Revision as of 15:05, 8 April 2017

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/L

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 2

Origins of habitual be in AAVE

Doesn't the contrast, typical of AAVE, between is (in AAVE, generalised to all persons and numbers, and dropped under many circumstances) and be look like it was inherited straight from older forms of English? Old English definitely has a contrast between is/earon and beo/beon (beon can express a gnomic present, a future or a repeated state or action), and I thought this contrast had survived at least into Early Modern English (cf. the powers that be) – although this (gnomic/habitual) be is often misinterpreted as a subjunctive or simply described as an "alternative form" without a clear or explicitly stated semantic contrast –, and even into various modern dialects in Britain. It may have been preserved in American English dialects too at least into the 19th century, especially in Older Southern American English, and hence in AAVE. Possibly, it has simply been assumed that the contrast became obsolete already in Middle English and has not survived longer anywhere in English without actually scrutinising written and dialectal evidence closely for remainders of the contrast. However, possibly there are investigations into the subject after all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that for several such features there have been competing explanations deriving them from historical British dialects on the one hand and African and/or creolization influences on the other. I haven't really read anything about this for 20 years or so, so I don't have any references to hand... AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you find other Middle or Early Modern uses of "be" in this sense, uses in a text that originates in English? I'm not sure about Tyndale, but KJV tends to follow the original languages rather slavishly (a stark example being Amos 4:6, "I also have given you cleanness of teeth", which is talking about teeth that are clean because they have no food to chew in time of famine, not the results of using a toothbrush), and I'm wondering whether "be" were used here because "the powers that be" would be seen as normal English, or if the translators considered "the powers that exist" unacceptable and couldn't find any other English word that would make any sense at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend -- with "powers that be", the question is presumably why it wasn't "powers that are"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"The powers that are what?" is the response this passage might get. Be doesn't necessarily demand a following noun or adjective, but are basically does, and using it in the sense of "the powers that exist" (which, after all, is the context in this passage) would be exceptional and might cause confusion. Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it; the absolute or existential sense of "to be" (e.g. "I think therefore I am") was more prominent in the 17th century than it is now, and I don't know why its plausibility would depend on finite "be" vs. finite "are" being the form used. AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

EO talks about this. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Baseball_Bugs -- at least in my browser, that URL turns up a long page of miscellaneous stuff, with only a brief mention of "the powers that be" about half-way down (where the verb is misleadingly glossed as "first person plural present indicative" -- most would consider it third person ). AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"Powers that be" is mentioned twice, and one of them says that the expression comes from "Romans xiii.1" - specifically, this: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in Albion's Seed, which is not hyperfocused on language but does have a portion on how this use of "be" was common in the southwest of England and made its way to those parts of America that were settled by people from that region (i.e. the South). -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it comes from slaves learning a Pidgin form of English when they arrived in America, with separate words to indicate tense preceding the verb Sheila1988 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Be is a somewhat archaic subjunctive with the meaning "whatever may be". RP speakers have largely lost this, resulting in such absurdities as "I insist that he is here on time!" Hence the suspicion that "the powers that be" is special. But it's the original term, meaning whatever powers may be. The loss of this in RP is the innovation.

Baseball Bugs' examples "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers--i.e., whatever powers that exist--that be are ordained of God show that the usage is subjunctive. You simply can't say "the powers that is" or "whatever the truth may is."

@JackofOz: as a non-American who understands the subjunctive. (I should also admit, plenty of Americans are losing competence in the subjective.) μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You rang? -- Jack of Oz 21:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, sexy, Lurch! I thought you might agree that "whoever is in power" would regard an actual fact, while "whoever be in power" would refer to a possibility, or a counterfactual, not an actual fact. I was looking for an educated non-English, non-American, assuming you be one. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I do be such an one.

I agree with what you're saying, but I allow some leeway in what is sometimes ludicrously called the "real world". Thus: I am a humble civil servant. I serve the government of the day, regardless of its politics or policies. Whoever be may be in power in a month, a year or a decade's time, I will be serving them, my health permitting. -- Jack of Oz 22:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A little off-target, I think. Counterfactuals (which are not merely "not actual facts", but are actually not facts) are expressed by the past subjunctive (which is morphologically different from the simple past only in a single word, were, used in the first- and third-person singular). What we have here is the present subjunctive, used not to deny the factuality of the clause but merely to remove it from the assertative import of the sentence. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have little interest in targets. I prefer the surrounding undergrowth.  :) -- Jack of Oz 01:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Medeis -- to most literate educated English speakers in the 18th and 19th centuries, the wording "powers that be" would strongly suggest a subjunctive reading, but this is not present in the original Greek of Romans 13:1, ἁι δε ουσαι, quasi-literally "those...existing" (here ουσαι is a female plural participle of to be, whose occurrence between two indicative verbs does not suggest any non-indicative interpretation). AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Does anyone want to explain what AAVE is? I be wondering... DuncanHill (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  African American Vernacular English. --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Thank ee kindly zur. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a strawman argument here. You can't say "the powers that is" or "whatever the truth may is" because the first construction requires the use of the plural and the second requires the use of the infinitive. The subjunctive has nothing to do with it. 86.147.208.18 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

April 3

When were the racial terms derived?

When I look at old photographs from the 19th century, I see all black and white, and the people are literally black and white. When I see people in the real world, they are not black and white. They are in full color. White people don't have white skin. They have a range of skin colors - from brownish to very light beige. Sometimes, albino people exist. Black people rarely have black skin. They have some variation of brown - light brown, dark brown, very dark brown. When were the racial terms derived? Who made up these terms in the first place? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

18th century, at least. See Historical race concepts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that color photography's then-experimental and rare nature, combined with the still-prevalent contrast problems made people look lighter or darker than they really were. Even today, it's ridiculously easy to mess up contrast and push middle tones out toward extreme edges. I'm a white guy living in China. When supposedly-professional photographers around here use the same techniques and settings on me that they use on everyone else around here, I end up looking like a meth-addled ghost who needs some lotion. In America, my ID photos still look like mugshots, but at least I look like I do in the mirror and not look like Andy Serkis's Gollum in a Shaggy Rogers costume. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Since color photography was experimental and rare even in the late 19th century, it seems safe to assume that the original poster is talking about black and white photography.

I think it's a plausible hypothesis that in the time when those photos were taken, the distribution of skin colors in the general population was different than today. This might depend on what country the original poster is looking at photos from. The US (in many states) and South Africa immediately come to mind as places where interracial marriage used to be prohibited until well into the 20th century; and where it wasn't prohibited, it may still have been unpopular. So you would expect more people to be either purely "white" (nothern European ancestry) or "black" (e.g. African ancestry) in the 19th century than now. However, the concept of race has been applied differently in different countries. When Trevor Noah came to US television, he said something to the effect that "in this country I finally know what I am, I'm black." In South Africa the marriage of his parents had been illegal and he was not considered black.

However, saying that the range of skin colors may have been different is just a hypothesis: I don't have actual data. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to the title question, White people#Modern racial hierarchies says The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade and the enslavement of native peoples in the Spanish Empire. . Loraof (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

According to www.etymonline.com, red for Native Americans, 1580s; colored for nonwhites, first attested in 1610s; black persons, African, at least from 1620s (and perhaps since late 13th century, and blackamoor from the 1540s); yellow for Asians 1787; high yellow 1808; white for Europeans, 1828. —Stephen (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The semantic range of some of these terms has also shifted. There's an probably-never-to-be-resolved debate as to whether Shakespeare's Othello, who is described repeatedly as "black", was meant to be black as we think of it now (sub-Saharan African), or rather Arab. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

In Shakespeare's day and afterwards, "black" was commonly be used to describe people in Britain who were racially white, but had dark hair and perhaps a slightly "swarthy" skin color (as opposed to those who were "fair" and had light-colored hair) -- much the same as "dark" in "tall, dark and handsome" in the 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Some English-American writers, especially in New England, referred to the skin color of Native Americans as "black" from the 17th well into the 18th centuries. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We also refer to "white wine" and "red wine", even though red wine is rarely red and white wine is never white. -- Jack of Oz 21:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's quite an important point. In English (and I suspect other languages) it is extremely common to simplify colours when used in names. E.g. "red" or "yellow" ochre (which might more accurately be described as reddish and yellowish brown); white/red/black grapes (actually green, purple, and very dark purple); bluestone generally looks pretty grey and only appears blue (if at all) in comparison to greyer rocks; a robin's breast is more orange than red; etc. Iapetus (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wardog -- I think that "robin blue" is usually supposed to be short for Robin egg blue... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

An unrelated bird though AnonMoos; see American robin and British robin. Alansplodge (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood what he was saying anyway; he was actually alluding to the phrase "Robin redbreast", it seems... AnonMoos (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It gets very confusing having unrelated blackbirds and robins on either side of the Atlantic. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of photographs and racism, this may be of interest. Matt Deres (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

April 4

Why do we have Misplaced Pages?

why do we have wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E007:143:1:CE5:60EB:DABE:6AF9 (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages for some insight. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

When an encyclopedia and a wiki love each other very very much ... —Tamfang (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the wiki went way too fast for the encyclopedia, but they found a way to make it work (the encyclopedia would just close it's eyes and think of Britannica). StuRat (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

How can such a glaring spelling error be made in Supergirl?

Check Supergirl.S02E11.png. I cringed when I saw this. How can this pass their editorial and QA process? Sandman1142 (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

wikt:deadline and Time limit are probably relevant. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comparatively less glaring, but it reminds me of this shot from Captain America: Civil War, where they obviously used a word processing program that couldn't connect Arabic letters properly. All that money down the drain! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Adam Bishop -- see the history of File:Ramadhan_Greetings_Image.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the older version even has the same letters. —Tamfang (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Both have ر م ض ا ن, but in an ornamental font unconnected left-to-right in the first-uploaded version, and in a simple book font connected right-to-left in the current version. AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I see this mis-rendering of Arabic (disconnected LTR letters) very often: on tourist postcards, Chinese toy tags, web stock images, and most recently, in a presentation by a Cambridge professor of linguistics. --31.168.171.66 (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I was having a lot of difficulty figuring out what that was supposed to be for least 15 seconds, when it suddenly occurred to me, "Of course, marħaba!" -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

These things happen. There was a famous movie in the 1970s called Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The original soundtrack album had a track called "The Appearance of the Vistors". Later issues changed it to "Visitors". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not the only misprint on that record cover, either. --Viennese Waltz 06:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "seige" instead of "siege", for one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Back in the 70s they had to use dictionaries. Now they have spell chequers (sic), at least ;) Sandman1142 (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I spent a while looking at your image, trying to work out what is wrong with it - it looks correct to me. Then I realised that you must be an American who thinks it has to be "stabilise" - spelling it with a "z" is a perfectly acceptable form in some parts of the world.Wymspen (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if that's a joke. "Stabilize" with a z is the American spelling. But the s-or-z is not the point; the problem is that it's missing the first i, the one that goes between the b and the ell: stablize. I didn't see it at first either. --Trovatore (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Auto-correct. 86.147.208.39 (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I knew something was wrong with the pattern when it flashed across my screen at first. Going back and pausing was the AH moment. Common misspelling whether you are American or Martian (Supergirl reference) Sandman1142 (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, it's common enough for technical interface messages like that to have typos, so you could choose to call it an "in universe" error (see IMDB Submission Guide: Goofs for some general discussion). AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Part of what makes entertainment like books and movies seem unrealistic is that there are relatively few spelling errors, audible pauses in conversation, and so on. Maybe it's because I find it so irksome, but I rarely go a day without seeing multiple spelling errors in all kinds of supposedly proofread documents. I think if I did, I'd begin to suspect something was up. Matt Deres (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Shit happens? μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

April 5

What does the defibrilator do to the heart when it febrilates?

Moved to the Science Refdesk. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Free entry/free admission/free admittance

A museum or concert has free entry/free admission/free admittance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.150.255 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There's also 'free entrance' and 'admission free.' It depends on what you want to say, and in which country you are saying it. --Hofhof (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it depends on what you want to say. All five expressions seem equivalent to me. (I'd probably either say rhat admission is free or, a sixth choice, that the museum is free. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think 'entrance' has a more physical meaning than admission, as the entry is not blocked (not about the cost). 'Admittance' can be many things (college, reciprocal of impedance, the act of admitting some statement), but not that you can enter without buying an entr, which is what the OP seems to be after. --Hofhof (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As written, 'free entrance' and 'admission free' do not sound cromulent to me; both sound like constructions by non-native speakers. English generally follows adjective-noun order, so 'free entrance' implies that there is a physical entrance, like a door, that is not occupied and therefore available to use. But even that is awkward. In a similar vein, 'admission free' doesn't follow the expected word order; it should be either 'free admission' or 'admission: free'. Free entry/admission/admittance all sound equivalent (and cromulent) to me. Matt Deres (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• 'Admission free' can be correct in other contexts. For example, "The museum is admission free for children under 7." And "free entrance" sounds perfectly fine in "National Parks service hosts free entrance days."Hofhof (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Are you a native speaker? If so, what variety of English are you using? "The museum is admission free for children under 7" is not what I would consider standard English. I get what you're going for and I understand the meaning, but I would correct my kid if he said it. It's the kind of phrase a new speaker might use after they encountered "Admission: Free" on a poster and was trying to relate that news to someone else. Your second example is closer, but still awkward; I might use 'entry' in place of 'entrance' there, but I'd probably re-cast it some other way. Matt Deres (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• The examples are not mine. See for "

Free Entrance Days in the National Parks" or google: "+is+admission+free+for+children. The 2nd would be better as "Entrance to the museum is admission free for children under 7."Hofhof (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have checked the websites of the big London museums (all of which are free). They either say "admission is free" or "entry is free." The Smithsonian also uses "admission is free" or simply "ADMISSION (line shift) FREE" Wymspen (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

National Parks quite correctly use the construction "entrance-fee free". The construction recommended by Hofhof means "children under seven not admitted". The syntax is wrong because "entrance" and "admission" refer to the same thing. Say simply "entrance to the museum is free for children under 7" or "admission to the museum is free for children under 7" and no - one will misunderstand you. 86.147.208.18 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

April 6

Sanskrit Kamala and Padma

Are kamala (कमल) and padma (पद्म) complete synonyms or is there a difference in meaning? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would not seem so or depend entirely on context. See here: Padma and Kamala 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

They both mean lotus for example. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Or see here for the meanings of kamala: kamala. N.B.—Consider only the words without an uppercase A, and only the bolded words. Uppercase vowels indicate a different spelling: कामल, कमला.

And here for the meanings of padma: padma. There is a lot of difference between the two words. —Stephen (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

April 7

Homogeneity of variance and mean

If homoscedasticity is homogeneity of variance, how would you refer to homogeneity of mean? I'm looking for a scholarly term with Greek roots, similar to homoscedasticity. My best guess is something like homomesoic, from μέσος. Thank you Wikipedians. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Words related to the adjective μεσος appear to have a basic "o" vowel in a few forms, such as μεσοω (denominal verb) and perhaps μεσοτης, but much more often, such a vowel elides before a suffix or second part of compound which begins with a vowel. I'm not sure that English "oi" derived from Greek stem suffix omicron + another suffix beginning with iota occurs too often (in "paleozoic", "zo-" is a root, while "-oid" originally had a digamma in the middle, and is spelled epsilon-iota)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

April 8

Pretentious interview stories

There's a style of "writing" that's beloved of scribblers in the weekend liftout sections of major newspapers. Some notable person is to be interviewed and written about. The story is usually written in the present tense. The journo starts off talking about themself (!), maybe how the interview came about, how they found/find the appointed venue, whether they got/get there on time or not, the weather that day, maybe what they were/are wearing ... Then it's on to the subject, what they were/are wearing, what they both eat/drink, how they look/sound, yada yada. Ultimately the actual meat of the story - the subject's works, thoughts, opinions, responses - is arrived at, but by then it may be thin pickings.

Does this pretentious puffery-guffery have a name? -- Jack of Oz 02:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be called Gonzo journalism, but the kind of thing you're describing sounds more like simple "padding". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've seen that type of thing added as a "wraparound" to an interview with someone who has since died, usually recently. This is a way to get a "new story" out of old footage. In some cases the actual interview wasn't much, like an actor plugging some crap movie that bombed, but the insight into how the actor behaved prior to and after the interview may well be more valuable than the actual interview. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There's something at Puffery#Puff_piece... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

IPA pronunciations of Romanian-language names

Hi, I speak Romanian natively and I recently reviewed over 1,000 IPA pronunciations of Romanian and Moldovan names here, at the English Misplaced Pages. They weren't all correct, so I took care of them for the most part, but I came upon a few cases that I'm not 100% sure about, so I'd like to ask those of you who speak Romanian to help find a correct pronunciation for 19 such names. Now, you don't necessarily have to be able to read IPA symbols, because I used a Romanian phonetic transcription as well. Stressed vowels look like this: a, ă, e, i, î, o, u.

So which ones would you choose? —  Andreyyshore  T  C  02:32, 8 Apr 2017 (UTC) 

You would probably find more speakers of Romanian on ro:WP:O than here. --31.168.171.66 (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I chose to have a discussion here because it's more about the English Misplaced Pages, but I did advertise it at the Romanian village pump. —  Andreyyshore  T  C  08:22, 8 Apr 2017 (UTC) 

Andreyyshore, my knowledge of the phonetic alphabet is limited, but I can tell you that in Romanian media, Teodor is always stressed on the middle syllable. Also, Veneția might not come from Venice, but from wikt:ro:venetic, so it's impossible to say the correct pronunciation without local knowledge. Afil might give you some pointers regarding rivers.--Strainu (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I did hear Andra say "Teodor" a few days ago, but I wasn't sure what to think about that, as I'd heard all the versions above from at least one person before.

Maybe I did overformalize things with all the transcriptions, but, in reality, even replying with a simplistic hyphenation such as "Cea-u-șes-cu" can be of great help. Many of my dilemmas (covering 9 out of 19 articles) are exactly about that; could use some confirmation to make sure I'm not just going crazy, making stuff up :) —  Andreyyshore  T  C  13:13, 8 Apr 2017 (UTC) 

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk