hundreds of cars in it - and you wanted to sort the cars in alphabetical order of their license plates or something. There is only you - you can only drive one car at a time and you can only have one parked out in the roadway at any given time...this kind of problem is much closer to the ones that computers have to solve - you can't simply insert one car into the correct place because moving all of the others to make space for it is an enormous effort. So any kind of insertion sort won't work well. You can't drive all of the cars whose license plate begins with an 'A' over to one corner of the lot because there is no place to park them all. This is actually a tough problem for most people. In this case, perhaps people might resort to something a lot like a bubble sort. Walk along the row of cars - every time you find two adjacent cars where the one on the left has a plate that his higher up the alphabet than the one on the right, you swap them over using your one free parking space. You keep walking through the lot doing that over and over until eventually they are all in the right order. Reading up on computer sorting algorithms (bubble sort is pretty inefficient) would take hours off the time taken to do the job.

There are some other interesting strategies for the situation where the things you have are almost correctly sorted already. Think about sorting out a library with thousands of books where all of the books are stored in alphabetical order - except for a small number of books have been put back in the wrong places. You wouldn't use something like a radix sort in that case because it means pulling thousands of books off the shelves in order to fix just a few that are out of place. Instead you'd walk along the shelves checking that the books are in order - whenever you find one that's out of place, you pull it out and insert it back in the right place - then you continue searching from where you left off. That'll work when you have an enormous number of books and relatively few out of order - but if none of the books were in the right place, that would be a terrible strategy and a radix sort would make more sense. I guess humans have some kind of innate feel for when to switch strategies in these situations.

SteveBaker 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers everyone! There were a lot more than I expected and all a lot more in depth as well! Your information will be most useful. I wonder why humans are so good at determining what sorting method to use in different situations? It doesn't seem like something natural, as I can't think of any evolutionary advantage for it. Thanks again for all the info. --80.229.152.246 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I expect that sorting tools might have been one of the first uses humans had for tools. Archeologists have found many very similar rock tools near each other, but with subtle variations in each. It would have been important to use the right tool for the right job, and organizing them in some manner would have made that easier. Later on, farmers needed quite a bit more organization, like sorting seeds based on those which needed to grow on river banks, those which needed to be planted in early spring, etc. Likewise herders would need to sort out the pregnant livestock, those in heat, those with calves/kids, studs, etc. StuRat 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Paul's Churchyard Fountain, City of London, 1930s

Please help…

Do you know of a drinking fountain that stood in the City of London and more precisely in St Paul's Churchyard, possibly at the North end of Godliman Street in the 1930s? I've received an enquiry from an gentleman that used to "walk in that part of the City and it never failed to remind him of his boyhood days in the 1930s…" Unfortunately I cannot find any information regarding this particular fountain anywhere. I know that nowadays drinking fountains in the City are no longer operational, however, would you be able to tell me if this has been destroyed, moved (and if so where?) or else…?

I would be extremely grateful for any help.

Many thanks.

217.169.42.186 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this article [3] I found on Google, there was a fountain that stood in the churchyard, on the site of St. Paul's Cross, but it was moved in 1909, which seems to be a bit early for your enquiry. I will see if I can find anything else. Bielle 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

First of all, trying to find a way to make a suggestion to Wikipedia is a maddening, impossible process. In your effort to categorize every conceivable question received from users, you have made this particular aspect of the website extremely cumbersome. After 10 minutes, I finally stumbled upon this link and decided to use it, not knowing if my message would ultimately be scattered, unread, to the outer reaches of the universe.

My only reason for wanting to contact your organization is that I saw the founder/president (whatever) of your company on PBS just recently, and during the interview it was suggested that Wikipedia might soon be vying for Google's audience. Now, if Wikepedia is simply going to COPY what Google is currently doing, I don't see that as much of an achievement. Indeed, even using Google's "Advanced Search" options, finding something via that search engine is likewise maddening. One search term is likely to bring you 5 million possibilities, of which only a couple might really apply. It's an enormous time waster.

It's important to note that I am not a computer guru, but it just seems to me that, someday, someone is going to figure out that the reason book indexes look the way they do is because, historically they are easy to use and people like them. You don't have to flip through 50 pages to find what you want. The company that applies the book-index principle to the new search engine will gain converts in droves. Think about it: suppose I wanted something on George Bush's foreign policy. The first page of the search engine would contain several boxes in a single column. In the first box, I type "George Bush"; in the second, "foreign policy"; in the third, "Middle East", and so on. When I hit the Enter key, an index would appear on the screen and would look something like this:

Bush, George W.

-- foreign policy (115 articles)
-- Middle East (1,45 articles)

The index could be as indepth as Wikipedia would like to make it. Now, I could write a great deal more about this, but surely you get the idea by now.

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 72.49.198.77 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Howard Lauther

Hello. If you're interested, the usual place for discussing Wikipediaish things like this is the village pump. As for the index-type thing, Wikipedia's search function is currently less than satisfactory, and I agree that a better search-thingy would be useful. However, have a look at the George W. Bush article. I don't think it will take you long to find information on his foreign policy, either through using the section subheadings, or by following links, particularly at the bottom of the article. In fact, the current best way of finding things in the way that you describe is to use Google to search Wikipedia. Look at this search for example. Generally the first few results will contain what you want. Skittle 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with indices like the one you suggest is that it is extremely hard not only to standardize categories within a single index, but across multiple indices (with thousands of contributors) it would be nigh impossible. The additional difficulty is that the end-user will not have standard categories either -- your "Middle East" could be my "Iran" or "Iraq", and if it isn't redundantly indexed with every possible combination then you'd get no success. You can see this in practice if you try to use Library of Congress subject headings for research -- you're not really sure where to search for (Should I look for "Bush, George -- Administration -- Policy -- Iraq" or "Bush, George -- Speeches -- Iran"?) and the people who code them are often inconsistent as well.

Wikipedia's search engine sucks, and everyone knows it. Its category system (look at the bottom of an article page) is a little better but doesn't quite do the same thing. In any case I don't think a book index is the best way to try and ease finding data, though I don't know what the best way is. Figuring up innovative categorization schemes is a big business these days (its why Google won out in the search engine war, in the end), so I won't be surprised if someone comes up with a better way! --24.147.86.187 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a complicated question to answer well. Firstly, Jimbo's interview wasn't about Wikipedia per-se - it was about Wiki...everything. One of his new projects is indeed a search engine - but it's nothing to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it's not a search engine and definitely not a replacement or competitor to Google. So, it's largely irrelevent to discuss Jimbo's search project here. I would suggest somewhere in the Wikimedia Foundation. Now, having gotten that distinction out of the way - how do you search Wikipedia? Well, you use a search engine (which you'll recall, Wikipedia IS NOT) - you can use Google or Yahoo or some Microsoftian thing. Wikipedia's search feature is pretty minimal - it doesn't guess spelling, it doesn't do much of a job in checking relevence - there are a bunch of things it doesn't do - but (as Jimbo has evidently realised) adding a fully featured Wikipedia search engine would be no less work than producing a search engine for the entire Internet. So the Wikimedia foundation's search engine turns out to be a Google competitor rather than an add-on to Wikipedia.

As to your comment "someday, someone is going to figure out that the reason book indexes look the way they do is because, historically they are easy to use and people like them" - I don't buy that. Book indices look the way they do because it's the best you can do when all you have is paper - and your material never changes - and your publisher won't let you use more than 20 pages - and you only have to index a book. Things are very different when you have a couple of million pages to index - when your material changes...not once a decade when you do a reprint - it changes faster than you can even read the titles of the articles that changed! A manually generated index would be a spectacular amount of work - and unlike the articles themselves, very few people would be interested on the tedious task of working on this index for free.

What we have instead (which you could never have in a paper book) is:

• The ability to use any of the Internet search engines to find what you want. Wikipedia isn't harder to search than using Google because you can just use Google.
• The ability to go to an article that's kinda-sorta what you want - then find links to related articles that you can reach with nothing more than a slight depression of your index finger on the mouse.
• The 'Category' system - scroll to the bottom of most articles and you'll see a list of categories that it belongs to at the bottom. Click on a category and you'll see an alphabetical list of all of the other articles that are flagged as belonging to that category. You'll often see a set of 'Sub-categories' that can refine your search - and a parent category which will widen it.
• Navigation and Info boxes - many groups of related articles contain boxes full of links to related articles. Hence, if you go to my article about the Mini, you'll see that down at the bottom there are tables containing links to all of the names of the companies that made the car. At top-left there is a standard 'infobox' that all car articles have which will contain links to the guy who designed the car, the company that made it, it's successor in the market, the class of vehicles it belongs to, the engine it uses.
• Redirects - when an article has a range of reasonable titles, you can reach it through any of those titles. If you have a hard time finding an article because you consider it to be poorly titled - you can easily add your own redirects so you and others will find it more easily later. (The same is true for links, categories and navigation boxes)
• The "What links here" tool - lets you find every single Wikipedia article that contains a link to this one. That's an amazingly powerful research tool - I don't think enough people use it!
• The help desk(!) full of helpful humans who are probably better at searching for stuff than you are.
• Projects - groups of pages and a place to talk to experts in the area you are interested in.
• You can leave a message on the Talk page of anyone who wrote anything written here. Generally you can get in touch with someone who is an expert in that field who will probably help you if you have a specific question. You can also find what else they've written here (in the 'Contributions' section) - which will often take you to yet more related topics.

Try doing any of those things with a paper book. Now consider how hard that would be to do on the scale of (say) Encyclopedia Britannica. Now consider that Britannica is tiny compared to Wikipedia. Sure - it's not a perfect system - but it's rare indeed that I can't find the information I want within maybe five mouse-clicks.

SteveBaker 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested to read and follow up some of the leads in the web directory article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that the XO-1 (laptop) will contain a snapshot of Wikipedia. Reading some early results of the deployment, it seems the the on-line books are the big attraction, but I haven't heard how Wikipedia fits in. --Zeizmic 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the XO-1 contains all of Wikipedia - it's only got 1Gb of flash memory and no hard drive. To store all of Wikipedia requires a lot more than that - at close to two million articles and WAY more than 1000 bytes in each article, you're already far beyond 1Gbyte. Add in the photos (which are much bigger than the text for almost every article out there) and you'd need many hundreds of Gigabytes. They are probably using something like the Wikipedia CD-ROM project's subset which contains only fairly important and well-written articles and has photos stored only at the thumbnail resolution you see them in the actual articles. You don't appreciate how valuable it is to have the whole Wikipedia there until you try using this subset. The number of links in each article drops spectacularly - and since many articles rely on the fact that you can click a link to find more detail, it is very often the case that vital information is missing from an article - and in the CD-ROM subset, the linked article just isn't there to back it up. Very frustrating! However, the XO-1 is designed with some really nifty networking stuff - so hopefully the kids that get these wonderful machines will still be able to read all of Wikipedia. SteveBaker 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MLA Citation questions

Not sure whether this belongs on this reference desk, the humanities one, or the language one, but anyway...

1. How do you do inline citations from a non-paginated web source? Just put the author, or print preview the source and determine the appropriate page from that?

2. How would you cite an online archive of a paper magazine? At the moment I'm using a sort of hybrid of the magazine and online periodical formats, giving this:

Feldman, Harold.  “Fifty-one Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll.”  Fair Play Magazine (online 
    archive).  No. 12 (September-October 1996).  18 May 2007 <http://spot.acorn.net/
    jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html>.

but I'm not sure that's right. Anyone have any knowledge in this area? Thanks. -Elmer Clark 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks like it would be passable MLA to me. I wouldn't bother stressing over it any further, citation should not be more difficult than the actual writing. --24.147.86.187 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Any thoughts on my first question? -Elmer Clark 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

For inline citations from a nonpaginated web source, you just put the last name of the author, with no page numbers. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)