Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 May 4

= May 4 =

Wikipedia articles on Andrew I and Bela I, kings of Hungary
The issue: Both articles claim the two kings, being brothers, were each the second son of Duke Vazul. The resolution: I emailed the American Embassy in Budapest describing the conflict in the two articles. I mentioned that one king had to have been the second son and the other king had to have been the third son. The Embassy emailed me back saying: "Thank you for contacting the Embassy. The American Citizen Services has forwarded your message to the Public Affairs Section, and we will try to help you clear this issue... The Lexicon of Early Hungarian History (published in Hungarian by the Publishing House of the Hungarian Academy of Science in 1994) can be regarded as a reliable source; on pg. 62 it presents this data for the sons of Vazul. Levente  born between 1010-1015, died 1046/47 Andras (Andrew) the First  born around 1015; died at the end of 1060 Bela the First  born between 1015-1020; died Sept. 11, 1063 The problem: I don't understand Wikipedia's instructions about footnoting and how to use the ref symbol.  I don't see the ref symbols on my keyboard.  The article on Andrew I turned out to be correct.  The article on Bela I needs to be corrected to read that he was the third son of Duke Vazul with the Polish looking reference that he was the second son deleted and replaced with the above information. I don't understand how to type in the edited corrections, specifically the footnotes and footnote symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkeWylie (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like they all could have been born in 1015, in any order, so the issue isn't resolved. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Stu, the Embassy have quoted the source as saying that Andras was the "First born". --Dweller (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Have they? I think that says that Andras the First [was] born around 1015. But it does strongly suggest LAB for the order. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh. It's "xxxx the First" with no comma "born". See the importance of commas, everyone? Thanks for picking me up on that. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Does Help:Citations help? I don't know what you mean by "the ref symbols" that you don't see on your keyboard. You edit the section where the reference is used, not the section where it is displayed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, is an embassy really a good source of factual info ? I expect propaganda from them more than facts.  In this case, they would likely just reiterate the official story, regardless of whether it's documented in any way. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The embassy's reply actually cites an authorotative Hungarian book, so in this case yes they actually did provide good info. Perhaps the Hungarian Wikipedia's refdesk (if they have one) can verify the source? Roger (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Maurice J. Bach
Want to know more about Maurice J. Bach, who is the auther of "The design of the unix operating system" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiranHore (talk • contribs) 07:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've either missed off an "I" from the beginning or a question mark from the end of what you wrote. Assuming the former, a Google search for "Maurice Bach" Unix gives 130,000 results, which should help. If you really meant it as a question, my answer is "no, thanks". --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a statement. Leaving the "I" off a statement is not unusual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maurice J.Bach is the author of the book The Design of the UNIX Operating System, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-201799-7. If you want the names of some of the designers of the system, check out Unix. Bielle (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oddly, if you spell his name in all caps, he becomes a different guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ??? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just like a file name, in Unix. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still ??? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  05:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * File names are typically case-sensitive in Unix. Sorry for being too obscure. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing of Wikipedia by the media
Hi folks. I'm looking for cases where "media personalities" have edited, or encouraged other people to edit, Wikipedia. This is for the page at Editing of Wikipedia by the media. The page already has many listings about vandalism and controversial edits, but no listings yet about non-controversial editing of Wikipedia. Thanks! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, can you do something about the lede and the first para: A number of media personalities have edited Wikipedia. A number of media personalities have either encouraged people to edit, or have actually edited, Wikipedia.
 * Well, duh. We do in fact encourage people generally to get involved and to be bold, so there's nothing inherently notable about any group of people who do exactly what we encourage them to do.  There's gotta be something special or noteworthy about what they've done that makes them stand out, and that has to be reflected in the lede.  Otherwise, there should be an article called Editing of Wikipedia by JackofOz.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but perhaps Wikipedia talk:Editing of Wikipedia by the media is a better place to discuss general issues about improving the page. Let's concentrate here on the specific task of finding cases of "media personalities" who have edited, or encouraged other people to edit, Wikipedia, especially in a non-controversial manner. Thanks.  -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That page gives off a strong stench of WP:BEANS, quite apart from the egregious BLP breaches I just tidied. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Until recently, I was a media person (I would hardly call myself a personality) who edits Wikipedia articles. Mostly I am a wikignome, or hang out here at the reference desk. Perhaps the most controversial editing I was involved with was a minor disagreement over the correct name of Olympic athlete Walter Tewksbury. Other than that, my edits have been mostly innocuous.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's on the right track. Any references? Just for example, ignoring the topic of if Jimbo is a "media personality" or not:


 * In 2011, Jimmy Wales encouraged more women to edit Wikipedia.

Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And another example: Can anyone find more like this? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 23:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no published references for myself. My encouragement of others was strictly word-of-mouth. (My editor was a Wikipedia nay-sayer.)   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

s and d
hello,

what does "His will left £30476 9s 3d" in Charles Cruft (showman) mean? Thanks.-- GoP T C N 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 30476 pounds plus nine shillings plus three pence . Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So it would be 30,476.4625 pounds, if you convert it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We have an article £sd. For the curious, "d" stands for "Denarius", the Roman equivelent of a penny. Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Somehow I doubt if his will was that precise, since it would need to be revised daily to account for his wealth each day. More likely, that was the amount in his accounts when he died. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is more likely to be that his estate (currency, property, jewellery, art etc.) was valued at £30476 9s 3d as of the date of his death. Such valuations are done after the fact of the death and are often very precise numbers. His will then likely caused the valuation to be distributed as a list of specific bequests (all nice, round numbers), with the balance to his widow. Bielle (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly it's from the estate. That's public record and easy to get.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Specifically, as his will was proved towards the end of the period 1858-1941, the details (date of death, place of probate, executor, principal beneficiary/ies) will be in the National Probate Calendar. I have access through ancestry.co.uk, so if we want any more of those details, I could look them up. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

DVD prices in Australia
I'd like to send relatives in Australia a copy of District 9. It's not a new film, so here in the UK Amazon will sell it to me for £4.19. When I look at Australian online sellers (Google took me to ezydvd, dvdwarehouse, and sanity) it seems to cost at least $30 AUD, which is £19. I know that the Australian Dollar is strong right now, and that DVD region coding is designed for little other than price gouging, but a fourfold differential (particularly between countries with similar economies) is astonishing. My relatives aren't technical enough to handle something like VideoLAN, and I don't want to resort to illegal copies. Is this really what Australians are willing to pay for rather old films? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That UK price seems rather low, is it used ? StuRat (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, new, free delivery, from Amazon themselves (well, Indigo Starfish) not some ropey bloke in a lockup in Bradford. HMV want £3 and play.com £2, so if anything Amazon is pricey. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As an Aussie, I'll agree that we get ripped off. Well, I don't, because I find other means of getting what I want, as do many of my friends. which kind of defeats the purpose of the ripoff. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've sometimes purchased DVDs from Australian websites and had them shipped to the UK, and saved money, even taking the postage into account. A prime example was the complete The Addams Family, which was one box set in Oz, but three in the UK.  Australian films are often cheaper from Aussie sites and they sell films that we can't get here in Blighty.  Shop around the world is my advice when buying anything.--TrogWoolley (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the region map, it appears that Aussieland and Kiwiland are in Region 4, which for purely geographical reasons is shared with South America. As almost everybody there speaks Spanish or Portuguese, that means the market for Region 4 encoded English language DVDs is quite small.  This reduces the economy of scale and the number of competing DVD producers interested in that market, likely explaining the high prices.


 * The UK is in Region 2, which is absolutely huge, including most of Europe, the Middle East, and Japan. While the English speaking portion is modest, being mainly the British Isles, the wide mix of languages means English is one of the larger languages groups in that region.  And the population of Anlgophones there is more than twice that of AU and NZ.  So, unlike in Aussie, if they plan to sell DVDs in that region, they are likely to have English on them.  And the huge size of that region means not selling in it would have a major effect of profitability.  StuRat (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If this is all because of the DVD cartel screwing Australians over like that ... can you find a quote for VHS? With a price difference like that I'd expect it would still be popular!  (If this is all true, I mean) Wnt (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That might work for old shows, originally on VHS, but new shows probably aren't available in that format, due to the limited demand. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)