Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 April 24

= April 24 =

What experience on Wikipedia do you need to have in order to get nominated for an admin
I’ve been reading the Admin’s guide and the advice for new admins. But I’m just confused. Do I need a specific amount of experience to see if I get nominated to be an admin? Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RFA: "There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start a RfA candidate poll." --Viennese Waltz 13:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only fair to warn the OP that applicants at WP:RFA are questioned closely about their activity in Wikipedia, and old issues may be resurrected. In the OP's case, their chosen name suggests a single purpose that recently led to a topic ban and difficulty with another editor. The OP has under 5 months of activity and most of their writing has been to Talk pages with only minor edits to articles. DroneB (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP also created a second account, properly recorded on his user page, but these questions stand a good chance of any RFA attempt to go down in flames. But he can always try it and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My advice would be to make lots of helpful and constructive edits for another two years, avoiding any controversy, or dealing with it patiently and helpfully, then get another editor to nominate you if you really want to pick up an admin's mop and bucket.  Dbfirs  10:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * First, you need to look for one thousand brown M&Ms to fill a brandy glass, to ensure Ozzy goes onstage...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody mention the pay cut, it puts many candidates off. Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Who would cross the Bridge of Death to Adminland must answer me these questions three. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 24 miles per hour. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

My advice is at User:Dweller/Tips for aspiring future admins --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

UK car registration number
This morning I saw a car with a number plate in an unusual format. It was:  UU13 ### , where ### was 3 more DIGITs not letters. I cannot find any reference to UU and 5 digits. Anyone have any ideas what era and location it comes from? -- SGBailey (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From 1903 (when plates started) to 1932 (when the letter geographical prefix expanded to three letters). I'm not sure offhand where UU was allocated to, but it's obscure, so probably one of those allocated late in this period, when they ran short on two letter codes and started going back and gap-filling. I think it might be Leeds originally. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think UU is central london, but I've never come across a 5-digit numberplate. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Was it a heritage plate (silver on black) or a normal plate (black on white or black on yellow)? Nanonic (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant article is Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom.  Are you sure the vehicle was registered in the UK and not abroad? 2A00:23A8:830:A600:3432:524:CB4:BA8A (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The plate was a black on yellow uk plate with the blue EU side column with stars and the letters "GB". It happened to be on a relatively modern blue Ford. (I have a badly focused photo, but don't intend posting it). The plate spacing is UU13_###, with a small gap between the 3 and the next digit. -- SGBailey (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have "heritage plates" in the UK. The standards for the physical design of plates has changed twice, requiring white and yellow reflective plates in the 1970s, then controlling the manufacture of all plates more recently (so they're now all laminated, and only available to the holder of the requisite documents [sic]). The style of plate is based on the age of vehicle, not the age of first use of that plate. So I can use a black and white, or black and aluminium pressed plate, on my Triumph Vitesse or my MG, but if I transfer that same number to a new car, I have to use a modern style plate on it. However this rule is widely ignored for vanity plates. Some drivers swap their plates before an annual MOT inspection.
 * We also have rules that spacing and fonts are controlled, in order to thwart some abuses of vanity plates. However those rules are usually ignored too (a driver might be stopped "on that basis" if the police want an excuse to stop them anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Two thoughts:
 * a) could it have been a Vanity_plate?
 * b) could some of the 3 more "digits" have been letters that looked like digits?

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only possible confusion might be if the initial "1" was an "I", thus UUI3 ###. That would make 3 letters and 4 digits - which is more plausible. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * CAR REGISTRATION AND NUMBER PLATES: 1903 to 2003 goes through all the possible variants including military and diplomatic plates, but as far as I can see, none match your sighting. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this is a Northern Ireland registration - UI is Londonderry and there is one letter (U) before the county code and four digits (3 plus three more) following. 2A02:C7F:A05:DC00:8935:6D53:444:2D91 (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks right - lots of detail here. Wymspen (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

your services
I enjoy your site it helps in many ways to many questions KEEP IT UP! there is a slight over site on all information of current politicians you only give out positive information our elected have to be completely honest why do you not put their criminal records its like fighting the gods to find complete information eithergive it all or say you will give nothing please be totally honest thank you for this time  Tom


 * A lot of effort is expended in ensuring articles are comprehensive.  See, for example, Fiona Onasanya. 2A00:23A8:830:A600:3432:524:CB4:BA8A (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are guidelines about what can be written or not about living persons on wikipedia, see here: WP:LIVE. You can also be WP:BOLD if you think you can improve Wikipedia (following these guidelines, and always with the relevant references and reliable sources). --Lgriot (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Tom. Wikipedia is edited by thousands of volunteer editors, who work on what they want to work on: there is no "editorial board" deciding what articles should be written, or what they should say. It is our goal that all articles are neutrally-written summaries of what all the major reliable sources say about the subject. But in some cases it can happen that an article has been most recently edited by a person, or a group of editors, who want to promote a particular view of the subject of the article, and they leave the article biased. Any editor who notices this can attend to it: remove their changes, or make further changes, or discuss the question on the article's talk page. Of course the person who edited it first might feel that their changes are neutral, and then the editors need to discuss it, and if necessarily use our dispute resolution process to reach consensus.
 * Another thing that happens, especially with articles about politicians, is that somebody sees something about the subject in an unreliable source (such as social media, or a fake news site), and thinks that this information should be in the article. But Wikipedia only accepts information which comes from reliable sources, so information of that sort should not ever go into an article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Bored astronomers in the Middle Ages
Hi. Some time ago I heard (in a documentary or an interview I think) about some people who in the Middle Ages used to write down their astronomical observations. They took notes of stars positions, planets, etc and they did it for years. I think that the best known case is Tycho Brahe, but watching that documentary (I forgot the title) I understood that there were many cases like him. Do you know more cases of these "bored" astronomers who amassed huge amounts of astronomical data? Thanks. emijrp (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you have your timeframes a bit off. Brahe worked during the late 1500s, which is not exactly the "middle ages", but more the early modern age.  If you want other astronomers who were contemporaneous with Brahe, see Category:16th-century astronomers.  There's a good place to start your research.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know some of them were professional astronomers. But in the documentary I watched, I got the idea of cases of amateur astronomers, modest people with limited resources, taking notes of their observations, without a clear or professional purpose. I just wanted to know the names of some of these "archivists" of astronomical observations who were forgotten by history. emijrp (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If your interest is primarily in amateur astronomers, we have amateur astronomy, which has links to several notable amateur astronomers. The focus is more modern than you're looking for, partly because there was less distinction between "professional" and "amateur" in astronomy. Even today, that distinction is sometimes blurry, as amateurs routinely make very important discoveries and sightings. This is partly due to the sky being, you know, really big. . Matt Deres (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Before the invention of the telescope (early 1600's), all observations were with the "naked eye", and whatever equipment there was, like an astrolabe, was affordable by most amateurs, a least in the most basic form. So, there wasn't much to differentiate the professional's equipment from the amateur's. After the invention of the telescope, the professionals would usually have the funding for the biggest and best, while amateurs made do with less. Of course, the much larger number of amateurs means they are likely to stumble upon some things first just because they happen to be looking there first. Also note that in antiquity, before the development of the scientific method, astronomers were likely to also be astrologers, and thus not really "professional" at all, by modern standards, although they would have made a living at it, so professional from that POV. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Related pages but in the antiquity, Babylonian astronomical diaries and Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa. emijrp (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at Toledan Tables, Alfonsine Tables, Prutenic Tables and finally Rudolphine Tables for the most prominent tables (and the people who compiled them) produced during the middle and early modern ages. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Very interesting :-). emijrp (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)