Miscellaneous desk
< July 4	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

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.

July 5[edit]

Emollients[edit]

Is there a time for how often you should moisturise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisturizer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.213.227 (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do the instructions on the package say? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's an "as needed" product. That is, whenever your skin feels dry and flaky, you need to moisturize. How often this happens depends on your age, genes, the humidity, what products you use to wash your skin (and how often), whether you have been in the sunlight, and even what you've eaten recently. You may not need any in summer, so if your skin feels greasy, discontinue use. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much of the human race truly has a "need to moisturize"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few. There are many reasons:

1) Living in a dry climate (desert) or a seasonally dry climate (winter in many places).

2) Bathing with detergents, which remove oils from the skin, or swimming in chlorinated water.

3) Exposure to harsh chemicals, like detergents, alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, and bleach, which dry the skin. Doing dishes or laundry, for example, or using hand sanitizers.

4) Having naturally dry skin, especially with age.

5) A diet deficient in fats/oils/lipids. (We can produce some oil, but not much.)

6) Use of A/C can produce dry air inside in summer. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Wikipedia for Personal Study by 80 y/o widow. Do you have a phone # to contact?[edit]

I like to print out articles I use for personal study on various historical subjects because it is hard for me to read them on the computer with my eyesight. I have limited tech savvy. At almost 80 I have limited mobility but still have a sharp mind and love to read and study. Lately my requests to print articles is limited to the first page by Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind contributing to a membership/contribution to your program but I don't do electronic financial transactions. Is there a phone number I can call to discuss this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ECC6:3100:F8AE:9FCD:CD11:FBE5 (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? I have no problem creating full printable versions of even very long Wikipedia articles. From the sidebar on the left of any article, under Print/Export, click on "Download as PDF". --Viennese Waltz 13:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest persevering with reading things on screen. There are a lot of zoom options for screens which can make this easier. Best thing though is to find some local people who can assist you in a more face-to-face way. I'm in the UK, we have lots of local charitable groups who can either assist you, or point you to groups who can do – I'm sure the US has something similar.

As to printing, then there's no reason why Wikipedia should limit you to just the first page. This is probably a problem with your computer / printer setup in particular. Again, someone who can see it face-to-face would be able to resolve this more easily. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are using some print utility that just prints the current screen. If so, then scrolling down to the 2nd screen and using it again would get the next page, etc. Or you can try CONTROL P (holding down the CTRL button on the keyboard while pressing P) to use your browser's print capabilities.

As far as making the screen more readable, try using CONTROL + and CONTROL - to make the text bigger or smaller. By the way, are you able to read my big text easily ?

SinisterLefty (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Coast[edit]

Is this real or photo shopped and if real please provide any information you can on it. How was it built and why?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Liberia/@6.428055,-9.429499,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNgquZnpev-brs2a_thT1MaSmW6DQeFlOiGo4wg!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNgquZnpev-brs2a_thT1MaSmW6DQeFlOiGo4wg%3Dw203-h253-k-no!7i720!8i900!4m5!3m4!1s0xf09f803d4a9fcc1:0x7fd3286b32d16373!8m2!3d6.2989188!4d-9.3081665

Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning my trip on my Honda Africa Twin 1000cc Adventure Sport 2019 ( https://www.google.com/search?q=Honda+Africa+Twin+1000cc+Adventure+Sport+2019&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCxrTAhp7jAhVJUhUIHTyQAfMQ_AUIECgB&biw=1368&bih=794 ) down the east coast of Africa and then up central Africa and back into Europe, and stumbled across this. I would like to visit, if it really exists. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are its coordinates? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's shopped. That is Ko Ta Pu, a tiny island off of Khao Phing Kan in Thailand. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Someguy, you're right. The colouring of the rocks is a sure giveaway. Thanks for the clarification. Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maps in Africa[edit]

Please could someone advise why there appear to be multiple places on Google Maps which are demarcated as towns yet when one views these, there is nothing there. Examples of which are “Nimely Town Newcess in Liberia” “Amoko in Central African Republic” or “Elaka; Besoke; Nongu; Lokofe; Monde or Elome in the DRC” I suspect that the answer will be due to warfare, yet I wish to dispute this as the sheer number of places I have located over the past few months clearly outweighs this as a valid explanation as well as the suggestion that this is due to economic migration as many of these locations show no signs of any human habitation in the recent past. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could they be seasonal camps for nomads, such as some Berbers/Tuareg ? They would leave very little behind, as they take their tents with them when they move for the season. They mostly live north of there, but perhaps some get that far south. Or perhaps other nomadic groups live there. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One possible explanation is that a place doesn't have to have a discernable population concentration or a settlement to be a named place. In the US, many states have a level of organization called the civil township. A place can have a name, and not actually be a recognisable settlement. Google maps gets it's data from some sort of freely available government database, and if that database calls some arbitrary patch of dirt "Foo", Google maps will just put that on the map over that patch of dirt. The word "town" can be used two different ways. It can either mean "a concentration of population bigger than a village and smaller than a city" or it can mean "a smallish-sized administrative subdivision". The second definition doesn't even need to have anyone living in it. In those cases, the "town" is just the name assigned to that patch of dirt.--Jayron 32 17:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly just an African issue. Look at the CITY of Soldier, Kansas, which has the huge population of 136. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the satellite view isn't always reality. They seem to do some type of compression that determines, say, that "this is grassland", and just fills in a grassland pattern there, rather than storing the actual photo for that area. Thus, the software could miscategorize an area and fill it in with the wrong thing. SinisterLefty (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that assertion? Fgf10 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be first-hand observation, having seen it fill in grass around my house, in places where there has never been grass. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong coordinates [1]. Шурбур (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re Nimely Town Newcess in Liberia, and Amoko in Central African Republic: I can see some huts. The resolution is not great, but I think people do live there, if not many. At least someone must have been there at some point in the past to clear the trees.

Re Elaka; Besoke; Nongu; Lokofe; Monde or Elome in the DRC: All I can see is tree canopy. However, it is possible that there are huts under the canopy. I am not familiar with DRC equatorial forest villages, but it cetainly seems possible. --Lgriot (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US Senior Army Aviators[edit]

Are Senior Army Aviators exclusively helicopter pilots (seeing as Category:American Senior Army Aviators is a subcategory of Category:Helicopter pilots)? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, e.g.→

2606:A000:1126:28D:9033:F791:C03:65C4 (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966 (which appears to be still in force), the US Army's use of fixed-wing craft is limited to administrative support craft and, more recently, drones. --Khajidha (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia (or at least, MediaWiki). Categorization is primarily navigational, not ontologically defining. Subcategory relationships indicate a relationship, but they're not proof of an absolute and defining membership. When there's a case (and this is a good one) where the Army pilots are primarily helicopter pilots (for pretty well-defined reasons), but there are a few outside that, it's still useful to have the category membership. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I already knew of the category/subcategory relationship. It just puzzled me that the title didn't seem to be particularly helicopter-specific. I wasn't aware of the jurisdictional infighting. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]