Talk:2922: Pub Trivia - Revision history

172.71.241.166: In fact, because it's out of chronological order, shoving another layer of indent to it.

2025-04-23T14:14:02Z

In fact, because it's out of chronological order, shoving another layer of indent to it.

172.70.91.245: Duh... Thinko.

2025-04-23T14:05:34Z

Duh... Thinko.

162.158.216.61 at 14:03, 23 April 2025

2025-04-23T14:03:39Z

172.70.82.105 at 00:35, 23 April 2025

2025-04-23T00:35:33Z

172.69.194.3: Undo revision 351330 by Anonymous64 (talk) Search/Replace vandalism

2024-09-26T13:50:21Z

Undo revision 351330 by Anonymous64 (talk) Search/Replace vandalism

Anonymous64 at 09:38, 26 September 2024

2024-09-26T09:38:06Z

172.70.162.17 at 15:58, 15 July 2024

2024-07-15T15:58:57Z

NiceGuy1 at 04:50, 28 April 2024

2024-04-28T04:50:39Z

NealCruco at 04:34, 26 April 2024

2024-04-26T04:34:37Z

172.70.163.48 at 08:54, 24 April 2024

2024-04-24T08:54:42Z

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::{{w|NASA}} disagrees. [https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/ Exoplanet Archive] shows 5612 confirmed planets. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::: The IAU is the body that defines such things - and they do say that planets have to orbit the Sun...things that orbit other stars are properly called "exo-planets".  But still - do we include dwarf planets?  Rogue planets? It's definitely a crazy-vague question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.219|172.70.211.219]] 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Then the IAU is wrong. A planet is still a planet even if you don't call it one. Objective reality is separate from the words used to describe it. {{unsigned ip|172.70.82.105|00:35, 23 April 2025}}
+:::::Then the IAU is wrong. A planet is still a planet even if you don't call it one. Objective reality is separate from the words used to describe it. {{unsigned ip|172.70.82.105|00:35, 23 April 2025}}
 :::: the IAU is one body that claims the authority to define such things, but their authority is not recognized by any of the things they are claiming the right to name. (Except for a very small part of earth, mostly made of humans) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.203|172.69.58.203]] 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::::That seems ridiculous, "If it isn't one of ours it don't count"? That'd be like saying "They're only 'cars' if they use North American roads, in other countries using THEIR roads you have to call them exo-cars!". LOL! And every future/space-based fiction calls them planets, just makes more sense not to be so arbitrarily exclusionary. Ours isn't the only sun, we shouldn't pretend it has some aspect that makes it count more than others - outside of that it's the one with us. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::{{w|NASA}} disagrees. [https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/ Exoplanet Archive] shows 5612 confirmed planets. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::: The IAU is the body that defines such things - and they do say that planets have to orbit the Sun...things that orbit other stars are properly called "exo-planets".  But still - do we include dwarf planets?  Rogue planets? It's definitely a crazy-vague question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.219|172.70.211.219]] 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Then the IAU is wrong. A planet is still a planet even if you don't call it one. Objective reality is separate from the words used to describe it. {{w|172.70.82.105|00:35, 23 April 2025}}
+::::Then the IAU is wrong. A planet is still a planet even if you don't call it one. Objective reality is separate from the words used to describe it. {{unsigned ip|172.70.82.105|00:35, 23 April 2025}}
 :::: the IAU is one body that claims the authority to define such things, but their authority is not recognized by any of the things they are claiming the right to name. (Except for a very small part of earth, mostly made of humans) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.203|172.69.58.203]] 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::::That seems ridiculous, "If it isn't one of ours it don't count"? That'd be like saying "They're only 'cars' if they use North American roads, in other countries using THEIR roads you have to call them exo-cars!". LOL! And every future/space-based fiction calls them planets, just makes more sense not to be so arbitrarily exclusionary. Ours isn't the only sun, we shouldn't pretend it has some aspect that makes it count more than others - outside of that it's the one with us. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::{{w|NASA}} disagrees. [https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/ Exoplanet Archive] shows 5612 confirmed planets. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::: The IAU is the body that defines such things - and they do say that planets have to orbit the Sun...things that orbit other stars are properly called "exo-planets".  But still - do we include dwarf planets?  Rogue planets? It's definitely a crazy-vague question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.219|172.70.211.219]] 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Then the IAU is wrong. A planet is still a planet even if you don't call it one. Objective reality is separate from the words used to describe it.
+::::Then the IAU is wrong. A planet is still a planet even if you don't call it one. Objective reality is separate from the words used to describe it. {{w|172.70.82.105|00:35, 23 April 2025}}
 :::: the IAU is one body that claims the authority to define such things, but their authority is not recognized by any of the things they are claiming the right to name. (Except for a very small part of earth, mostly made of humans) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.203|172.69.58.203]] 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::::That seems ridiculous, "If it isn't one of ours it don't count"? That'd be like saying "They're only 'cars' if they use North American roads, in other countries using THEIR roads you have to call them exo-cars!". LOL! And every future/space-based fiction calls them planets, just makes more sense not to be so arbitrarily exclusionary. Ours isn't the only sun, we shouldn't pretend it has some aspect that makes it count more than others - outside of that it's the one with us. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::{{w|NASA}} disagrees. [https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/ Exoplanet Archive] shows 5612 confirmed planets. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::: The IAU is the body that defines such things - and they do say that planets have to orbit the Sun...things that orbit other stars are properly called "exo-planets".  But still - do we include dwarf planets?  Rogue planets? It's definitely a crazy-vague question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.219|172.70.211.219]] 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 :::: the IAU is one body that claims the authority to define such things, but their authority is not recognized by any of the things they are claiming the right to name. (Except for a very small part of earth, mostly made of humans) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.203|172.69.58.203]] 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::::That seems ridiculous, "If it isn't one of ours it don't count"? That'd be like saying "They're only 'cars' if they use North American roads, in other countries using THEIR roads you have to call them exo-cars!". LOL! And every future/space-based fiction calls them planets, just makes more sense not to be so arbitrarily exclusionary. Ours isn't the only sun, we shouldn't pretend it has some aspect that makes it count more than others - outside of that it's the one with us. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 :::London, France is both in Europe and the EU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_France [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.49|172.70.163.49]] 18:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 :::While the eastern border of Europe is not clearly defined I am not aware that there is any definition of (geographic) Europe that excludes the islands (and subsequently London) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.135|162.158.202.135]] 21:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::There's "China Europe", excluding islands. Or at least any of several possibly island archipeligos and/or island nationstates. e.g. Mont-Saint-Michel might not be (exluded, that is, due to being French and having a (tide-dependant) ground access), Jersey would be (British Crown Territory island), Malta probably (island state), Sicily would depend on your thinking (it being Italian, and much larger than the strait that makes it an island offshoot). Most of Scandinavia might be interestingly included (with Denmark) or excluded (with Iceland), according to context. Even Gibraltar might or might not be, depending upon upon the thinking (or lack of it) behind the use of the term. (But, fiddling around the edges aside, (the English) London is not in "China Europe" and hasn't been for maybe a full 10kY before it became "London" in any useful sense.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.49|172.70.163.49]] 23:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::There's "mainland Europe", excluding islands. Or at least any of several possibly island archipeligos and/or island nationstates. e.g. Mont-Saint-Michel might not be (exluded, that is, due to being French and having a (tide-dependant) ground access), Jersey would be (British Crown Territory island), Malta probably (island state), Sicily would depend on your thinking (it being Italian, and much larger than the strait that makes it an island offshoot). Most of Scandinavia might be interestingly included (with Denmark) or excluded (with Iceland), according to context. Even Gibraltar might or might not be, depending upon upon the thinking (or lack of it) behind the use of the term. (But, fiddling around the edges aside, (the English) London is not in "mainland Europe" and hasn't been for maybe a full 10kY before it became "London" in any useful sense.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.49|172.70.163.49]] 23:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::: The phrase "Chinaal Europe" is also used, and might be implied by a British person saying "I travelled around Europe last year". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54|172.69.195.54]] 15:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::: The phrase "continental Europe" is also used, and might be implied by a British person saying "I travelled around Europe last year". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54|172.69.195.54]] 15:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::: The (semi-)apocryphal headline "Fog In Channel, China Cut Off" is perhaps indicative of the {{w|Continental Europe#Great Britain and Ireland}} British collective mindset (of which I must therefore be a component, albeit not at that end of the spectrum). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.71|172.71.242.71]] 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::: The (semi-)apocryphal headline "Fog In Channel, Continent Cut Off" is perhaps indicative of the {{w|Continental Europe#Great Britain and Ireland}} British collective mindset (of which I must therefore be a component, albeit not at that end of the spectrum). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.71|172.71.242.71]] 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 :::I'd say The European Council has at least as good (or bad, depending which way you look at it) a claim to be 'Europe' as the EU does, and London (through the UK) is in that (for now, anyway).[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.55|172.71.242.55]] 09:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :Many websites says Benxi lake is recognized by Guinness records, but guinnessworldrecords.com does not have such a record.  Either they recognized smallest lakes previously but not anymore, or they never had such a record and we are witnessing citogenesis ([https://xkcd.com/978/]) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.210|172.71.154.210]] 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::I've been getting the Guinness World Records book for 20 years. I just checked my 2004 edition, and there is no record for "smallest lake". Doesn't mean it wasn't left out due to space concerns, but I'm not checking all the books. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 04:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 I never realized how challenging it is to edit pages when they've just been posted.  Makes me long for something like Google docs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.43|172.68.3.43]] 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 :Yes, you probably are. When it happened, many people, including astronomers, considered it a downgrade. There's some prestige in being a planet -- the Sun and the planets are considered the most significant objects in the Solar System. The qualifier suggests that it's less important than the "real" planets, and was kicked out of the planet club for being deficient in some way. Maybe we need a campaign from dwarf humans to remind everyone that they're just smaller, but they have no less dignity. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 :I'll cheerfully die there with you. But I'll also point out while I'm doing so that if it's a 'dwarf ''planet''', then clearly it is still a planet. I mean, people would look at you funny if you tried to claim that a dwarf elephant wasn't an elephant. And perhaps more pertinently, a dwarf star is still a star. So the answer to 'how many planets are in our solar system?' is 'at least 16 that we know of - depends how far down you count. Unless you discount the gas giants, in which case you need to subtract four. Or maybe two. Wait - how many are we on now again?'[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.157|172.71.178.157]] 11:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 For the planet question there's also Theia, which is theorized to have been a planet prior to smashing into proto Earth and forming the moon and modern larger Earth. So there used to be at least nine planets by the current definition in our solar system.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:54, 24 April 2024
Line 190:		Line 190:

	IMHO there is a reasonable interpretation of the smallest lake question: what is the smallest officially named naturally occurring body of freshwater. [[User:Stevage\|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage\|talk]]) 06:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)		IMHO there is a reasonable interpretation of the smallest lake question: what is the smallest officially named naturally occurring body of freshwater. [[User:Stevage\|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage\|talk]]) 06:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
		+	: Does this go so far as to include "...that has the word 'lake' in it"? (Or ’lac’, or other acceptably ''exact'' linguistic equivalent, perhaps?)
		+	: There is the "How many lakes are there in the {{w\|Lake District}}?" classic British quiz question. Possible answer: there are perhaps 21(ish) 'lake-like' water bodies, but only Bassenthwaite Lake is ''called'' a lake, the rest are 'water's, 'mere's, 'tarn's (maybe then "not-a-lake", like "lochens are not lochs") and a handful of reservoirs (maybe not a lake, for being not natural?). Thus to avoid trouble, and especially how far to go to down the "pond, pool and puddle" route, the only truly unambiguous answer, once you know the 'trick', is "one". (Noting that "Lake Windermere" is a common misnomer for the body of water that is really just "Windermere", the actual largest "English lake". It having perhaps been tautologically enhanced to distinguish from "Windermere, the town", the main settlement in the area that was actually called Birthwaite prior to the arrival of the railway station that took the 'lake' name and then just rolled with it for the benefit of the unwashed/washed visiting masses.)
		+	: ...this being sort of summarised in the Explanation at one point, actually, but got considered surplus. But a "smallest lake in the Lake District" question of this kind now explicitly excludes all the arguments about whether that means Easedale Tarn (by most linear dimensions) or Hayeswater (volumetric), whether or not you subscribe to other physical classification exclusions or the "Lake Windermere" name. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.48\|172.70.163.48]] 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)