Miscellaneous desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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 22

Transmission

Manual transmission generally is more fuel efficient than automatic transmission. According to fueleconomy.gov, on most identical models with the same engine, just chosing the manual transmission instead of automatic will result in a car that is significantly more fuel effecient. So my question is, why hasn't somebody easily combined the advantages of both by putting a regular manual transmission in the car, and then make all of the clutching and shifting done completely automatically by a computer and some electro-machanical robotic arm?! It seems like a brilliant idea to me and I can't see how this would be prohibitively expensive to deveolop or have any other drawbacks.

Many automakers develop either "tiptronic" automatic transmission based systems with manual gear selection by the driver, or "semi-automatic" manual transmission systems which automatically apply the clutch. But that doesn't have the advantage of fully automatic cars and the fuel effeciency and lower cost of a manual gearbox.

So if nobody has invented this completely automatically controlled manual gearbox, why not??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto75780 (talk • contribs)

The major thing that a computer cannot do is anticipate what to do as well as a human. When you drive a manual transmission, you will upshift or downshift depending on what you plan to do, and there is no conceivable way a computer could do that, if it could it would do all the driving for you. For example, how can the computer know the difference between when you apply the brakes because you are approaching a stoplight vs. when you hit denser traffic, vs. when you are letting someone move over vs. when the speed limit drops, etc. Each of those situations is going to necessitate a different set of actions, yet all the computer knows is that you applied the brakes. Now, eventually its going to be able to tell (broadly) between stopping at a light and slowing down because you just spotted a cop, but not as fast as you will, because it can only react to what you do with the brake and accelerator, not predict how to handle all three pedals at once, as you do. --Jayron32 01:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Jayron has it exactly right there. The fuel consumption for manual gearshifting varies considerably depending on how far ahead the driver is anticipating conditions, and the fuel saving can easily be wiped out by bad driving. Also, you haven't considered the extra fuel required to operate the robotic arms (and leg?). Dbfirs 07:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been invented, see Direct-Shift Gearbox. BTW I'd be interested to know whether the "better fuel economy" for a manual transmission is with an average driver or a highly skilled one. I read an issue of Autocar many years ago when they got a number of "ordinary drivers" to accelerate from 0-60 in a manual transmission and auto-transmission Ford Granada. Whereas skilled drivers could easily accelerate faster in the manual than the automatic, few ordinary drivers could. From the lack of anticipation I have seen on the road I expect the same goes for fuel economy. -- Q Chris (talk)

You can even improve your fuel efficiency on an automatic cars by easing off the gas when the engine gets over 2000 rpm, causing the car to shift, and then applying the gas again slowly once it has done so. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improved fuel economy of manual transmission is completely dependant on skill, and by that, there is physical dexterity skill and also the mental knowledge, anticipation, common sense. while a robotic system can easily out perform average (but arguably not talented) drivers, it has no common sense and not even a basic knowledge of the driver's intention in the next few seconds, so it cannot work efficiently. it can still be done but it would be inferior and expensive compared to automatic transmission. none of the high tech inventions really do exactly what you described by the way. 209.90.184.10 (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the end of the world, what would be the most valued currency?

In the event of an appolytiptic scenarion, what would be the best currency in the case "money" (i.e. paper, gold, silver, etc) was deemed worthless? Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 04:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Id just assume everyone would be screaming for their lives and just grab the last bits of everything they couldAccdude92 (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets? Cigarettes? Food? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel? Antibiotics? Nuclear bombs? Attractive young women? (To be honest, it probably depends on the precise nature of the apocalypse; if the earth's climate suddenly becomes much cooler, then your needs are going to be very different from if there's armies of marauding zombies/aliens/giant ants.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex will still be nice to offer and receive. It will be not only for entertainment because if only a few humans survive they will need to protect their diminished gene pool from inbreeding. Another valuable item will be a dictionary that contains the correct spelling of "apocalyptic". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably still value my iPhone above all possessions and human interaction, even if lack of electricity means it's reduced to just being a smooth paperweight. Come to think of it, that happens every few hours now. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your location, water would also be pretty big. Basically, you would want to look for commidities that have a practical use or that can be used to defend your existing commodities. Based on Fallout (game), that appears to be a suit of power armor and a minigun, but your needs might be a little different. Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currency only has real, widespread value in a society where wealth needs to be stored. In a subsistence economy, where people are literally living day-to-day for their entire lives, currency has no use, and most people rely on a form of barter to get what they need. In the post-apocalyptic world, the only form of wealth you will have will be your own set of personal skills and abilities, and you will need to turn these skills into something you can trade for that which you cannot make for yourself. --Jayron32 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most useful 'currency'? Friendship, and the ability to work cooperatively. About the most apocalyptic, but survivable (as a species) scenario would involve a return to a hunter-gatherer existence, and we are fairly hopeless at this as individuals. Instead we'd have to organise into smallish roaming bands, where rather than using 'barter' (fairly useless where everyone has much the same resources available), we instead rely on the egalitarian cooperative spirit that worked so well for most of our existence, prior to the Neolithic revolution/cock-up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the last 5,000 years of human experience, that statement would need to be taken with a ton of salt. Speaking of salt, that would also be a useful currency as people need salt to live and it tastes good. Googlemeister (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't basing it on the last 5,000 years of human experience - I was basing it on the previous half-million or so. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the last 5,000 years is much better documented, so we have much better data on that period. Doesn't mean you are wrong, just that we have a lot grainier picture of the 500k BC to 3k BC so I choose to stick to what I know rather then taking a leap based on data that thin. Googlemeister (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what 'better documented' has to do with it. Humanity as a species has survived a heck of a lot longer as hunter-gathers than any other way, and I'd stated that the apocalypse had forced us to go back to hunter-gathering. All the evidence we have on this suggests that lifestyle is sustainable even with very small populations in a very hostile environment - and all the evidence suggests that we did it through small roaming cooperative bands for most of the time. So what exactly is it that you are disagreeing with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly the peace and flowers aspect. Whenever two groups of humans interact, conflict inherently is a result. Romanticizing about hunter-gatherer culture and lifestyles being egalitarian and cooperative is not all that accurate. Humans are prone to violence and this is demonstrated that in the last 2,000 years, there has probably not been a single year without war. I mean heck if humans were naturally non-violent and egalitarian, how the heck did we end up the way we are today? Googlemeister (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter-gatherer lifestyles are egalitarian and cooperative, within the group. This is well-documented. The violence you describe usually only happens when two groups meet. --Carnildo (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the last 2,000 years, there has probably not been a single year without war". Yup, that is one reason why the neolithic revolution may have been a mistake. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question for you and your smallish roaming band is "Which is better - to have rules and agree, or to hunt and kill?" Or did you mean this kind of band? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batteries. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't batteries go flat after a few years, even if you don't use them? Googlemeister (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy, and depending on the kind of apocalypse, LETS might be usable. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Most valued" mean in this context? The naive interpretation is "Most valuable" in which case it'd be much the same as it is today. I think an atomic bomb would be near the top of the list as would anything else relating to nuclear power. APL (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If people are still capable of trade, the world hasn't ended. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google street view question

How can you see the road beneath the Google street view car if the camera is mounted on a car?Accdude92 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a clear line of 'blur' when looking down I would suspect they use angle-images from before the car reaches that part and then stitch it all together to appear as though it was taken all at the same time. ny156uk (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those images could be automatically composited with images of the road underneath the camera car from the previous and/or next set of photographs. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i hate to say this, but you are all wrong. have you seen one of these things? its a specially outfitted car with many advanced cameras pointed in different directions. its quite a scene in and of itself and there are tricycle mounted versions to cover places of interest that cars cant even go. the final images you see on the website are digitally stitched from all the captured images and composited. 209.90.184.10 (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes one. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop Charger

Today, when I plugged in my laptop charger into the wall socket,I immediately heard a buzzing/crackling sound and smelt something burning. When I pulled the plug out, I saw the one of the three pins had become a bit blackened. I plugged it into another socket in another room, and the laptop recognised the charger and started charging itself as usual. So I guess my charger hasn't been damaged. It's working, right? Or is there something wrong that I should get fixed? Was the burning because of some problem with the charger, or the wall socket?? Will this have any future repurcussions on the life of my charger? 110.225.183.63 (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the sounds of it, one of the spring terminals in the plug socket is not performing well. The charger and its plug are probably okay. I doubt it'll have long term repercussions. The socket, however, could do with changing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which part became blackened. If it was the pins of the plug that fits in the wall socket, then it is probably as Tagishsimon describes above. However, if it was the low voltage plug that you plug into your laptop or the plug where the mains power cord plugs into the laptop's power pack, then it could be more serious. Astronaut (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to contract a professional before your house burns down. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get the wall socket replaced ASAP! Roger (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practise in a practice

I have just been reading the biographies of current and still living (though retired) justices of the US Supreme Court, and was (and remain)puzzled to see that the official website of the US Supreme Court repeatedly describes them as having practiced law in xxxxx Law Practices prior to appointment as Associate Justices. I live in the UK and have worked within the Scottish Judicial system and have always worked on the principle that lawyers and doctors and architects etc., practised their professional services within a practice. Is this not the case in the USA? 94.172.117.205 (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the US spelling is always practice, whether it's a verb or a noun. See American and British English spelling differences.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) No: this is just one of the many examples of well-established differences between American English and British English spelling conventions. [Says this UK former editor] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.107 (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the Justices need a licence to practise or is it the practice itself that's licensed? Sussexonian (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. They're not practicing when they're Justices. (It's not even required to be a lawyer to be appointed a Supreme Court Justice.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

appeal of snuff

I am curious as to the appeal of taking snuff recreationaly as its main function seems to cause the participant to sneeze. Do some people find sneezing entertaining or something? Googlemeister (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff is generally popular in contexts where smoking is prohibited - traditionally in the UK, among coal miners, and now in certain pubs. As I'm sure you realise, the sneezing is an undesirable but mild side-affect. Addiction and negative effects on health are far more serious, but there are plenty of people who haven't been discouraged from cigarette smoking as a result of them. Warofdreams talk 14:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but do snuff users get used to the nasal irritation and stop sneezing? I know that new smokers stop coughing after a few cigarettes. Astronaut (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff#Sneezing actually has a bit on this, but it is unreferenced. In the U.S., nasally inhaled snuff is essentially unknown, snuff is used as an alternate name for what is usually called dip, which is probably the most common form of "smokeless" tobacco, followed by Chewing tobacco. --Jayron32 17:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sometime user of snuff, I would report that the sneezing sensation is actually quite pleasurable. I once read that the nasal passages are made of the same sort of tissue as the penis and clitoris, and can become similarly engorged. That might explain something... --TammyMoet (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used inhaled snuff a few times years ago. It was rather pleasant. The sneezing wasn't bad, and the nicotine got into my system quite quickly. The only unfortunate effect I observed was that after a period of overuse there was a grating gooey mixture of tobacco and snot dripping the back way into my throat. PhGustaf (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Googlemeister (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my experience too. Using a bit too much is quite unpleasant, but once you figure out the right amount, it's a nice quick nicotine fix. Sure makes your snot look funny, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arm-R-Clad Safety Tempered

All of the windows in my school say Arm-R-Clad Safety Tempered by Hordis Bros Inc or Arm-R-Clad Safety Tempered by C-E Glass (the newer part of the building has the one's that say C-E Glass). Out of curiosity, I Googled it and it appears as if Hordis Brothers was swallowed up by HGP Industries (which was apparently later swallowed up by Oldcastle), and that C-E Glass stands for Combustion Engineering and they were swallowed up by Asea Brown Boveri, who was later swallowed up by Alstom. So my question is, what happened to the Arm-R-Clad brand and is it still being produced by someone? 64.31.57.3 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please advise w. social stuff, don't know where else to ask

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello, this is awkward, oh boy. I've got the social skills of a loaf of bread. if, say, I want to meet someone on the weekend (a co-patient at a therapeutic institution), and I suggest to meet at the library where I'm going to go to anyway, but that someone happens to be a member of the opposite sex, should I say in the e-mail I'm not trying to hit on them - which I really aren't, and I don't feel like getting the sack (being turned down) because of them thinking that I was and creeping them out. Why am I trying to arrange to meet a member of the opposite sex on the weekend in the first place? Well, I don't - actually, anyone else I know (who of them there are not many:) is unavailable - thus, any company would do and I know that the person frequents that library, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.2.154 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC) by therapeutic I meant mental.[reply]

I'm afraid that the Reference Desk guidelines state that we're here to help "find information relevant to questions posted by others." Your request seems to basically be asking for advice, and that advice is not recorded anywhere that we can direct you to. Perhaps you could get in touch with the Samaritans if you're in the UK, or their equivalent wherever you live, but we're not able to provide counselling here. Sorry. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samaritans? Do I sound that confused? Wow. But thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.117.148 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar questons have been answered before. OP, just say you will meet them at the library. Don't mention all the other stuff, keep it to yourself. Forget about them being another gender, just treat them like a friend of the same gender. However they may have different interests. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar questons have been answered before. Well that's unfortunate. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 12:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not interpret the guidelines as necessitating the closure of this discussion. I think it is unfortunate that a more lengthy discussion about approaching people during difficult social situations did not take place. I think 92.28's advice was sound and proper, and I hope if someone can expand on it they will. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP uses IP addresses in Germany which is beyond the range of the UK Samaritans. For one who is reticent about approaching an individual stranger, there is the easier alternative of joining almost any group that has a shared interest. Such groups include clubs, churches, volunteer organisations, etc. Acquaintances grow naturally from shared activity. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Samaritans are people you ring if you are feeling suicidal. As the OP indicates, not appropriate to him. 2.97.216.222 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple myeloma

I am diagnosed with multiple myeloma by a local oncologist that is treating me with oral medication "alkeran". I would like to recveive an e-mail with information about alkeran (pills), and all other oral medications used for multiople myeloma patients including old as well as new, and meds. Still in testing phase waiting approval for human usage,with males. I am 78 years old,caucasian, ljving in florida for >40 years. Of cause, the answers in response to this inquiry will be interpreted in non-specific general areas of cancer patient treatments. Thank you, THANK YOU, <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.237.166 (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I redacted your e-mail address to discourage spam. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on that drug at Melphalan, and a decent article on Multiple myeloma as well as most major cancer treament drugs. We cannot offer medical advice or a comparative analysis of the various drugs, but you can probably get the information you need by reading the articles on the drugs. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukraine

Where does the "the" in its name come from? Unlike the US, the UK, and the Netherlands, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason for adding it. --134.10.114.238 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word means the border(land). See Ukraine#etymology μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the region formerly known as "The Ukraine" split off from the old Soviet Union, it declared its preference for dropping the article, and the country is now properly called simply Ukraine.[1]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What ever became of the grand plan to have Ref Desk FAQs - because this one would definitely be in the top 20 (along with related questions about The Gambia, The Lebanon, The Argentine ...). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And believe it or not, there have been grand old, repeated and protracted, Wikipedia fights over the definite article in almost all of those, as I found over several years editing The Bronx. See Talk:The Bronx/Name, Talk:The Bahamas, Talk:The Gambia, Talk:Netherlands, Talk:The Hague, Talk:Ukraine, Talk:Lebanon, Talk:Yemen, Talk:Sudan, Talk:Strand, London, Talk:Witwatersrand, etc., not forgetting to check their archives which are sometimes almost entirely devoted to lengthy discussions of the definite article over long periods of time. One long-time editor of [The] Bronx marvelled at how much heated (though usually civil) debate and renaming had occurred over three small letters. (I don't know about Talk:The Argentine, which is apparently about a film, or the very-dated and quite ambiguous Talk:The Soviet.) In short, an FAQ couldn't begin to address the different situations and how they've been addressed here. If Ukraine means "Marches" or "Borderland", I think the same arguments would apply to The Voivodina. [I'm an old-fashioned sort who still says Munich, Zurich, Venice, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Naples, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Colombo, Burma, Canton, even Peking, so I think we should follow English usage, sense and meaning for The Ukraine and The Voivodina, but this is hardly the place to reignite any of those debates.] —— Shakescene (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want sensible place-names, the English language isn't the place to look for them. We can't even give our own places sensible names sometimes. A prime example is the delightful (but tautological) Warwickshire village of Napton-on-the-Hill - that's hilltop-town-on-the-hill, as the etymologists will tell you. I think Ukrainians are lucky to get away with nothing more than a surplus definite article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, don't forget "Hill-hill-hill Hill", though I've just discovered that's apparently a rural myth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have more than a section in the Ukraine article, we also have an entire article on the Name of Ukraine. None of these articles deal with the reason for the use of the "The" in the name, however. Its odd, since other countries in the area don't take it (its not "The Belarus"), and its never been part of the name in Ukrainian or Russian either. Part of it probably comes from the fact that the countries which traditionally take "the" in the name were regions before they were independent states, and the "the" carried over after they became sovereign. For example "The Sudan" originally refered to the entire area of Africa immediately south of the Sahara Desert and the Sahel (see Sudan (region)), so besides the two countries today which use Sudan in the name, you also had French Sudan which is an old name of Mali, The names of "The Gambia" and "The Congo" derived from the territories around the eponymous rivers. The Netherlands literally means "the low country" and they were called that long before they were ever independent, refering just in general to the low tidal flats that make up most of the region. --Jayron32 04:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... its never been part of the name in Ukrainian or Russian ... - that's a bit of a non-sequitur, Jayron. It couldn't have been part of the name in Russian, because Russian contains neither definite nor indefinite articles. I'm almost sure that's true for Ukrainian too, but maybe a ukrainophone can confirm. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Russian and Ukrainian don't have definative articles (they are very closely related languages) so it does add some mystery as to why the English version of the name would add it. My suspicion is that it came into English through French; during the time when Russia was becoming a major world player was also the time of Francophilia in Russia, and since French tends to add the definite article to every noun, even country names (la France, la Russie, les Pays-Bas), the actual name of the Ukraine in French is always properly written as l'Ukraine because French always puts definitive articles before country names in all contexts. --Jayron32 16:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Just that "never been part of the name" sort of suggests the choice has always been there to include an article but they chose not to do so. Whereas, as we both agree, it's not even theoretically possible in these languages to have articles. (Btw, may I advise you that articles are not definitive, but definite or indefinite. Or partitive or negative or zero.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely take that under advisement, and make a definitive decision on how to handle that at a later date. --Jayron32 18:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting data on usage in English over time via Google Ngrams Viewer: in the Ukraine vs. in Ukraine, of the Ukraine vs. of Ukraine.

Additionally, the "name of Ukraine" article points out that there is an analogous usages regarding whether you say "in Ukraine" vs. "on Ukraine" for indicating whether something is happening in Ukraine. In English, the "on" would definitely imply a definite article that is used for geographical features rather than places (you go "on the Potomac" or "on the plains" not "in", unless you are swimming or digging, I suppose). In Ukrainian, it used to be "on", but since its independence it has switched to "in". --Mr.98 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayron. English tends to use "the" for regions -- "The South," "The Vendée," "The Triangle," etc. Ukraine had pretty much always been a region of a larger country. It was this "regional" association that I'm guessing brought Ukraine to ask the world to stop calling it "The Ukraine" in the early 1990s. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still talk about "The Crimea", but we never say "The Siberia". I wonder why not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Crimea is a peninsula; I don't know without looking what Siberia means. Often the definite article comes in when referring to a geographical or physical feature that's also a place, such as the 'Rand (the Witwatersrand), The Wash, The Lizard, The Wrekin, The Dalles, The Scillies, etc. Wikipedia discourages initial definite or indefinite articles because they can complicate searches and alphabetic order. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example, fwiw, The Volcano. Pfly (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]