Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 April 6

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.

April 6

Jesus vs Baby Jesus

What is the difference between "Jesus" and "baby Jesus" in the context of people who exclaim "Sweet [baby] Jesus!" OpinionatedOnion (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I seriously doubt there is any factual reference information as to that question. It's a matter of English idiom. Any response would be opinion. Per the instructions at the top of this page, we do not (are not supposed to) answer requests for opinions here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

See this previous discussion about the usage of the phrase "baby Jesus". Alansplodge (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Off topic, potentially inflammatory incendiary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe that people talk about 'baby Jesus' when he was a baby or toddler. When he got older, supposing he actually existed, he was no longer a baby, which is what people tend to do, so became simply 'Jesus'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 09:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC) What do you mean by "supposing he actually existed"? There is absolute proof that he existed because the Romans kept records of who they crucified and Jesus' name appears there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.206.189.82 (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC) That's not true. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC) This is already way off topic, having nothing to do with the phrase "sweet baby Jesus", and it's likely to blow up unless we nip it in the bud. Any takers? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) Baseball Bugs is right, no such list exists. Regardless, there is a strong consensus among historians that Jesus was indeed crucified by Pontius Pilate. See Historicity of Jesus. - Lindert (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Kage might have been better off to have omitted the comment "supposing he actually existed", to prevent the obvious complaint about it. But thanks for posting that link, as the IP and anyone else who thinks that way would benefit from reading it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

UK pensions

In the UK can a "final salary pension" be inherited by the pension holders children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataskywa (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Yes in the United Kingdom they just passed a law that will go into effect as of April 6 this year. Restrictive rules on what they can do with their money have been torn up, along with the need for most to buy an annuity Chancellor George Osborne said: ‘People who have worked hard and saved all their lives should be free to choose what they do with their money, and that freedom is central to our long-term economic plan. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2792180/savers-25-tax-free-multiple-pension-lump-sums-three-big-pension-changes-need-know-about.html

In the new law it states that if the saver dies and they still have money in their funds, it can be inherited by their family; a spouse or a child under 23 being able to get this tax-free. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2792180/savers-25-tax-free-multiple-pension-lump-sums-three-big-pension-changes-need-know-about.htmlwww.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2775646/Now-children-WILL-able-inherit-nest-egg.html

Though with this new law their are some exception to your child receiving your pension tax-free. The law says that if one dies after 75 the pot will be passed on to the child but will get a income tax charge depending on their taxable income and the amount of money they withdrew per tax year.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11489540/Can-I-transfer-my-frozen-final-salary-pension-to-my-children.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdlsmith3 (talk • contribs)

I believe the changes in UK pension law referred to above apply to defined contribution plans, whereas the questioner is asking about final salary plans (also known as defined benefit plans). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Gandalf is correct: the new rules do not apply to existing annuities or final salary (aka defined benefit) schemes. The government has proposed that it should be possible to trade in an annuity for cash, but I don't think there are any concrete details on this yet. If anything similar was introduced for final salary schemes, I suspect it would be an unattractive option unless you were desperate for the cash. On the specific question of inheritance, it's possible that some final salary schemes allow some of the value to be passed on after the holder's death, for example if they die with a certain time after the start of the pension. This already happens to some extent with annuities, which usually have an option of a "minimum payment term" of 5-10 years (which slightly reduces the annuity payments). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

National Treasure

Is there any truth to the idea that American banks are controlled by a shadowy elite who put pyramid symbols onto the banknotes as implied in the Nicolas Cage film "National Treasure"? 03:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by National Treasure Question (talk • contribs)

The film is a work of fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You might want to have a read of Illuminati. Especially the conspiracy theory section. Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary to register a username for each Reference Desk question. Actually I think we would prefer you didn't. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Please pick a single user name and stick to it, or if you prefer, edit while logged out. Creating a fresh username for each and every reference desk question you ask can be seen as disruptive. --Jayron32 13:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia random article issues

Hello,

I enjoy Wikipedia very much. I often use the random search to get new ideas. Why is it that when I push the random button a few times I ALWAYS get an Iranian city? It doesn't seem very random. Thanks, Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.133.38 (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Many years ago there was a question posed about why railway stations seemed to come up with great frequency. If I remember correctly, it has something to do with the randomness of the Wikipedia random engine not being very good. Dismas|^(talk) 06:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And I remember it as minor sports players. —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is some non-randomness introduced by the MediaWiki's method of numbering articles. However "once upon a time", you were more likely to land on a U.S. city, due to the great work of Wikipedia's first bot. See History of Wikipedia. I think the current largest category is biographies? Rmhermen (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I usually get obscure Polish or Iranian villages. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, about %5 of our articles are about obscure Polish Villages, or were the last time I pushed the random button 100 times. France and Nigeria are also highly represented. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

For me, (maybe confirmation bias) I usually get lots of articles about random celebrities (about whom I have no interest) and articles consisting of only a couple of sentences about really obscure places. You just have to keep clicking until you get something interesting for you - like turning the pages of a newspaper or magazine, or, in fact - an encyclopaedia. When you open one, it doesn't know what you want to read. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is a really handy circumstance, since neither does the clicker know what they want to read. That's obvious; I mean, if one wanted to read something about Bolivian balalaika players, just clicking the Random article button until something relevant came up would probably be the longest possible route to one's destination. Next time I have nothing in my diary for the coming 5 years, I'll give it a try and report back. Watch this space. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why kill grass that you're just digging up anyway?

Near the beginning of this report, the reporter says that crews in California are spraying grass with herbicide and then goes on to talk about drought resistant plants. I'm guessing that the grass is being replaced by these plants. So, why spray grass with herbicide if you're just going to be removing it anyway? Dismas|^(talk) 11:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Rhizomes are really hard to 100% remove. On anything other than very small scales, herbicides are commonly used to remove unwanted grass, otherwise they just come back. They may be planning on just planting drought-resistant plants in to the dead grass once it has been killed. glyphosate has a rather short life in the field, so that is feasible. One alternative way to kill the grass is to just cover it with something opaque, but that also uses comparable materials and labor, and can take up to a whole year to be effective. But the only real way to know why is to as the people in charge, you can contact Long Beach Water dept here [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent deep-rooted weeds, such as dandelions will take the opportunity grow up when the top soil has been removed; they might be trying to kill them as well. LongHairedFop (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you refer to dandelions as weeds? They are flowers.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A weed is any unwanted plant. Last I checked, a flower is a plant, so if a flower is not wanted, it is a weed. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, a corn plant growing in the middle of a soybean field is technically a weed, although it's more often called "volunteer corn". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Most gardeners don't want dandelions in their lawns, nor in their flower borders. Those gardeners would refer to them as weeds. However, dandelion-root tea is healthy (and often put in dandelion and burdock cordial), and (young) dandelion leaves are tasty in salads, so there might be a commercial use for them. 62.56.48.4 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 23:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Calling the undertaker

How soon after the death of a relative is one supposed to contact the undertaker? Is one supposed to contact the undertaker directly or via the family doctor? 222.124.118.240 (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's going to vary depending on the laws of the given place where the death occurred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And on the manner of death. The police may be the right answer in some cases. Rmhermen (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, there exists a publication entitled "What to do after Death", produced by UK Government. It had to be retitled after people pointed out that, after your own death, you shouldn't be able to read the document. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What to do after someone dies. Truly (and verily), after your dead, there is not much one can do about it, when one oneself kicks the bucket. Except haunt all those relatives (those that never bother to visit you when you were alive) but will arguing over your will and testament and more importantly your millions of $. Sadly, being dead, I would not have the film rights to something that will be mighty more scary than The Amityville Horror for what will befall them . You ne'er-do-well are not going to get a dime! Not even a cent! </rant>--Aspro (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoofed in "Youth TV" style by The Day Today here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people pre-plan and pay their own funerals lately, partially to avoid inconveniencing their survivors at weird times. Most homes have their ears to the ground, and know who died today before many family members do. Especially for those already on file, things get rolling almost automatically. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Within a few hours if you want the funeral as soon as possible (local tradition here is three days after death for the funeral), but if there is no hurry for the funeral, and the dead body has been taken care of, then there is no hurry to contact an undertaker, though most people do so within a week. Dbfirs 09:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone together

If you took everyone in the world and crammed them in as small a space possible, how big an area would they occupy standing up. And assuming they were all naked, what would this gigantic human blob look like from low earth orbit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You should refer back to your question about the Empire State Building, for some suggestions on the arithmetic of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The volume of all ~7.3 billion humans is about the same as the volume of a 1km cube. This and many other related analyses are presented here [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

To get an estimate for the number of people per unit of area, we can take as an example St. Peter's Square, which has an area of 22,783 m², and according to the Vatican's website, can accommodate up to 400,000 people during special occasions. That's a density of about 17.5 people per m², definitely closely packed, but presumably people still have a tiny bit of room and could be crammed just a bit closer together. Let's say 25/m², meaning that every person has a net space of 20x20 or 10x40cm. Assuming 7.3 billion people, that means 292 million m², or about a square with sides of 17 kilometers. - Lindert (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

so basically, the entire Human race can fit in Los Angeles --147.85.186.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it says here that they would just about fit in Rhode Island—but it also explains why, if you tried it, almost everyone would die. So please don't try it. --65.95.176.148 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Many years ago I went to Ripley's Odditorium in Blackpool, where a display informed us that the entire population of the world could fit on the Isle of Wight. For some reason this terrified me! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, it's a much lower density than the OP asked, but these maps are interesting. --Jayron32 16:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

See also: Stand on Zanzibar. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you could remove the space inside their atoms, you could fit them all into the volume of a sugar cube. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Tulpas

I read the Tulpa article and I'm confused. Is it basically induced schizophrenia? Muromisan (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be a different mind within the same individual. As I understand it, a tulpa is a separate physical object. Tulpa#Modern_perspective puts it in the category of self-induced hallucinations, which sounds about right. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Amazed and Astounded

Hello,

I didn't know where else to put this. I've been doing research for the A-Z Blog Challenge. My theme for the whole month of April is anxiety, and tomorrow I'm expected to post on generalized anxiety disorder. Well, I've been diagnosed with it, so you would think I'd know a whole lot about it, but I really don't. So online I went, and one of the first articles which came up was from Wikipedia.

It was absolutely wonderful. So helpful and thorough, I couldn't believe it. I mean, I COULD, because I've used Wiki for other things before. But I never took the time to say thanks. I'm not sure who the writer was for that article, but could you please, PLEASE, say a big big thank you from a struggling blog writer for me?

Yours truly,

Chris [redacted, see here] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.207.1 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In general its unlikely that the authors of the articles you found helpful will see your comments here. You might want to repeat your comments on the talk page for the articles yo found helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the link to the GAD talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generalized_anxiety_disorder Justin15w (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Letters

When a person moves home, are letters addressed to their old address legally theirs or do they now belong to the new owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.165.193.19 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The letter belongs to the addressee. You should sign up to have your mail forwarded when you move, do this at your new post office. Sometimes junkmail is meant for the person in the house, not a specific individual. That will normally be addressed "resident" or "dear neighbour". Mail forwarding. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely a redirection should be organised at the old post office, just before you move? Letters addressed to the old address will go to the old post office, and if the redirection had been organised through the new post office, the old post office would have no idea you'd even moved, let alone know your new address to forward them on to. No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's done at the old post office, at least in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume that the laws related to this are uniform around the world. You might want to specify the part of the world that you're asking about. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• The OP geolocates to China. I have requested a change of address from the new address before, that may have required me to mail the form to the old address, I don't remember. But I see no on-line source saying this must be done from the old address in the US. In fact it can be done by phone or email for a $1 fee. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure post offices talk to each other in most parts of the world, but, if there's a choice, then the redirection is best arranged at the old office since it is there that the physical redirection has to happen. Dbfirs 08:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Borden Sisters

How could Lizzie and Emma Borden have died 9 days apart when one died at age 66 and one died at age 76? This is what it says in your articleCmightymouth (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

They weren't twins. Lizzie Borden was born about a decade after Emma. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Cmightymouth somehow had the Borden Twins in mind? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, they played the roles of "Teensy" and "Weensy", and Lizzie chopped her parents up into "Teensy" and "Weensy" bits, so I could see the confusion. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)