Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous: Difference between revisions

 

Line 173: Line 173:

::::Agreed, that was my first thought. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

::::Agreed, that was my first thought. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

= February 9 =

= February =

Wikimedia Project Page

I was working on a Matt Gaffney crossword and the answer doesn’t make sense to me. The clue was “Wedding invite enclosure, briefly” and the answer was RPC. What is RPC in this context? My first thought was that it was new version of RSVP, but that doesn’t seem to the case. Just to be clear, RPC is definitely the answer; the game doesn’t complete until every answer is correct, so this was not caused by me forcing in an incorrect word. Matt Deres (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s talking about the programming term RPC – Remote Procedure Call and it’s use of ‘Envelope’. Part of RPC is the envelope which contains the message – see for example SOAP. Nanonic (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That seems extremely unlikely. What has that to do with wedding invitations? Matt Deres (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“wedding invite enclosure” = envelope. The thing you put the invite in. Nanonic (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An enclosure is that which is enclosed, not that which encloses. In the context of an envelope and a letter that is put in the envelope, it is something that is enclosed, together with the letter, in the envelope.  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s both the thing enclosed, and the thing enclosing it. See OED which gives, amongst other meanings for Enclosure – “That wherewith something is enclosed”, “An outer covering or case; an envelope”, and “That which is enclosed”, “A document or letter enclosed within the cover of another”. But why a wedding invite? DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but a general-audience crossword is not going to provide a clue like that in hopes of eliciting an extremely obscure piece of internet protocol jargon. Not to mention that what you suggested has nothing whatsoever to do with wedding invitations. Like, I get that there’s a neat semantic link, but it only makes an iota of sense if you start with RPC and try to figure out how to make it connect somehow with wedding invitations. Matt Deres (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“request the pleasure of your company” is one of the stereotypical bits of wording used in wedding invitations. So in that sense, it’s a “wedding invite enclosure” and RPC is an abbreviation of it, hence “briefly”. Adam Sampson (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And there are a few abbreviations dictionaries that list “RPC” as an abbreviation for “request the pleasure of your company” (especially in a military context), so I’m pretty sure that’s what he was aiming for: 1 2 3 4. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s a new one for me, but it makes sense – thanks for that! Matt Deres (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Return post card” ? Like a SASE, but using less paper. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a “reply post card” or “reply postal card” used to be a thing: http://stampauctionnetwork.com/y/y108020.cfm —Amble (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And that makes me think of international reply coupons. —Antonissimo (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why is it so complicated to report a problematic article ? ive been searching for like half an hour now and im just being sent in circles around the “contact us” page. ~2026-58569-6 (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the problem and what’s the article? DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia doesn’t work the way you think. You can’t demand to see the manager, there isn’t one. There’s a process for proposing the deletion of an article, if that’s what you want. But “problematic” how? If it’s just about vandalism, you or I could undo the damage right now.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it’s just trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Such questions are better raised at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but first read the following because it may help you to formulate a question that can be answered. It is not clear to me what you seek to achieve by reporting the article. If the problem is fixable, then don’t report it but just FIXIT. Or, if it is fixable but this is beyond your capabilities, you can flag the issues on the talk page of the article. Sometimes there is a WikiProject in the area covered by the problematic article where you can additionally flag the issues. There are also templates for signaling problems with an article in the article itself, such as {{clarify}} and {{citation needed}}; for a long list of cleanup templates see Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. And if the problem is so bad it cannot be fixed, you can nominate the article for deletion – but, please, before doing so, read our guide to deletion.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a problem with an article, why not help improve it? Stanleykswong (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would defeat the point of trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF please. Someone who contributes as voluminously as you on reference desks really should already know. ~2025-34413-92 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I often recognize trolling when I see it. The OP only made the one post and has not been back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the purpose? Stanleykswong (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has been widely reported that President Trump has added new captions to the presidential portraits hanging in the White House

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/12/17/history-according-to-trump-white-house-presidential-portraits-get-captions-n4947197 for example

Do we have the texts concerned? Are they online somewhere? Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is visible in the article. Maybe you could ask the author of that rag (Robert B. Spencer). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look here.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, perfect. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a safe bet that very few, if any, of these captions were actually written by Trump. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting speculation. Of course the only legitimate purpose of talk pages is to discuss things that might improve Wikipedia, and we may be close to the line here… but the captions seem encyclopedic to me, and IMO it would be good to link to a reliable source that quotes them if we can. Maybe even quote them ourselves… what is their copyright status I wonder? They’re probably the work for hire of a government employee, whether or not Trump wrote them himself (which is my guess). Or would WikiQuote be interested? This is history in the making, and future readers and writers are I think going to be very interested in it… and depending on how it all works out, perhaps very amused. Hopefully very amused.

So, to return to the goal of improving Wikipedia… if it’s a safe bet then perhaps others have noted it too, and perhaps some of them can be cited as reliable secondary sources (one would do), and if so, it’s material that can and IMO should be included somewhere in Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Trump’s ignorant editorializing about past presidents serves any encyclopedic purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that our opinions of Trump or his ignorant editorializing about past presidents are not likely to be encyclopedic. Material is encyclopedic in terms of policies and guidelines if and only if it is both reported in reliable secondary sources and falls under the scope of an article which survives the GNG and similar policies. I think that this particular action of this administration will pass both tests, but I could be wrong. Sorting that out is a valid topic for a page such as this, in my opinion. You disagree? Andrewa (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It having been reported somewhere is not a ticket for inclusion. It’s wp:undue. Now, if you take it to Conservopedia, you might generate some interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion wp:undue has nothing to do this, am I missing something?

But agree that It having been reported somewhere is not a ticket for inclusion. Nobody said it did. But if it has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, then it’s likely to satisfy the GNG, and that’s a good indicator that it should be included.

I’m guessing that you mean the suggestion of Conservapedia to be a personal attack, or again am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How “significant” is this compared with the long list of truly impactful things he’s done in the last year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We do not publish here our personal opinions on that. We go by reliable sources. Which is what both the GNG and wp:undue say too.

But you may be unintentionally misquoting me. I was not talking about opinions on the significance of his actions. I was talking about significant coverage, and that is the term used in the GNG. Andrewa (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Define “significant coverage”. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it in the sense that the GNG uses it. Andrewa (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then it fails. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If so then you would be correct to invoke wp:undue. I’d be very interested in other opinions on that. Andrewa (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there’s some kind of Wikipedia Examples Gallery into which this can go, under “High-profile attempts to inherit notability by vandalizing displays about notable people”? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that there is any doubt that Donald Trump is himself notable as Wikipedia uses the term. Some people go to great lengths to become famous, which is not in theory the same thing as being notable but in this context the difference is irrelevant. Few of them succeed, but Trump certainly has. He’s mentioned in an enormous number of reliable secondary sources and the list keeps growing and is IMO likely to grow a lot more and for a long time to come. See Category:Donald Trump and perhaps more important Wikisource:Author:Donald John Trump. There is also Wikiquote:Donald Trump. That last page is currently flagged as being POV, but it’s all fascinating. Andrewa (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not that he wasn’t notable. Just an apparent desire to inherit more of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he cares about notability. But I think my otherwiki essay power and/or the last few pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four might shed some light on it. Andrewa (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Childishly “tantrumic” to the end (hopefully coming soon). Clarityfiend (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you misspell “tantrumpic”?  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good word! I might nominate tantrumpic for the Macquarie Dictionary if we can source it. Or for wikt:tantrumpic would be quicker. Andrewa (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I did. Senior moment. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is confirmation bias. The stronger the evidence becomes that those who voted for Trump made a mistake, the more likely they are to continue to support him. Yes, really! Read our confirmation bias article and be very, very scared. Andrewa (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

His saviour aura does not extend to the sickophants he needs for his reign of terror.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by this… can you rephrase? Saviour aura? Sickophant? Perhaps we need Wiktionary entries for these terms? How do they relate to the possibility of confirmation bias? Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since Trump spoke the words “you will no longer be forgotten” to his followers, they view him as the saviour who will deliver them from the snootiness of the elites that look down on them. He has thereby acquired an aura of being righteous, incapable of any wrongdoing. This aura protects him and only him. It does not protect the toadies executing Project 2025. When cornered, the self-anointed king can deflect criticism by blaming and sacrificing them. Sickophant is (I thought, transparently) a portmanteauish alternative orthography of sycophant.  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that, and yes that’s what I was guessing you meant. And I might even agree, but Wikipedia is not IMO the place for us to express or discuss such opinions. I may have crossed that line above… If so, all please feel free to box sections that do.

I started this Reference Desk section to seek help in finding the captions online, and that has been achieved above (again thanks team). Andrewa (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you were guessing (correctly) what I meant, then don’t write, “I have no idea what you mean by this”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote was accurate when I wrote it. Andrewa (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could label it

Resolved

. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do… this is my first use of the Reference Desk and it’s been a mixed experience, I didn’t come here to discuss politics, just to seek information. Andrewa (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m aware that this might be a little out of left field, but I’ve tried contacting the company through the email form on their website at different times over the last several months and have gotten absolutely no response whatsoever. Can someone verify that the company is still operating and accepting book orders? ~2026-65289-5 (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn’t find a new publication by them later than 2016. I noticed they give a phone number.  Card Zero  (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to order books from White Mane by mail so that I could pay by check. I’ve tried asking the company through an email form on their website numerous times but never got a response. Can anyone verify that I can do this? ~2026-84398-4 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Does anyone know who produces or owns the adult film studio (and TV Channel) for women which is named Desire? They have series like Desire Romance, Bi, Lesbian, Passion… ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Really nothing? I can’t find anything on Google. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you’re just being punished. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For what? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Desire film studio advertises on Instagram [2], [3] stating “All type of movies are Available”. They do not advertise specifically adult films for women and their current production is a sci-fi series. On Facebook this is an unrelated company. ~2026-26504-7 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently knew about Sweater Stone.
As I understand it, it is a block of glass with a rough surface that you pass over cloth to remove lint and pilling.
It seems similar to artificial pumice.
The lint (material) article mentions lint remover.
Pill (textile) mentions fabric shaver.
Pumice does not mention applying it to cloth.
I have found some sources that talk about using pumice on cloth, but they do not seem very reliable.

My questions are:

• Do people use pumice to remove pilling?
• How does it compare with a fabric shaver? Presumably, the electric machine is faster.
• Why would people choose a Sweater Stone over pumice? It seems more expensive.

— Error (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For your last point, either people don’t know that pumice does the same thing, OR this material has a different texture that works better for the purpose. For your others, I don’t know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is the second case put forward by TooManyFingers: “sweater stones” are far, far softer than pummice stone, and they crumble away when used. A pumice rock would be more likely to damage the material, and getting the lint off the rock would be difficult. I prefer fabric shavers and sweater BRUSHES to sweater stones – I still always feel like I’m going to damage the material with the latter, plus they have an unpleasant, rotten-egg like smell when they’re in use. ~2026-59608-1 (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Can anyone please tell what exactly the ladies in these photos https://1884403144.rsc.cdn77.org/foto/cesky-lev-2025-geislerova/NzIweDAvc21hcnQvZmlsdGVyczpmb2NhbCgzNzd4MTAzOjQ5M3gyNDkpL2ltZw/9391737.jpg?v=0&st=uWiN_1pYCfHU-RsC9kzmSAgyopbZHzneK_rX8fZucWA&ts=1600812000&e=0 (please also include what kind of boots/shoes these are) and https://1884403144.rsc.cdn77.org/foto/cesky-lev-2025-darija-pavlovicova/NzIweDAvc21hcnQvZmlsdGVyczpmb2NhbCg1MDh4Mjc4OjYyM3gzNDIpL2ltZw/9391725.jpg?v=0&st=gcOh_lMkeOEWEy20k6c5cPx7h2Rs3SrOjX1yYt7GIGA&ts=1600812000&e=0. Thanks in advance! ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you say the first girl is goth? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Google image search could not identify the first one, but the second one is Darija Pavlovičová, a Czech model and actress (she may not look much like the picture on her page, but a number of other photos from that same shooting, taken from Czech media sites, confirm her identity). While the first search could not identify the model, numerous other pictures of models wearing a very similar outfit turned up, and in most cases, there is nothing there that makes it look “Goth”; it’s just evening-wear with a V-shaped neckline. The shoes are barely visible on the photo, so it’s going to be difficult to identify their model. Xuxl (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first woman is Stella Ginger Janáčková [4], the daughter of Anna Geislerová (which is probably why “geislerova” appears in the link). No idea about the clothes. Based on the background the images seem to have been taken at the 2025 Czech Lion Awards. Long is the way (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tought it was goth because of the dark outfit combined with the makeup. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that Wikipedia had a page for this station with a link to the station’s website. Now, it seems that the Wikipedia page has been deleted, and I can’t find the website. Does anyone know where I can find a schedule for the station? ~2026-84398-4 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t say I understand how this works, but WROB-LD appears to belong to Buzzr, who have a website with a schedule (riveting stuff). Looks like it applies to all stations. —Wrongfilter (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For what it’s worth, the deleted article gave http://www.tv25.tv as the link to the station’s website. I probably know even less than Wrongfilter about such things, but according to the “What’s On Now” link there, the station appears to broadcast various channels in addition to Buzzr. Deor (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background: I have not been able find any information about the Bold Experiment – the Telephone Story (1958), beyond what the Telecommunications History Group (THG) says about it.[5] I’m not sure, but I think the THG is an outgrowth of the volunteer Telephone Pioneers society, which created museum exhibits to document the history of the telephone in the 20th century. THG appears to have a current museum space hosting some of these materials at the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company building in Denver, Colorado.

Problem: The photo to the right is on commons with the description “Emma and Sheila Nutt operating the exchange at the Edwin Holme’s Telephone Despatch Co. Exchange at Boston, Massachusetts in 1878”. It is also used in the Emma Nutt article with the caption “This scene from “Bold Experiment – the Telephone Story”, depicts the first women operators…” To me that indicates this is a reenactment. Further, if you look closely at the photo, and notice their clothing and hair styles, this appears to be straight out of central casting in the late 1950s, not the 1870s. Any help figuring this out would be great. I don’t believe this photo is helpful in the article on Emma Nutt, but others may feel differently. Also the commons description and rationale needs to be fixed. Thanks for any help. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the pic. Even the (obviously not) “random” positioning of the notices on the bulletin board on the wall is just too precise to be real. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye! Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lipstick is anachronistic.  Card Zero  (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As are the women’s hair styles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What’s up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, the updo with curls was popular in the 1870s and 1880s, which became known as the Gibson Girl look a decade later. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes siree bob. I was out the door and didn’t have time to comment on the makeup. When you zoom in on the photo, you really get the sense of the 1950s Marilyn Monroe makeup routine. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lovely antique light fixture is casting a shadow instead of lighting the room. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right. And what about that baseboard? Wasn’t that a style after 1910 or so? Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lights cast a shadow when flash is used. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is that fixture in fact a cardboard cutout? The view angle is mysteriously flat-on. I see horizontal lines where curves should be. But I have an overactive imagination. The THG curator could be asked about the photo source by email.  Card Zero  (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As far as I can see the only mentions online of Bold Experiment – the Telephone Story are in captions to the picture. Is it meant to be a film, a book, an exhibition? DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t know. My guess is an educational film produced for televsion, or a kind of tableau vivant produced for photography only, but shown in the museum exhibition as a still. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my schooldays (1960s and 70s) we were sometimes shown documentaries, made by commercial organisations, explaining the history, processes and possiblies of their particular trades. The production values seemed quite good, I recall an especially spectular one on electricty generation, but not the sort of thing you would see at the cinema or on television. Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that was my first thought. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]