Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 February 3

= February 3 =

Historical US news and world report civil engineering rankings
Where can I find old US News and World Report undergraduate civil engineering rankings? Waseekla (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to College_and_university_rankings: "The QS rankings are published in the United States by US News & World Report as the "World's Best Universities."
 * After searching the QS site I found the following links:


 * 2011:


 * 2010:


 * 2009:


 * 2008:


 * 2007:


 * 2006:


 * 2005:


 * Unfortunately the civil engineering specific ranking shows up as 404 for 2005-2011. I suggest you try the internet wayback machine. Best of luck on your search. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Balloons on the backs of Japanese cavalry
Not entirely sure where to ask this - but what are the balloons on the back of the Japanese cavalry in Shogun 2? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

horo, according to this site  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerkatakreem (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup - we have an article: Horo (cloak). As to whether they actually offered any protection against arrows, as is sometimes claimed, seems questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it might work once anyway, as it might slow down the arrow sufficiently to render it non-fatal. The framework would have helped it retain its air pocket. And I'm sure it was much lighter than armor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the fact that nobody in any other country invented such a ludicrous contraption, attests to its effectiveness (or otherwise). Alansplodge (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Perhaps it worked because people unfamiliar with it assumed it contained armor sufficient to stop any arrows, so didn't fire at it. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a compound bow myself and I'm skeptical that the contraption shown in the pictures would be able to slow down the arrow to any appreciable extent. A heavy arrow can go all the way through a 1-inch-thick wood board and come out of the other side. Medieval battle arrows, when launched by a strong archer, were capable of penetrating chain mail like it was paper and punching sizable holes in plate armor. They won't even notice an air balloon and some fabric.
 * If the framework is dense and it is built using sufficiently strong material (if I were to design this, I'd use a square mesh made of thick steel wire at 1x1 inch spacing, but whale bone could be useful to some extent too), it might be helpful at deflecting arrows. If the arrow is coming at an angle to the balloon, it might "slide" along the hoops of the framework and clear of the wearer. --Itinerant1 (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another example might be the habit of WWII Allied tank crews of hanging spare track links on the front of their tanks, in the belief that it would take the sting out of enemy anti-tank shells. When rigorous tests showed that it did no such thing, a general order was given for their removal, as the extra weight was a problem. However, such was the faith of the crews in the protection afforded by the track that it was widely ignored and a blind eye was turned. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Loades[] did a segment on these in one episode and it did a good job of stopping an arrow http://www.mikeloades.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=6 .129.128.216.107 (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians by rank
Since Wikipedia 11 years old, the senior most Wikipedians are Master Editor IV. Is there any way to know how many Master Editor IVs or other senior editors are there in wikipedia? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I suppose I and many of my fellow Wikipedia editors must have some of these exalted "ranks" which I have never before heard of. Quality of each edit should be factored in, so that robot-like article creation from some database counts for little. Do I qualify for "Senior Editor III (or Labutnum of the Encyclopedia)?" or some higher or lower Grandpoobah-dom? Edison (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One place to check is List of Wikipedians by number of edits. I think there's a similar list by number of articles. And there's a program somewhere that will give a current count for any specific editor. [Or there was. It appears to be no longer available.] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's only half the equation. You need high edits and long service for those. Very few editors have both. In fact Master Editor III seems to be the highest in use (and by only one editor.) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to know who are using those templates and userboxes? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Use the Special:WhatLinksHere tool. e.g. SmartSE (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * List of Wikipedians by article count. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a point? Barnstars, editcountitius, adminstatus... it's all games... hopefully in the end the legitimate volunteers outnumber the others. There have been startling examples of failures (for instance arbcom members who lost their position and adminship)... wikipedia is better than a lot of communities, but not all that good . Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

days of the week
where did the day of the week get there names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinna66 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article explains it pretty well: Names_of_the_days_of_the_week.99.245.35.136 (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Left unanswered in that article is, Why did the German language speakers decide to call Wednesday "Midweek" while retaining the names of gods for the other days? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The German article on Mittwoch says that the change from Wodens-dag to Mittwoch came in the 10th Century, as a result of Christian missionaries not wishing to commemorate a Pagan god. As to why they did away with Wodin but kept Tiw, this essay is used as a source for the article, and has a few possible reasons but sums them up by saying it's 'unclear'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars = Schizophrenia?
Has Wikipedia or any reader of the article pertaining to Star Wars (the Movie) correlated it to Schizophrenia? Seems to me after careful reviewing of all six episodes that the entire movie is an innuendo for the mental illness. Anakin Skywalker was a youth who in his twenties turns to the Dark Side by manipulation. Schizophrenia in young people generally comes on in the early twenties with a perception they have "Special Powers and Abilities" that normal humans cannot have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.125.125 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source to back up what seems to be your own original research? Astronaut (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One important difference is that Anakin Skywalker actually did have special powers and abilities. For a vague analogy, watch Miracle on 34th Street. His attorney made the point that while for most of us, thinking we are Santa Claus would be a delusion. But for the real Santa Claus, it would not be a delusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's an infection. ;) -- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  02:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

website
hi! i would like to ask what are the website of the shopping malls in china & the website of the shopping centres in hong kong? thanks! have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.123.4 (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you searched google? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed practically duplicate query. Also email addresses should not be put into Wikipedia. Please read the instructions at the top of the page. Dmcq (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation of screwed pages
Hi. Besides I beg your pardon for my bad english. I'd like to know which is right procedure to solve this copyvio: In last 3 months a group of IPs started screwing the it:Prima Divisione (italian football Third Division) seasons 1929-30 to 1952-53 and Fourth Division it:Quarta Serie copying from a series of books a friend of mine sold the editor all his complete fixtures collection (1909 / 1997). Even if the editors is told having bought the entire collection of microfilms of the most important italian sports daily news newspaper (told from co-editors who visited his company using his microfilm reader) he needed a well done complete work to entitle his reprints as right and well done (some copies of first series are containing some screwed tables I published on mine, copied from a young man told to be very keen in his reports I later discovered missing of judge's decisions). When he got those tables he modified some lines and published in annual yearbooks starting in 1999 (from season 1922-23 to 1960-61).

Three months ago I discovered a group of italian screwers (now on a edit war with user CapPixel because he's an italian man) and noticed in their hystory they were same IPs who copied your screwed pages into italian ones and tried to correct them.

I asked them why they were rollbacking me and they wrote back they "excluded teams need to be classified". My foult had been not linking immediately the F.I.G.C. rules page where is told it's up to the Federation to decide if a sentenced excluded team can be or not saved from relegation if they're able to demonstrate occurring a special situation causing external problems they got involved in (those users are behaving as exception is the main rule, not the opposite). They are behaving so because they think right their conviction just because they read your pages copyed from those badly screwed books I'm sure subject of copyright violation. The copyvio in your pages had been made from CapPixel who didn't copy our :it pages but the 2nd series of books, books I'm able to scan and demonstrate I'm right. The worse problem is about screwed tables content: the editor made some very bad errors. He didn't know each table didn't need to be sorted (en: tables got sorted by goal average (it:Quoziente-reti) (in italy goal average had been rarily used, just in 1925-26 and 1938 to 1941, italian users did'nt know that untill I told and demonstrated them) so that using a computer he put in order 1st team to last one including those which didn't complete the championships (or withdraw before starting it !!!) due to anticipated withdraw, reaching 4th fielding denial (sorry don't know the right term) and because judges sentenced their exclusion due to aggressions and so on. Main problem for me stands in the break of equity of a rule set in 1928 and still in use stating excluded teams must not be listed. That editor listed in those tables arbitrarily something not existing in official reports (there's a sports newspaper online to be checked) nor on all sports newspapers and as I reported in the it: claim might compromise all previous and further seasons as those group of rascals are doing now.

In order to complete this claim I need to know if I have to submit you the scanned copyrighted books via email or else and/or simply correct those pages adding links of the online sports pages. Regards.--79.14.57.79 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. Copyvios are taken very seriously here, but the wikis for each language are independent, and if the copyvios are only in the Italian wikipedia, you should probably post a message about them to the administrators noticeboard there.  English wikipedia users won't be able to help with the Italian wikipedia.  But if there are also copyvios in the English wikipedia, we need to know about that.  Can you clarify? Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll leave a note at it:WP:BAR to see if someone at the Italian Wikipedia can take a look. SmartSE (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Main problem is this: when I started contributing in 2007 each table in italian Third Division (Prima Divisione 1929-30 to Prima Divisione 1933-34) had just three columns (position, team name and points) (eg: it.page 1930-31 and en: page 1930-31) and several contributors (mostly it:User Lochness) copied them from a series of books edited by Geo Edizioni (in one of his talks he was showing a friend the link to the selling library) based upon Empoli (Florence), the first ever editor printing those tables because as I wrote last night in User talk:CapPixel the book first edited this division had been "Enciclopedia illustrata del calcio italiano" printed in Milan (1939) in which from page 267 to 269 are just Serie C seasons 1935-36 to 1937-38, but none of the previous Prima Divisione ones.
 * Why am I sure those tables are copied from that book ?. Simply because format is the same as published by Geo Edizioni where editor screwed all tables giving a position to excluded teams too and added some lines explaining why their results had not to be considered. I'm repeating here in this talk what I already explained to CapPixel. There're just a few books/newspapers to be cited: "Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio", La Gazzetta dello Sport, Il Littoriale (by Ricerca avanzata - advanced search) (the only daily sportspages online just because "La Gazzetta dello Sport" denied to CONI's library permission to put online their scanned copies (Director Bruni told me it will occur in 2015 when 70 years will be passed since 1945).
 * In last months some IPs started correcting our italian pages according to Geo edizioni's books not caring if on other sources tables had been published according:
 * goal average used in Italy just during seasons 1925-26 and 1938-39 to 1941-42 (in other seasons in Terza Divisione and Serie C up to 1966-67 FIGC didn't care of goal difference so that if two teams had same points had to be considered at same level unless a playoff should have been played to decide a promotion or a relegation;
 * rules stating exclusion/withdraw before and during championships/not fielding team 4 times so that in all of those cases a team had not to be classified (rules set in 1928 and still in use while updated).
 * A user Pascalmolenes put under results tables a fake source: "Source: Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio - La Storia 1898-2004, Panini Edizioni, Modena, September 2005". That book is not containing any of the overmentioned third divisions (Prima Divisione and Serie C) because in that book from page 331 (1959-60) to 370 (2003-04) are shown just Serie C's tables and are not shown single matches' details as regularly shown by Geo Edizioni's book (and copied on it: pages).
 * So, what are you going to do now ?. I think those pages need to be corrected accordingly linking some "Il Littoriale" pages still online even if home page had been closed and/or adding reliable books online or sold through book stores and existing newspapers just because in Italy most of existing sports pages are kept by public libraries.
 * No page can remain unjustified as I did on it:wikipedia, but even it:wikipedia has to take care of contents according italian FIGC rules and none has to refer to wrong en:wikipedia pages. I can help you just if my help is wanted adding real sources to real (not faked) tables.--Nipas (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

coin collecting summary fact sheet
I am very new to coin collecting and am very confused by different books and articles about collecting and valuing coins based on metal value and key dates. The Wikipedia article "Coins of the United States" is a great start however, it does not list all coins precious metal in ounces and key dates.

Is there one place you can go and find all US coins showing: Value, mint marks, image, diameter, thickness mass, and composition in %, composition of precious metal in grams and troy ounces and the key dates for coins?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffreyEarl (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also a [very] amateur coin collector, and this is just my perspective, but I haven't been as concerned with metal value and key dates as much as just finding as many different coins as I can, in a systematic way. (For example, when I found all seven of the 1982 Lincoln cents, I considered it a MAJOR victory.)  I suppose if you are collecting coins as an investment, your need to have an answer to your question would be greater than if you were simply collecting coins for pleasure.  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  20:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are various online sources, as well as coin collector magazines. A long-running series of books on US coins and their values is the "blue book," or "Handbook of United States Coins with premium list," by R.S. Yeoman, from Whitman Coin Supply. . It give "the average amount dealers will pay for coins"(according to condition, mintmark and year). A corresponding book of retail prices is the "red book, " from the same publisher. There is no guarantee anyone would buy or sell a coin of a certain type and grade for the specified price, since haggling over supposed variations in grade is standard. They advise that you NEVER CLEAN YOUR COINS, since it will lower the value. The prices are just a starting point. There are also slabbed coins which have been "officially appraised" and sealed in plastic, at a cost of perhaps $25, which might be less subject to haggling over condition, but it still occurs.  Edison (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have thought for a while that it would be a good idea to have in the coin infobox fields that gives precious metal content in troy ounces and grams. I suspect it is the only reason we are consulted and people don't care about my careful coin articles.  I'd like to give them what they want and would be willing to go through all the coin infoboxes if someone will add the fields.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that content belongs into the infoboxes; I consider it clutter. It would of course be fine to establish a standard whereby this information is expected to be in every article.  Do you really think people only look at our coin articles to look at the amount of silver in a Walking Liberty half?  No way.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope not! Very well, my doubts are stilled.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)