Miscellaneous desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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.

November 18

optaining a copy of Frank Porter Stainberrys Americas 2020 by telephone to avoid giving up my credit card number on this computer.

My telephone number is [redacted], Harold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.73.186 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want to? See Porter Stansberry, this review of the product, and get-rich-quick scheme. Obtaining the product legally requires membership of Mr Stansberry's organization, which will mean they have your credit card details. Tevildo (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very old story: A guy sees a newspaper ad, "Send me a dollar and I'll tell you how I make money." I've got a hunch you can guess the punch line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have half a mind to attend this guy's $800 seminar on how to make money to tell him he scammed me out of a dollar! FrameDrag (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Clio versions and wheel compatibility

Are all 15 inch renault clio steel wheels compatible across the Mark 2 and the Mark 3 models? Visually, they look the same and there's 4 nuts but I just want to be sure before purchasing and I'm not sure where to find this information out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indecent exposure

There are several youtube channels (see here) of men based in the UK and USA who wear sweat pants in a manner that shows the outline of their genitals on public transport. They purposefully seek out a sexual response out of women. Why does UK and US law enforcement not see this as a form of indecent exposure? 80.43.232.135 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be considered lewd conduct or sexual harassment in some jurisdictions, or perhaps sexual bullying. Just because people can get away with it doesn't mean it is strictly legal. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that they don't consider it indecent exposure? Few laws are enforced 100% of the time. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole concept of "indecent exposure" has been tainted ever since some lunatic judge ruled that the entirety of a woman's breasts - except for the nipple - can be safely exposed without incurring the wrath of the law. Dolly Parton, you go, girl! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These videos have a million views and the creators can be identified quite easily. This to me means police are fine with it. Or would fit as an unenforced law? 80.43.232.135 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on the sentence you say that begins with "This to me means..." --Jayron 32 00:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many women wear clothes that show the outline (sometimes more) of their breasts. Is that indecent exposure? 178.104.65.199 (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Entertainment Tonight sometime and see how they place those big red ribbons on pictures of celebrity show-offs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia families

Aside from royals, what family has the most members with Wikipedia articles? (I realize the definition of family can vary.) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bach family with 33 articles must be up there. See Category:Families for more. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other families, such as the Astor family with 73 articles, seem to be bigger, but on closer inspection, not all of the entries are about human beings, and others are people closely associated with the Astors rather than being members of the family per se. The core Astors may still outrank the Bachs, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did they toss in Asta ? StuRat (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The Category:Du Pont family has 55 articles, and they're all about people, from what I can tell; and most are direct descendants of Éleuthère Irénée du Pont. Spot checking, I can find one or two in the category who are associated by marriage, but that still gives us a ballpark of 50 or so articles, more than the Bachs, but possibly not more than the Astors. --Jayron 32 21:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kennedy family has 79 articles, and probably 10-20 or so seem to (at first inspection) be about either non-people or married in (Peter Lawford, the Governator). That gives us around 60-70 articles about direct descendants of Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858). --Jayron 32 21:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roosevelt family has 97 articles, and assuming roughly the same ratio of non-family member articles, that leaves more articles in that category. Nicholas Roosevelt (1658–1742) being the patriarch of the family. --Jayron 32 21:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rothschild family has 140 articles. --Jayron 32 21:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rockefeller family has 89 articles. --Jayron 32 21:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Also ,the House of Borgia (Category:House_of_Borgia), although some in the family did hold high titles. - Lindert (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(note without apprehension: this family can't compete yet. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The "single family" referred to in the first paragraph of Adam and Eve necessarily has more members (and thus articles about them) then any other. 58.7.131.57 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category: House of Saud must be a contender, with roughly 171 articles on individuals by hasty visual count. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is the house of Saud not royals/a royal family? Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my bad: I forgot the OP's original stipulation (which in the future might come to disqualify the Kennedys :-)). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that kind of lux just ain't for them, they crave a different kind of buzz?--Jayron 32 15:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not too strict on the definition of "royalty", the various articled members of the Category:Iulii and Category:Julio-Claudian dynasty number well over 300. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except under most understandings, the Roman Emperor was a Monarch, and the Patrician class was a pretty good analogue for the later nobility... --Jayron 32 19:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that, and acknowledged "if we are not too strict on the definition of 'royalty'", but the imperial families also rejected the title of rex, "king", which is the root of the French word "royal". Also, I doubt that most of the over 300 people under those categories were actual monarchs. And given the Medici and Borgia popes, then we'd have to exclude them too. It's up to the OP to decide his criteria. I think the information is interesting. If we strictly reject anyone with links to nobility, who will we have left? The Huxleys, Adamses, Bushes, Darwins and Barrymores? μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rex by any other name... --Jayron 32 13:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can scrub the Barrymores, they're too royal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I assumed that the Huxleys and the Darwins were probably noble at some point as well. And I know that the Bushes as well as Obama are distant cousins to royalty. Their distant relation to British royalty is always brought up any time we have a new presidential dynasty. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there sites selling glasses to Americans on the "honor system"?

They don't ask for a prescription (the paper) or a jpg of it, they just want the numbers (e.g. -10 sphere left -11 sphere right 65mm between the eyeballs). I thought that was only allowed for reading glasses. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone know their numbers if they didn't have a prescription? Also, prescriptions for glasses are far different than prescriptions for drugs. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can even buy reading glasses with different prescriptions off a rack. I am not sure why Americans shouldn't be allowed to order whatever they want to pay for. The only relevant issue would be when there's a third party payer--then you'll need a doctor's note if you want insurance to cover the cost of the new glasses. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Many drug stores like CVS and Rite-Aid carry reading glasses on a rack. You can try them on and see which work for you. They're fairly cheap too from what I recall. So, if you know your prescription, possibly you already have one pair but don't want to pay regular eye care prices for a second pair, then you can order the glasses that you're referring to. Dismas|^(talk) 21:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, positive diopters would be the last thing I'd need. I see that 10x loupes are $2 and 60x LED loupes are $3 so they're not even good as microscopes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that glasses makers will typically not make you distance-vision glasses (negative diopters) or corrections for astigmatism without a prescription. I think this may be for liability reasons rather than any specific legal proscription. Presumably reading glasses (positive diopters with no cylindrical correction) are considered less of a liability risk, because you generally don't put on reading glasses to drive a car. Perhaps these websites SMW has found have evaluated the lawsuit risk and decided that it's acceptable. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not lawsuit risk, it's entirely illegal in many states. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Do you know which states? Maybe the websites operate in different ones, or overseas.... --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly California; I didn't research much further than gleaning that only 22 states require opticians to be licensed professionals. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prescription proscriptions are properly called parascriptions. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If John Daly is allowed to buy (and wear in public) these golf pants,[1] Americans are allowed to buy poor glasses to mitigate the full impact of their ghastliness. (The same applies to Canadians, only we have Don Cherry.) Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I solve this problem by this one weird trick I call "not watching golf", which has the added advantage of reducing boredom. --Trovatore (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Aha! That must surely qualify as the latest and best "life hack". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]