Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 17

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.

January 17

Dragon Warrior III for GBC

Hi again. Yesterday I started replaying through Dragon Warrior III (GameBoy COlor version), and today the wierdest thing happened. I got to the town of Ashalam, and decided it was about time to save. After going back to the castle in which the game begins (Aliahan), I talked to the king to save. He said my hero would level up in x amount of experience points, said the same for my thief, and then when he got to my warrior he said "Ares (what I named my warrior) has gained experience in a way I can't determine. Your level will be clear in battle." After that, he said my cleric would level up in x amount of levels. The next battle, my warrior leveled 43 times from one battle, going from level 14 to level 67. I think this is a glitch, but what the king said got me thinking that maybe it isn't. Any gamers wanna clue me in? Thanks.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I know this belongs in a game forum, but I figured I would get answers faster on wikipedia. Thanks again.

You really are MUCH more likely to find an answer in a forum that's more tightly focussed on this particular game - there are lots of sites that have discussions and HUGE lists of published cheats and easter eggs that will probably mention this. One I'd suggest would be GameSpot's DWIII section. I agree that the programmers gave you a huge clue that there was some kind of plot point - or perhaps 'easter egg' coming up soon - but it's also possible that it's an unrelated bug. Yes, shocking though it is - we games programmers do make the occasional boo-boo. SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I did get some money once for delivering something to some Japanese and them not being able to find a single bug when they tested it. But yes that's rather rare unfortunately. Dmcq (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, not being able to find a bug during testing and there not BEING a bug are two horribly different things...which is really the heart of the problem! Nobody ever found a bug during testing of any software I ever shipped - but I'm certainly not going to claim that ANYTHING I ever shipped was 100% bug free because for software of more than (say) a hundred thousand lines of code there are quite utterly guaranteed to be bugs - and don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise! The best you can do with comprehensive testing is to ensure that the bugs aren't going to show up for most people most of the time - and hope that if they do, they'll be minor ones. SteveBaker (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Smile.dog

Good evening people at wikipedia.

There is an internet Phenomenon known as 'smile.jpg' or 'smile.dog'. Strangely, this doesn't feature anywhere on wikipedia, and there are rumours that say it's deleted as soon as a page is created.

The picture has no source, the author is unknown and it's very difficult to obtain this. (Search google and find almost 0 results for this). It is claimed that whoever looks at the picture will suffer some mental problems, leading many to suicide. I have this picture, but i'm not going to post it. The picture shows a dog (or a doglike creature), it is the colour red/orange and seems to be in some sort of negative version. The teeth show, sure enough its pretty creepy. There is also a human hand (described as beckoning).

Could anybody over there at wikipedia shed any light on this matter? hi I found some pictures on googel gona add the link https://www.google.no/#q=smile+dog

81.151.235.105 (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a foolish hoax. Tb (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Could be the Wolverine. [1]. Tb (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Could be a hoax, but seriously, try to find any material on it on the internet, and you'll be shocked to find very little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.235.105 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would I be shocked? Most people don't care about dumb hoaxes so you're not going to find any information about so dumb hoax that few people have heard of Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that a picture of a creepy-looking dog gives everyone who checks it out mental problems and leads many of them to suicide is likely to have a hard time reasoning their way out of a burning paper bag. Does that shed any light on the matter?-- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like the recent horror movie, named The Ring, where anyone who sees a movie clip ending with a black circle soon dies, unless they can show it to somebody else within a week. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

These 'rumors' that the article is deleted as soon as it's created are almost certainly true. But that's not a mystical or magical thing - and it's not some kind of conspiracy - it's how Wikipedia routinely operates.

Whenever some short-lived internet meme pops up, someone (and typically SEVERAL someone's) will try to create an article about it. If the article fails to include solid references for the claims it makes - or if it's considered to be a short-lived phenomenon - then such an article would fail our notability test. Articles on junk like this are typically deleted 'on sight' via a process called 'Speedy Deletion'. If there is some doubt about the deletion - or if you complain about an article being speedy-deleted (following the appropriate guidelines at WP:AfD) then you may instigate a proper discussion and a "vote" to get it reinstated. But you'll need to prove that the article can be improved and that the subject is appropriate according to our internal guidelines such as WP:NOTE.

But in this case, where pretty much all there is is a picture (which must be owned by someone - hence has a copyright - and hence is tricky for us to publish), plus a bunch of weird and unsubstantiated rumors - we have no further relevant things to say. So I'd be VERY surprised if the article passed any kind of serious scrutiny.

At any rate - there is no secrecy about the process. You can to go to our deletion log and search for any deleted page if you know the title, the author or a rough range of dates over which it was created. You won't be able to read the article - but you'll see who deleted it and why - and then you can go to their User: page and discuss it with them...this should convince you that it's not black magic or a government coverup or pink aardvarks from the planet Aard - it's just some Wikipedian following our standard rules for keeping crap out of the encyclopedia.

If you check the deletion logs - you'll notice the depressing fact that we delete articles at a rate of about ten every minute, day and night, 365 days of the year - so the fact that this one vanished is not a mystical or even very surprising event. SteveBaker (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who cares to read more about this B.S - the whole thing is spelled out in this Google cache here: [2] - there is a lot of complaining about Wikipedia's deletion policies - and the predictable round of unverifiable (and highly unlikely) stories and conspiracy theories. Really - it's a load of crap - and it certainly should never make it into a Wikipedia article unless the meme becomes MUCH more widespread. SteveBaker (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. It's a semi-decent ghost story, but to take it seriously... I mean, I liked to work myself up over stuff like this when I was twelve, too, but c'mon. Or maybe this level of detail seems incredibly convincing if you've never read a book, or you're just a kind of a dim bulb. What tops it off nicely is that what appears to be the picture in question is a laughably bad Photoshop job. I particularly like the paste job on the hand that "beckons" and the teeth that are just kind of plopped on top of the dog's face! Way to blend those suckers in. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, now you've done it - I looked at it only 2 minutes ago and already I'm showing mental problems...argh! Suddenly I'm unable to spell 'aardvark' anymore...watch: A-A-R-D-V-A-R-Q - see? Curse you smile.dog SteveBaker (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. My work here is done. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mystical ghost photograph... taken with an Olympus Digital Camera in 2002, modified in 2003 with Photoshop 7.0. (yay for metadata). Riiight. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Euwww - ectoplasm all over the keyboard. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, count your blessings. It could have been endoplasm trying to eat your keyboard. Phil_burnstein (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion Smile.jpg deserves to be mentioned in the Wikipedia. It is a popular urban legend at least, even despite the controversy about that legend being true/fake. And by the way, that red/orange version with that earless noseless ugly thing is a fake. Another version looks more real-like. And the last version, that is claimed to be the real one does not look any scary. And the dog on this version isn't smiling. Seems more that it's talking (maybe saying «Spread the word!») Summary of three existing versions:

• First version (red/orange) is rather disgusting than scary. More looks like a semi-rotted corpse from Silent Hill.
• Second version looks more real-like, despite the fact that it's probably just an attempt of reproducing the missing original pic. Quite a successful attempt.
• The third version seems to be like . . . semi-real. Althrough it looks real, the dog itself does not match the description of those, who had seen the real Smile.jpg. This dog doesn't have human-looking teeth and it's not smiling.

In conclusion I want to say that it worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Even the sickening hello.jpg (the loathsome pic from now-dead goatse.cx website) is mentioned here. Why Smile.jpg can't be mentioned?

indian army

Does the indian army own modern equipment?Jaysin1234 (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try looking at our article Equipment of the Indian Army and finding out for yourself? 87.112.25.162 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It depends how "cutting edge" you expect it to be, but Equipment of the Indian Army suggests the army is well equipped - mostly with Russian made equipment. In coming years, the army will be getting the AS 550 helicopter, the new Arjun main battle tank, and several other items of equipment to replace existing equipment (although the Arjun's production delays have prompted the purchase of more T-90s from Russia). Astronaut (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they have modern equipment. They phased out elephants in favour of tanks some time ago & have been using rifles at least since the 1800s. AllanHainey (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Where can I get a bowling ball, a feather, and a scale?

Good afternoon. Could any of you kind folks point good ol Charlie in the right direction as to the purchase of said items? ??? Thank you, and God bless, --GarageShipbuilder (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't say where you live but feather dusters are usually available from stores which sell homeware. E.g. some supermarkets, hypermarkets, discount stores or even specific homeware stores. You could also buy a feather duvet or similar although more expensive. If there are wet markets near where you live you could try there. You may even be able to find a loose feather in a bird/pet store (although I don't recommend you try pulling them off the birds) or just lying around outside. If you have a cat, you may find them outside your room (I do). Similarly, you can probably get a scale (whether a kitchen scale or bathroom scale) from many stores selling homeware. As for a bowling ball, try a bowling alley (some may sell them) or perhaps a store selling sports gear Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're trying to determine whether feather and a scale fall at the same rate when dropped from a bowling ball. For such a brief experiment, I'm sure a bowling alley will simply lend you a ball if you explain that it will be used in the furtherance of science. --Sean 16:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless by scale you mean one of those that balance in the middle when the weights either side are the same. If so that might be a problem as they seem quite rare now, though I have heard that you can still find them at the back of a cupboard in an old enough kitchen. 148.197.114.207 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You can get two-sided scales, try an old fashioned cookery shop, or somewhere that sells 2nd hand bits and pieces (car boot sales, jumble sales, etc.). --Tango (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean a weighing scale or a Scale (zoology)? Balance scales are not that hard to find, the cheapest one I saw went for $10US. However, finding one that would take the weight of a regulation 10 pin bowling ball (available at multiple sites on the net) (16 pounds (7.2 kg)) might be a bit harder. Although a 5 pin or candlepin ball weighs less and you might be able to find a balance scale to take that. I notice that this is also called a balance scale. Feathers can be purchased from 80c and up. Other places have them in bulk. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Funeral Home Embalming

This is not a pleasant subject but I have always wondered what happens to the residue and chemicals that are flushed from the body during the process of embalming. Is the bodly fluids such as wastes ,blood and chemicals flushed down the normal public sewer syatem or are the contents by law retained and disposed of some other way?I would appreciate an answer as would others I am sure.Thank you to the individual or persons with the knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlysonbuck (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• They're managed as medical waste, ideally. In the US, just in the last few years, under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has stopped embalmers from using injection wells and large capacity cesspools. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an international standard style for expressing monetary amounts?

Is there an international standard (and currency-independent) style for writing monetary amounts using currency codes? If there is one, would 100 Canadian dollars be written as "100 CAD" or "CAD 100" or in some other way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.146.183 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would expect the order depends on the language being used. In English, it's normal to put the currency code before the numerals. Tb (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many "standards" - but no "one true way". Wikipedia (for example) has a whole list of guidelines for doing this as a oart of our Manual of Style. If there were one "official" standard - you can be sure we'd be using it. You can see the detailed Wikipedia guideline for formatting currency here: Wikipedia:MOS_(dates_and_numbers)#Currencies - but realise that other publications can - and do - choose different rules. SteveBaker (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the full text of ISO 4217? It seems unlike ISO to not specify this. Algebraist 19:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

rubber duck / wheeled digger

If possable can any one tell me why a wheeled excavator is called a rubber duck ?

I drive one but don't know why

hopefuly yours James 90.192.168.166 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because excavators are often painted yellow and rubber ducks are often yellow as well. I've never seen one on wheels that I know of, only tracks... an excavator that is. I've seen rubber ducks on wheels. Dismas|^(talk) 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This must be a UK usage, as I've never encountered it in the US. Probably because it's yellow and runs on rubber tires? Acroterion _(talk) 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Could be cockney rhyming slang...Rubber duck...Truck? It's a long shot though. SteveBaker (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that a google on: "rubber duck" excavator; returns many hits, most (all?) being UK sites, often plant rental places. The vehicle datasheets do NOT include the word duck - so it looks very British. -- SGBailey (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the term must be in common british use - it's all over the place on UK construction and farming web sites. It certainly only refers to wheeled excavators - the almost identical machines that have tracks never seem to be called that. Anyway - I added a redirect and a disambiguation entry to Rubber duck (disambiguation) - plus a line (with reference) explaining this usage of the term in Excavator...none of which helps our OP. It sure would be nice to find the etymology. SteveBaker (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cloud

Does anyone know what thecloud.com is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elatanatari (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cloud (who own thecloud.com) is a company that operates WiFi hotspots at various places like cafe's and such. SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know who owns The Cloud?

No - but their main website is http://www.thecloud.net - (note ".net", not ".com" because they are a network). I presume the .com address (which demands username and password) is for users of the WiFi hotspots they provide. According to the "investors" tab, they are funded by five different venture capitalists. The company was founded by Niall Murphy and George Polk. Murphy is still on the board, Polk is not - it's not clear how much (if any) of the company they still own. SteveBaker (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

whois thecloud.com gives an address: The Cloud Networks Ltd, 54 Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7RY. —Tamfang (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are good.Elatanatari (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mascara

A friend of mine says that mascara contains guano. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.155.40 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mascara often contains guanine, which has no relation to guano. Guanine is one of the four nitrogen bases which make up the coding parts of DNA, but it has other uses too, for example, making cosmetics shiny. Tb (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's called guanine because it was first extracted from guano. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it is not usually currently extracted from guano. So yes, mascara contains an ingredient which also happens to exist in shit. But, then again, that same ingredient exists in every cell in your body. And the guanine in mascara is not currently obtained from shit, so you're OK. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the follow up question "Is it true that there is pee in pretzels/cigarettes/soap/moisturisers?". Nanonic (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's much more fun to point out that (according to our article) "guanine form by the polymerization of ammonium cyanide" - so people can go around claiming that it's not "guano" that's in mascara, it's "cyanide". SteveBaker (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They make perfume with whale vomit, so why not mascara with poop? --Sean 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! I'd forgotten about that one! Awesome. SteveBaker (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)