Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 October 11

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.

October 11

Melbourne Cup

Has there been a horse that placed second in the Melbourne Cup, and then come back the following year to WIN the Melbourne Cup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.127.227 (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please sign your posts with ~~~~, thanks. According to the wikipedia article List of Melbourne Cup winners that has not happened since at least 1998, prior to that I don't see any resources listed. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Secrecy of the location of factories

Some few years ago, I remember watching on Discovery Channel's show How Do They Do It? the process of using platinum in catalytic converters. In that particular episode, they showed the factory where catalytic converters are made, but for undisclosed reasons, they did not disclose the factory's location, only saying that its location is a secret. I'm not interested in finding out where that factory is located, I'm more interested in knowing the reasons behind the decision to not disclose the factory's location. Also, in a related question, is keeping a factory location secret a common practice in the manufacturing industry? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Secret" is a relative term here. I'm sure everyone in the town where it's located know it's there, as the employees need to know which way to drive to get there. :-) However, they probably didn't want to disclose the location in that particular show, as it might result in more than the usual number of thieves looking to break in and steal their platinum (or do the Brits here want me to call it "platinium" ?). You might find locations of factories kept as more of a secret if used for building weapons, especially nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Of course, people will notice a factory standing there, so having a cover story for it would be one way to keep it secret. A biological weapons factory, for example, might be disguised as a pharmaceutical factory, and might even make some legitimate products as part of the cover. Let's just hope they don't mix up their batches of chemicals. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

When I worked for a large IT facilities management company, we were housed in an anonymous warehouse on a business park. So anonymous we didn't even have a sign with the company name on it. We were instructed no to reveal to the neighbouring factory units what we did, although the large aircon and standby generator plants might have been a clue. With several millions pounds worth of computers in there, keeping the undesirables out was a priority. Some of the machines were involved with processing credit card transactions, which is another reason we were anonymous. --TrogWoolley (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with above posts, perhaps a better term for a lot of these is not "secret" but more like "not publicized" or "out of sight out of mind". I'm sure if you spent a few weeks searching records and the like many of the more domestic facilities & even some "top secret" locations could be figured out. Some in the security industry just view this ambiguity as an added layer of protection, maybe the first layer. After you spend countless hours & funds locating them you then have to jump over the obstacles of cameras, sensors, a small army of merc security, trespassing charges etc. At a point a company or organization sees press coverage of arrests or incidents as spurring 'copy cats' so it's even better to have most in ignorance that there is even a facility at a certain location. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Possibly also relevant is the fact that platinum is more valuable than gold, so publicly announcing the location of a large stash of it might not be prudent. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The media's choice of terminology is often fraught with serious blunders. I'm sure I've mentioned here before how they sometimes say some celebrity got married "secretly". Think about that for 2 seconds and you realise just how wrong it is. Nowhere on Earth that I'm aware of is it possible to marry without some third party knowing about it. Third parties include at a minimum the celebrant and the 2 witnesses required by most laws. Then there are usually guests (family, friends). What the media mean is that the media were not made aware of the location of the ceremony and all their sleuthing failed to reveal it. It may certainly have been a private wedding - but then, I've never heard of a wedding where all comers were welcome(*), so all weddings are essentially private. But secret? - naah, I don't think so. (* other than people attending church at the same time as a wedding being conducted there; even then, they're not attending the wedding per se). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That's taking us a bit astray from the original question, but your definition of a "secret" seems rather too restrictive. In normal usage, something can be considered a "secret" even when it is known to more than two people; the key element that makes something a secret is that information is being concealed from some group or person, not that it is necessarily hidden from everyone. (See also need to know.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

How many times have you had sex in the past month? Please don't answer that. It's private, between you and whoever else may have been involved. But does that make it a secret? Not in my book. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Many people keep their sex lives both private and a secret (well the nature of their sex lives, not necessarily the existance of their sex lives although many people do do so).

As for the wedding bit, consider that while most non celebrities keep their wedding private, they do not necessarily keep it a secret. In fact, nowadays they may reveal the details on Facebook or a personal webpage or elsewhere. For a wedding at a church or similar, the upcoming wedding may be annouced in the church bulletin or whatever. In some cultures, annoucements may be made of the upcoming nuptials. When they send out the invitations, they generally don't request their guests don't tell anyone. The only real likely secrecy is that if some random person calls them or a guest out of the blue and asks where and when their or the wedding Adam and Steve is going to take place, the general response will be something like 'Why do you want to know?' and not say without a good answer.

If a friend who doesn't know Adam and Steve asks a guest they do know where the wedding is as part of a general conversation, the guest will generally answer and neither Adam or Steve will care. (Similarly while venues etc are not going to random reveal they're hosting the wedding, they will likely keep records etc wth little attempt made to hide them from prying eyes, probably there's no problem with any staff member knowing, they may print and leave around signs etc well before the event again with little concern for who may see them.) The guest may even annouce in a variety of places they are attending the wedding of Adam and Steve on whenever at location Whatever.

In other words, little attempt at secrecy is made and someone who really wants to find out can easily do so with a bit of carefully digging.

As TOAT has mentioned, this doesn't generally apply to a secret celebrity wedding where even journalist and paparazzi with a strong financial incentive fail to find out where it's being held, or when it is being held or perhaps even that one is planned. Guests are generally expected not to reveal details, they may even be told so in the invitation or similar. Hired venues will be asked to be discreet and so will likely make significant attempts probably including keeping most staff members in the dark, making sure their records are well guarded etc. Of course the sort of venues used will generally differ anyway and even without being asked someone frequently dealing with celebrities will generally recognise the need for discretion without being asked.

Non celebrity weddings may also be kept somewhat of a secret, particularly if there may be strong opposition from some family members or whatever. (in some cases the marriage may also be kept a secret from some.)

Ultimately as TOAT has said, something can be a secret without being a secret from everyone and someone can want to keep something a secret without keeping it from everyone. (It may be that not everything the media call a secret wedding should really be called that. And we should perhaps also differentiate as far as possible a secret wedding from an impromptu or unplanned one, the degree of which is possible varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edited to add paragraph breaks and correct some minor errors noticed while doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I cannot bring myself to read an unformatted dump of text like that, Nil Einne. Whatever merit your words may contain, they're lost on me (at least). That's a long way of saying TL;DR. You really must learn the art of making your posts visually appealing (currently most of them are visually repulsive), and segmenting a text by the use of paragraphs would be a great start.

(If you were to pay me, that might be a different matter. Bidding starts at $1,000.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

He just ran out of paragraph breaks. Let me lend him a few: ¶ ¶ ¶ . StuRat (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I frequently to use paragraph breaks. I didn't do so here, partially because editing from an iPad is annoying particularly trying to add paragraph breaks (although admitedly this was only 4 indents so wasn't really that bad). It probably didn't help that I didn't expect to write so much (but I dislike incomplete responses and even this response was somewhat incomplete). And I regarded this issue as plain silly, clearly some celebrities do have some degree of a secret wedding and many things which are secret are known or knowable to a fair number of people (e.g. when governments classifying something as top secret or similar, they aren't saying no one is allowed to know it). In any case, I've added them here now.

Incidentally, editing from an iPad causes similar problems for adding links or looking up refs (although I didn't/don't think many are really needed here, unless there is really any doubt that plenty of people are fairly open with their wedding plans) of which I guess you know paying as much attention as you do, I frequently add a lot of (although I'm not denying I also often make long replies with few refs).

Either way though, if you want to continue to use an unusual definition of secret, I guess that's up to you, we tried to help. It may be useful if you avoid potentially confusing others on the RD with your strange definitions so that people have to explain (in ways you may not agree with) why your definitions are unusual and go against the way must people use such words, but of course that's also up to you.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a term for this: security through obscurity. uhhlive (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I worked in a similar situation, when I was at the only small arms manufacturer in Canada. It wasn't so much a "secret" as it was an unadvertised location. If you searched for the company name, you could find it right in the phone book, but they never went out of their way to announce that they had hundreds of pieces of military hardware and upwards of a million rounds of ammo on site. Plus, it's not like the name meant anything to the average person. Now that they operate under the name Colt Canada, it's a bit less obscure! Matt Deres (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Centijimbo

It's been a while since I heard (read) about centijimos and still don't know what are they. Can someone explain it to me and the way one can check how many of that someone have? Thansk. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Centijimbos.—Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is the owners name wrong on the Boston Redsox home site?

It should not be Bucky F. Dent, 1978 redsox fans do not need any reminders. Please change to correct owners name.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oginana (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That was vandalism, and it has already been fixed. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if Bucky Dent were the Red Sox owner, his middle doesn't start with "F"... except to those with the bad memory of that 1978 incident8. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

His middle initial has been changed to F, at least where I grew up. See [1] though any google search for "Bucky Dent Middle Initial" brings up dozens of usages. But then again, you knew that. --Jayron32 19:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That playoff game was just the final straw in an absolutely horrific month of September for the Red Stockings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It was, only made worse by the fact that it was the Yankees that did it to them. I think Red Sox Nation wouldn't have minded so much if it was the Orioles or the Tigers or something like that. --Jayron32 03:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Like in 1972, when the strike truncated the front end of the schedule, and the Red Sox ended up 1/2 game behind the Tigers in the AL East. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Lenght of a novel

Can someone provide references on how many words there are on novels? I mean, when you are writting the story tends to go on and keeps turning into new situations. Is there a way you can avoid this? Has any writer publish an essay on that subject? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a fixed size. Read Short story, Novella and Novel to get some approximations. But forgetting those terms, the question the author has to answer is what is he trying to say in the story? The answer to that question affects the length of the work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(editr conflict) I’m afraid of making the mistake of write a large number of pages and the readers get bored and drop the book; but what happens when you have so many thngs to say? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Length isn't the issue IMO. If your writing is compelling enough, it won't matter how long it is. Readers won't be able to put it down. On the other hand, if you've written Moby Dick: the Longer Sequel, it's time to look for a good editor. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There are basically two approaches to writing a novel. Some writers work out the ending before they start writing, and then maneuver toward that ending. Others don't decide how the story is going to end until they are far along. You should use whichever approach you prefer, but if you find that the story is growing out of control, it might be a good idea to step back and figure out what the ending is going to be and how you are going to get there. There is hardly any limit on length, but for a first novel, the longer it is, the more difficulty you will have getting it published. Looie496 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What is a 'large number of pages' anyway? I know people who think 150 is too many, but I rarely bother with books that are under 500. Just saying you can't please everyone. 20:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgf10 (talk • contribs)

Traditional novels tend to be quite long, but think about your audience. If you are hoping to catch an audience that reads e-books, your book doesn't need to be as long. Many e-novels I've seen are the length of a short story or novella, maybe 12,000 words tops. (I wrote 100,000 words in my final year at university.) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it really true that readers of e-books tend to prefer shorter books? I got my e-book reader specifically so I could read longer books without lugging large paper copies around - 4 of the last 6 books I read on it have been >1000 pages. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 11:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• The Hugo Awards are given for novels through short stories: see their word-length categories here. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always understood that it is generally better to send too much content than not enough; so long as it is written well. This is because a lot of it may indeed get cut/rearranged by the publisher/editor... and you want to give them enough material to work with. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 02:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

From a commercial perspective, seeing the success of A Game of Thrones, Fifty Shades of Grey, Harry Potter, and the Millenium series, I'd say thick books perform better than thin. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Holy ship. So I have to write a lot. That's not good right now, giving that I'm going through a huge block period. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that A Game of Thrones related to the TV Show? And what's that Fifty Shades of Grey? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes - A Game of Thrones is the first novel in George R.R. Martin's series A Song of Ice and Fire, which are the books on which the TV series is based. For the other, see Fifty Shades of Grey. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it says something about the Twilight saga fanfic. Is it really a fanfiction? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fifty Shades was originally written as a Twilight fanfic and posted to a fanfic site in episodic fashion (IIRC fanfiction.net?) and then it was taken down and posted to a dedicated site. Then, the names were changed and afterwards the story was rewritten and turned into the Fifty Shades of Grey that we know today. So it started out as a Twilight fanfic but what you see today sold in bookstores is not. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

.Yellow1996. A year ago or something I heard something about that fanfic but related to Bono or U2, but can't remember cuz I didn't read it, is that possible? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought "probably not!" but turns out there is one. I found a page here... I know you can't access that so basically I'll sum it up for you: it's a short fanfic sort of thing in honor of Bono's birthday in 2012, written by one of the staff of that site (BuzzFeed.com); also in my search I discovered that U2 is mentioned in passing a few times in a Fifty Shades inspired fanfic (ie. "U2 was playing on the radio.") --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 03:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew I wasn't wrong, I heard about it but as I never read it I wasn't sure :D, .Yellow1996.. Thanks for the info. That stuff of erotic fanfic is creepy. I better not read it if I ever get the chance. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all! Well I read "those" sorts of stories from time to time, and since this one was short I decided to read it; and I can tell you that you're not missing out on much: it isn't written terribly well! ;) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 16:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah!.Yellow1996. I'm sure Bono doesn't fit well in those stories. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not for me, at least! ;) I had never read one with him in it before, though! --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 18:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

.Yellow1996. Oh I've read normal fanfics about U2 but never one of those. Not interested, though. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia photographs from Comic-Con

Why do so many Wikipedia articles about actors and celebrities have pictures of their subject taken at "Comic Con"? There is a definite pattern here. Herzlicheboy (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia as with all wikimedia projects and as required by a wikimedia foundation directive greatly limits the usage of files which are not freely licenced. For a number of reasons many professional press photographers and celebrity press agents are not willing to release their photographs under such a licence. Therefore we rely a great deal on amateur and semi professional photographers (career wise I mean) who do not generally have access to celebrities except when they appear to the general public. As our article mentions, San Diego Comic-Con International is a very big deal nowadays with many TV series and to a slightly lesser extent movies doing something there with some or many of the celebrities involved in tow, so it's a common location for such photographs. It's also obviously a good hunting ground for any person who does want to take photographs of celebrities, whether for wikipedia or themselves, since they do not need to say attend many different events as may be needed for more random opportunities. There may also be a demographical issue here in that people likely to contribute to wikipedia are more likely to attend such an event. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Have we just been called a pack of nerds? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Not the only thing we've been called this week, but I'd take "nerds" over the alternative. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. That is what I was thinking also, but I had no personal knowledge of it. Herzlicheboy (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are that original research is not allowed, that everything theoretically has to be cited. Ironically, the opposite is true of pictures of living persons: In general, only original research is allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow that. --Jayron32 03:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Bugs is upset we do not require documentary evidence that the person photographed is the person is the subject of the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I stopped being "upset" about this peculiar twist of the rules a long time ago. But sometimes occasions arise where it seems apt to point it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting take on things, Bugs. I'm sure cases have arisen where someone has taken a pic of Celebrity A, but thought they were Celeb B and uploaded the pic to Celeb B's article in good faith. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

When this subject came up several years ago, as I recall I was told that snapshots of living persons are specifically exempt from the "no original research" rule. So they know it's OR, but due to the restrictions (which are far stricter than the fair use laws require), snapshots of celebs are allowed, even when they're so poor or amateurish that no self-respecting paparazzi would claim them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL w/ "self-respecting paparazzi", didn't realize there was such a thing, you do learn something new on these Ref Desks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "a paparazzi", self-respecting or otherwise. A member of that profession is "a paparazzo". Or maybe "a paparazza" if a woman, but I've never heard that word. "Self-respecting paparazzi" would work if the subject were plural, but a "no" in front makes it singular, cf. "No self-respecting ref desk editor would ever make such a blunder".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Are phrases such as No Animals Were Harmed or "no new taxes" grammatically incorrect? Or is there a semantic distinction to be made (whether the point is that not one animal was harmed vs that not any animals were harmed, ... hmm, maybe my post should be moved to the language desk)? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The diff is that those are passive uses, the latter one being short for "No new taxes will be raised/promulgated". Compare, "No animal would ever harm itself", and "No new tax will apply to Wikipedians and their families". But then, you could have "No animals would ever harm themselves" and "No new taxes will apply ...". Which sort of shoots my theory down in flames. Carry on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe it's "self-respecting" that makes it singular. True, you could have a roomful of paparazzi, each of whom respects him- or herself, but whenever I hear "no self-respecting ... would ever do ...", I think of a single person. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)