Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:17, 3 January 2018

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia: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.

December 28

Battle definitions wikt:battle wikt:skirmish

What is the definition of a "major battle", and how is it different from a "skirmish"? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8115:EFB1:83C0:5101 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many are both, depending on who's reporting them, and who was victorious. There's no robust, objective difference. In some conflicts, from into the modern media reporting age, one side might claim to have lost a few 'skirmishes', but decisively won every 'major battle' - then lost the war. This was particularly common in Korea, Vietnam, the Iran-Iraq War and then in the US invasion of Iraq. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is a high probability that this is related to a previous question about the first "battle" by the Rebellion in Star Wars. Over 20 years, there were many skirmishes, but the battles didn't start until the final year before the Battle of Yavin. In this case, there were conflicts that were named "battles" and others named "skirmishes". There were "rescues" and "invasions" and "infiltrations" and "insurrections" as well. However, the war didn't begin until the Battle of Scarif. So, everything before the was is considered a skirmish and everything after the war started is called a battle (unless there simply aren't enough people to make it battle - like a single Jedi and his apprentice sneaking onto the Death Star with a rag-tag team to back them up). 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how many people are enough to make it a battle? For example, would a company-size engagement be considered a battle? What about if there's a battalion on each side? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8115:EFB1:83C0:5101 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars aside, our article skirmisher holds the key. An army on the move throws out a protective screen of lightly armed troops, "skirmishers", so that they know what's coming and can also disrupt the activities of their oponents. When they come into contact with the enemy and fight, it's a skirmish. When the main bodies of both armies engage, it's a battle. Alansplodge (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, how does this relate to naval warfare -- for example, would the Battle of Midway be considered a "skirmish" or a "major battle"? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8115:EFB1:83C0:5101 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purely WP:OR: one distinction (as I understand it) is that a "skirmish" is typically a chance encounter whereas a "battle" is planned. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:30AA:9654:FB15:2DB1 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if one side plans to do battle, whereas the other is caught by surprise -- where does this fit in? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8115:EFB1:83C0:5101 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The battle, skirmish & ambush articles do a fair job of covering the subjects. There is no definitive distinction, it is in part a matter of scale, preparation and intent. List of military tactics might be a good starting point for further research. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:30AA:9654:FB15:2DB1 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, suppose that the battle (skirmish, whatever) was a surprise attack by one side on the other (as in an ambush), but involved multi-divisional forces on each side (as in a major battle), and ended inconclusively (as in a skirmish) (not very likely, I know -- but possible e.g. if the attackers misunderestimate the defenders' reserves) -- where would it fit in? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8115:EFB1:83C0:5101 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have just used the words battle and skirmish with obvious intent and the expectation that you think we know what you are talking about. THERE IS NO POINT TO YOUR QUESTION. To paraphrase Aristotle, to expect the obvious to be explained by the obscure is like the man blind from birth describing color or the fool who uses words as sounds without any idea corresponding to them. This is not a forum, please consult a dictionary. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because this was preceded with questions about the first "battle" in Star Wars, this is likely an attempt to win an argument about the first battle in Star Wars and there isn't actually any interest in the definitions of battle or skirmish. As such, the attempt is to use this as a forum to say to whomever is on the other side of the argument, "Hah! Wikipedia says I'm right!" 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.

Nope, you're wrong -- this does in fact have to do with Star Wars, but it has NOTHING to do with any argument! In case you want to know, I'm writing a Star Wars-themed song (actually a Star Wars-themed parody on a really old cavalry song from the Russian civil war), and I was stuck on just one line (the 3rd line of the 1st verse, if you want to know) -- and that's why I needed to know the year! And the way it turned out, 5 BBY fitted a whole lot better than 0 BBY -- that's why I have a vested interest in classifying some of the events of the Rebels miniseries as battles, and not just because I want to prove some point! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8115:EFB1:83C0:5101 (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you have two obvious choices. You can either work with the terms (if any) used in the canonical (or apocryphal) sources describing the military encounters in question, or – if there are no such terms used or if contradictory terms are used – you can make your own arbitrary decision in the knowledge that nothing in the sources will completely contradict you. If you're writing a filk, much will depend on who the song is notionally attributed to (or sung by) in story: as Andy Dingley alluded above, different sides or onlookers might well interpret the same encounter in different terms. In any case, songwriters use poetic licence, they aren't producing historical documentaries (except on Pern). μηδείς has it right: there is no point to this discussion, choose what you will (since it will harm no-one) and move on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of an angel?

Kind of a strange question here: maybe 6 months back I was clicking around on Wikipedia and ended up at an article about an apocryphal angel. I thought the imagery was very interesting and vivid, so I made a mental note to come back to it later, and then of course I closed the tab and forgot the name of the article. Here is what I remember, but of course the human memory can be pretty fuzzy at the best of times:

The angel teaches something or other to humans, but is not one of the Grigori.
The angel reveals its true form to someone, and delivers a warning that something terrible is going to happen, so it's probably got something to do with the non-canonical apocalyptic literature.
The angel in the vision is quite tall, maybe 90 miles. (The first thing I tried to re-find the article was a search for "miles tall", which led me to Hadraniel, but this guy is definitely not 2.1 million miles tall.)
The angel faces to the west while he delivers his spiel. Or maybe he came from the west, and faced to the east?
Pretty sure he's on fire.

Is there any chance anyone has any idea what I'm talking about, and can point me to the right article? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Alcibiades of Apamea there was an angel 96 miles high who brought a new Revelation, but I don't see anything about the east/west thing, nor was the angel on fire. --Antiquary (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere I learn that this new Revelation, the Book of Elchasai, prescribes praying towards Jerusalem rather than towards the east, and reckons the washing of water is superior to the fire of sacrifice when it comes to forgiving sins (whatever that means), but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any of these details, or not that I can find. --Antiquary (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fire bit really does not narrow anything down. The teaching part and true form thing sounds like Metatron, Uriel, or Raphael (archangel). The height thing reminds me of Metatron and Hekhalot literature in general. The bit about facing to the west does sound like something that would appear in Hekhalot and Kabbalistic literature, but that detail is usually not something spelled out in articles. Raphael is traditionally the angel of the east (and so faces west), while Gabriel is traditionally the angel of the west.

A single article with all those details might have been deleted, as we get revisions (and occasional articles) written based on occultist "experiences" instead of published sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe List of angels in theology will help? -- SGBailey (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers, everyone, I know this is not the first hopelessly vague / niche question to hit the ref desks so I appreciate that you took the time to respond (doubly so considering the subject matter, which probably made a few dozen readers roll their eyes). Looks like there are plenty of good points here from which I can resume my search. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Number of attendees at Wikimania 2017

Does anybody of you know the total number of attendees at Wikimania 2017? Thanks! --Ruislip Gardens (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ruislip Gardens. According to the Montreal Gazette, it was "about 1000 people". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Cell phone issue: Using wi-fi when out of data

I'm very confused. Maybe someone can help me or explain to me what's going on? My mother's cellphone (LG LFL33L) ran out of data on her Tracfone plan, because she didn't realize she was not connected to the wifi (that she has through Verizon for the house). It always worked that when connected to the Wifi, no data was deducted from the Tracfone data plan because the internet connection was not being used through the data plan but through the Wifi. So, as far as I can tell, even though she's out of data now, I don't see why the internet should not work so long as she's connected through Wifi, but I can't get her phone online. I went into settings and connected to the Wifi; put in the password, clicked connect, seemed to work. It says signal strength good; all that. Yet, every time I try to connect through the phone's native browser, it says "out of data", and when I try to connect through the phone's Chrome browser, it says the phone is offline. I am typing this post on the house computer so the same internet connection I am trying to get the wifi through is online. I tried turning off "mobile data"; no effect. I went into the browser settings and dumped as much as I could, cache, cookies and history; no effect. Airplane mode is off. I tried resetting the router and turning the phone off and on; no effect. Am I wrong and you actually have to have data through your plan to connect to the internet though the wifi? Thanks.--100.2.221.147 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the phone's ability for Wi-Fi wasn't working (so it used network data instead) and then it still isn't working today (so can't connect now). No big change, just one fault and it's the same fault going on. No weird interconnection between Wi-Fi and data plans.

You need to get the phone's Wi-Fi connection working, and that connection working as far as the internet. Can the phone connect to the router? Does it think it has? Can it connect (use a web browser on the phone) to the router - probably as the IP address http://192.168.1.1 Once it's at the router, can it get beyond that to the internet? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, note that Android's Smart Network Switch feature will use mobile data to help out if the wi-fi network isn't working well or at all. Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that turning off cellular data is helpful when diagnosing stuff like this as it prevents you from thinking you've corrected the wifi. Also, I hate to say it, but have you cycled the power off and on? That a horribly obvious thing to suggest, but it really can fix a lot of issues. Matt Deres (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if power cycling the phone doesn't work (i.e. wifi still doesn't work, as Matt Deres has suggested you should disable mobile data while testing this), try power cycling the wi-fi router is possible. (It sounds like this is a home connection.) ISP provided routers in particular are often notoriously bad and power cycling often fixes some of their issues at least for a while. Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Vandalized articles

The articles for President George H.W. Bush and President Donald Trump have recently vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.211.155 (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was fixed a few hours ago. We are just waiting for the mobile cached versions to expire. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Painting wanted

Some years ago, I saw a painting on an internet page. It was painted in dark-blue colours. I would say it was a pop art-like style.
Image description (according to my memory): The picture shows a modern apartment room, probably a kitchen. A beautiful naked woman stands on the left side. A young (dressed) man opens a refrigerator in the middle of the picture and gets a beer can (or something similar) out of it.
Unfortunately, I remember neither the name of the painting nor of the artist. Therefore, a Google search is difficult. Does anyone know the picture? Thank you! 80.187.112.160 (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google "painting nude woman refrigerator" When you get results, click "images". Then drag down "tools" to "color" and chose the main color. Search those images, and change the key words as necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Which is the best online resource for the events in India?

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Which is the best online resource for the events in India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyakpkp (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Define "best". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"of the most excellent or desirable type or quality." You could have looked that up yourself in the dictionary. Wymspen (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have an answer that will fit whatever the OP has decided "best" would mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No more than you do. Wymspen (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University of London Act, 1898 full text available?

I have been trying to get the full text of this law but none seems to be accessible without payment. Anybody know some source for UK Parliament Acts of this period? --Remadevil (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there's someone who still has WP:HeinOnline access—mine lapsed while I was inactive earlier this year and I never bothered requesting renewal—they might be able to help you out. I know the Wikipedia HeinOnline set has the Selden Society publications, and I think it has the English Reports... so I want to say it has Statutes of the Realm as well, which ought to have the Act you're searching for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is in this collection of historic documents from the university archives, presumably scanned and saved as a PDF - page 62. [1] Wymspen (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That is a precious find and history of the University to boot. Thank you once again. --Remadevil (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or Remadevil, the same book in an easier format, here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What percent of the Japanese people living in Japan speak English?

I really would like to know. 50.68.252.153 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we always assume people asking questions here actually want to know the answer. That's called assuming good faith, which is a central tenet of Wikipedia. Unless they give us good reason to believe they have some other motive, that is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"While no official data seems to exist regarding the percentage of native Japanese-English bilinguals in Japan, the general perception from desk research and from conversations with Japanese friends and colleagues, is that less than 10% of Japanese have professional working proficiency in English". From Mitsue-Links UX Blog - Bilingualism in Japan: Why Most Locals Don't Speak English. Perhaps a more reliable source is Japan ranks 26th of 60 countries in global English proficiency but no national percentage. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that one in ten Japanese of school age or above has studied English, but the ability to actually speak the language is much lower [2], in part because of the difficulty of finding English speakers with whom to interact. The first answer in this quora tread [3] has some actual figures which estimates that around 0.1% of the population is truly fluent in English (as opposed to having been exposed to some English learning at some point). --Xuxl (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, it's that, plus most English instruction in Japan focuses on rote memorization of vocabulary, so that most who've gone through Japanese schools can recognize a number of English words but have no idea how to string them into a sentence. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "speak English"? Note: English-language education in Japan. English education is, I believe, mandatory in Japanese primary education, but, as discussed above, it has serious deficits. Especially in cities, many Japanese will be able to understand a smattering of English from the gaijin, but only a small percentage of Japanese are actually fluent in English. Modern Japanese also has a number of English loanwords, and often-not-very-grammatical English is frequently used in advertisements and the like, but these don't really translate (excuse the pun) to English fluency. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single Japanese people in Japan speaks English. Here are their vocabulary:

Okay
USA
Japan
SALE
X-MAS
F*** You

110.22.20.252 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Size of the San Gabriel Valley compared to Singapore

Is the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California, California, United States similar in size to the city-state Singapore in Southeast Asia? WJetChao (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you compared the figures for "area" given in each of those articles? --47.157.122.192 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 :What exactly do you mean by "speak English"? Note: [[English-language education in Japan]]. English education is, I believe, mandatory in Japanese [[primary education]], but, as discussed above, it has serious deficits. Especially in cities, many Japanese will be able to understand a smattering of English from the ''[[gaijin]]'', but only a small percentage of Japanese are actually fluent in English. Modern Japanese also has a number of English [[loanword]]s, and [[Engrish|often-not-very-grammatical English]] is frequently used in advertisements and the like, but these don't really translate (excuse the pun) to English fluency. --[[Special:Contributions/47.157.122.192|47.157.122.192]] ([[User talk:47.157.122.192|talk]]) 00:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
+Every single Japanese people in Japan speaks English. Here are their vocabulary:
+# Okay
+# USA
+# Japan
+# SALE
+# X-MAS
+# F*** You
+[[Special:Contributions/110.22.20.252|110.22.20.252]] ([[User talk:110.22.20.252|talk]]) 06:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 = January 3 =