Miscellaneous desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 4 >

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.

March 3[edit]

I have a question about the disability called down syndrome?[edit]

How common is it for someone with down syndrome to smoke Cannabis, dyed their hair a funky colour, pierce their nose or tongue, or do things that regular people do? Extreme things? 208.181.190.136 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Down syndrome has a variable presentation. Overall, not very common, but good luck to them if they do Richard Avery (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "regular" people do these things, how "extreme" can they be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do blank journals/diaries ever have ISBN numbers?[edit]

131.131.64.210 (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked at your local bookstore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here's one. Here's another. 184.147.122.76 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Or if you google "blank journal isbn" you'll see that the answer is "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because all the ones I saw at my local Barnes & Noble had none. 131.131.64.210 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that the answer is, "Some do and some don't." Maybe the ones on the internet need it for some purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The former must be for those volumes filled with really blank verse. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ISBN organization, there is no official rule that books MUST have an ISBN, but it points out that some point-of-sale devices in bookstores and such may require one, and without one, libraries may not accept the book and the inability to search on it will limit your sales. So there are definitely reasons why you might want to put one on a blank notebook. On the other hand, in many countries (including US and UK), it costs money to reserve an ISBN - $125 in the US and 125 pounds in the UK...so I suppose if there was only a short manufacturing run, using an ISBN might increase the price of a short-run print of a notebook noticeably. Since there are both costs and benefits - it's clear that some printers will do it and others won't. SteveBaker (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries have blank books you can check out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: One guy used blank books to raise about 59 thousand US dollar for a library. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do pay attention BBB! FACT #1: The ISBN organization says that you need a number in order to get books accepted into a library. FACT #2: You can put an ISBN on a blank book if you want to. FACT #3: There is no rule that says you have to. CONCLUSION: Since blank books don't generally get put into libraries - that's not a good reason to have an ISBN. At no point did I even remotely hint that libraries store blank books. SteveBaker (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, SteveBaker. (OP here, different IP) I once used Lulu.com to start a self-published book project and "got" an ISBN as far as I clicked a checkbox that I wanted one and the site generated a number for my project without ever saying anything about me needing to pay. Granted, I personally didn't complete the project and go to trying to get it published, so maybe that's when they would have told me about the expenses you mention. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu.com help people to self-publish books. The $125 price is for a single ISBN number and the cost per number drops considerably if you register a large block of them. This is basically an administrative fee - so it may not cost the ISBN organization much more work to register one number or a thousand of them. Therefore, a large book publisher might well pay a one-time fee of some thousands of dollars to get a block of thousands of ISBN numbers for use by its' authors (I have no idea of the actual cost), and thereby drop the price of handing out a pre-allocated number from their pool to some ridiculously low price. Lulu makes money from books that are published through their service - and that doubtless pays the hidden cost of giving out 'free' ISBNs. I'm a little surprised that Lulu goes to the trouble of allocating a number when you apply, rather than at the end when you actually publish...but presumably they have their reasons, and providing a significant number of people who apply end up publishing - that's no great loss. My bet is that Lulu found that allocating a number makes the process seem more "real" to potential authors and thereby spurs them on to actually finishing their work instead of abandoning it. SteveBaker (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia popularity, google[edit]

If wikipedia is one of the 10 most popular websites, as stated in the article then why, when i type in "w" at google, I get walmart, "walgreens", "weather", but no wikipedia, until i type in "i", as in "wi"? I thought google wasn't giving preference to paid advertised websites except when specifically marking them as advertised? Thanks.144.35.45.43 (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1] is a discussion of how this part of google works. Our article is at autocomplete. When I type "w" into google, the first completion option is "would have auxiliary", probably because I performed that search yesterday. I suspect few other people will see that first.

Autocomplete also varies by region, language, etc. Just because Wikipedia is a very popular website does not mean it is popularly searched for. Many users already know the address or have it bookmarked. WP:OR if you search for almost anything, then put a space then a "w", you will often see /[topic] wiki/ or /[topic] wikipedia/ autocomplete, because people do commonly search things like /wizard wiki/ [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. My understanding is that very many people end up at Wikipedia, but comparatively few people search for it. That is, someone searching for material on their favourite band or a local company or their new car are very likely to see WP in the first few results of their Google search - without having typed the word Wikipedia in there. Matt Deres (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that happens for me on my mobile. On my laptop, I already have Wikipedia open in one of the tabs, so will just search directly here. But if on mobile I'll just put in my search term, betting that Wikipedia will be one of the first results (which is often what I'm looking for). Only if it's not in the results will I edit the search term to throw 'Wikipedia' in there. Dismas|^(talk) 19:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just typed in "w" and top of the list was Amazon (with www.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.174.93 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet cubical doors[edit]

I can't speak for the US (where most people here originate from) but here in the UK if you visit any public convenience whether that be municipal or private (pubs, bars eateries etc) it's always a real squeeze actually getting past the door without bumping into the toilet bowl itself. Obviously, for hygiene reasons one (usually) doesn't want to brush their legs against the bowl.

So why is it that the doors open inward, and it's so tight that the edge of the door practically touches the toilet bowl. Saving space can't be an obvious explanation especially at larger venues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a tight squeeze when the doors open inward. I even had to stand on the toilet to get the door closed, in one case. I prefer to use handicapped stalls, since there's room for a wheelchair in those, which turns out to be just enough room to not have to touch the walls or toilet when closing the door. As for not opening outward, I assume that's because they are worried you might hit somebody when you leave. Also, if the latch fails, and the door opens outward while you are on the toilet, there may be no way to grab it, while if it opens inward, it will just run into your knees and you can push it closed with your foot. As for why they are so cramped, it's just a case of toilets not generating revenue, I suppose. The same reason airplane seats are now so cramped you can get a deep vein thrombosis from them. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The handicap doors open outward so that a wheelchair can fit in the stall while still being able to close the door. But back to the original question, I have rarely felt so cramped in a US stall that I felt I needed to even think about getting up on the toilet to be able to close the door. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OP, a truly cubical door would be quite something, but of virtually zero practical value. You mean cubicle. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Har har, and to think all this time I was consciously trying my hardest not to mistake bowl for "bowel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wouldn't want them to open outward and risk smacking some unsuspecting passerby. Inward is safer. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The people who design them don't seem to have the same goal as both I and the OP, that is, to use the bathroom without ever touching any surfaces (which I, for one, assume to be covered in fecal matter). For example, I wrap a paper towel around my hand to push the door open, flush with my shoe, use a toilet seat cover, and take my pants off and hang them on the hook in the stall rather than risk them touching the floor. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there are no disabled (not "handicapped") people desperate to use the cubicle specifically reserved for them while you are carrying out all that shenanigans. --Viennese Waltz 06:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people who might regard 'all that shenanigans' as a disability. Richard Avery (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that people with OCD are entitled to use disabled toilets? --Viennese Waltz 19:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike handicapped parking spaces, handicapped bathroom stalls are rarely reserved for the handicapped only. There are often only 2 or 3 stalls total, with one being handicapped-accessible, so there would be a shortage of stalls if nobody but the handicapped could use those stalls. My solution would just be to make them all handicapped-accessible, which would also mean we could use them without rubbing against the walls and toilet to get in and out. StuRat (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as I said before, it's disabled not handicapped. Secondly, you are quite wrong - of course there is an expectation that only disabled people are allowed to use disabled toilets. If there's a "shortage of stalls", well tough - you'll just have to wait. --Viennese Waltz 21:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a law to that effect and supply a reference ? StuRat (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We, surprisingly, do not have an article on the National Key Scheme, but such facilities are very common in the UK. There isn't a statutory basis for it, however. Tevildo (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The linked brochure that explains the National Key Scheme says it provides "priority access" to the disabled, as opposed to exclusive access: [3]. I agree. If a disabled person wants to use it, I would wait. But, if there are none around, I don't feel the need to risk getting raw sewage on my clothes to avoid using it. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, dunny cubicles often seem to be too small. I don't know about worldwide but in Australian there seem to be many more people wearing backpacks, and that adds to the 'squeeze' in a cubicle. 220 of ^Borg 10:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any number of people have asked the same question on various internet forums - the consensus seems to be (as User:Clarityfiend says above) that it avoids hitting other users who might be passing-by as you open the door. See for example: Why Do Doors Open Inwards? and Why do airport bathroom stalls open inward?. A contributor to the forum of the International Association of Certified Home Inspectors says succinctly: "so you don't smash someone in the face that is coming down the hallway while You are exiting the bathroom...." [4]. I don't have any problem getting in and out of British toilets, but then I'm a skinny bloke, also blissfully unencumbered by any hygiene obsessions. Washing your hands afterwards should do the trick, unless you're planning to eat your lunch off your lower trouser legs :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever touch your clothes, then your hands will have whatever they have on them, too. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the empirical evidence, I'm still alive and have thus far avoided any diseases worse than the 'flu. Alansplodge (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single case does not constitute "evidence". If there is any study on what percentage of diseases are transferred from poor hygiene in shared bathrooms, I'd like to see the results. Also, I'm not sure why you exclude diseases which are no worse than the flu. I'd like to avoid those, too. And, even if it could be conclusively proven that smearing my clothes with fecal matter wouldn't cause the spread of disease, I would still find it objectionable. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]