Miscellaneous desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

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.

December 2[edit]

Is the play Wicked_(musical) coming to Seattle in 2013 or 2014? Thanks![edit]

Is the play Wicked_(musical) coming to Seattle in 2013 or 2014? Thanks! Neptunekh94 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not in 2013. In 2014? let's hope. Richard Avery (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will rephrase my question: Is there a commercial website where people can purchase a personalized photo of Claire_Stansfield or Ursula Andress with a personailed message. Thank you![edit]

Is a website where people can buy an autograph of Claire_Stansfield who played Alti on Xena:_Warrior_Princess? Neptunekh94 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like ebay ($25)? The same autographed photo is offered at Main Street 24/7 for $15. It "come (sic) with a Certificate of Authenticy (sic)" (though I'd hold out for one of authenticity). Another autograph is valued at $10 at ecrater.com. Just google "Claire Stansfield autograph" for others. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to ask where I could buy a personalized message on those ladies signatures because some actors/singers sell their autograph and personalized messages of off their official websites. The answer that user gave was not was I was looking for. Neptunekh94 (talk) 12:15 am, Today (UTC−5)

"The Official Claire Stansfield website is down right now ... The best method of collecting autographs from the television show,"Xena" is to attend a Xena convention (yeah, the ticket prices are high, there are tons of people that show up, and you wait in line forever, but unfortunately, most of the show's stars do not answer fan mail). Creation Entertainment has official Xena conventions regularly in various cities across the US. They also sell many autographs on their website."[1] Stansfield will be appearing at the convention in Burbank, California on Saturday, January 12.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bondstars.com supposedly arranged an Andress private signing in January 2010 (£50.00, including worldwide shipping and handling).[3] She's not on their list of those they represent, but maybe they'll do it again sometime. She seems to do a fair amount of signing in person (at least two Autographia events). P.S. Please don't post at multiple desks. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look for memorabilia websites. Here in the UK we have memorabilia shows where you can meet the stars and get them to sign something in front of you. Be careful buying from Ebay because you can't be guaranteed that the celeb has actually signed it themselves. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating Wikipedia Into Facebook[edit]

Dear sir/madam, Many times I see on facebook that there are FacebookPages that are linked with wikipedia. Although it has LIKE button and other features of a facebbok page,it derives information about that subject from wikipedia,and has a 'W' icon placed on it? How to create such a page? Regards Sarbatrik Brahma

Sarbatrik Brahma (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)s@rb@tr1kSarbatrik Brahma (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you refer to a page like http://www.facebook.com/pages/Office-of-Juvenile-Justice-and-Delinquency-Prevention/116071225073574?rf=116316181716207 with content copied from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Such community pages at Facebook are made by Facebook and not by Wikipedia. I don't know how to influence the process. See Template:HD/facebook for a standard reply to a more common type of question about existing Facebook pages. The Help Center link has gone dead for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential vote in Maine and Nebraska[edit]

In the 2012 U.S. presidential election, electoral votes in Maine and Nebraska are allocated by congressional district. Were the electors chosen by the existing congressional districts (which were apportioned based on the 2000 census), or by the districts apportioned for the incoming Congress (based on the 2010 census)? [I know it does not matter for practical purposes because the electoral votes were not split, but they were assigned by districts nonetheless.] → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 08:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Maine and Nebraska elected their congress people from the 2010 districts, so the vote would have been apportioned that way. Maine appears to have kept its two districts with the same boundaries, based on the relevent Wikipedia articles on the districts themselves, but a small adjustment was made moving an area with an Airforce Base and a small town from Nebraska's second to its first district. See Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. This was done in 2011, so would have been in place for the 2012 election cycle. --Jayron32 13:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrymandering is alive and well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, none of the three districts in Nebraska is particularly "gerrymandered", which would imply some strange shapes were necessary to give a lopsided reapportionment. Gerrymandered districts aren't just politically malaportioned, they also must be geographically "obscene" (as one observer I read once described one district), such as North Carolina's 12th congressional district and Illinois's 17th congressional district and Illinois's 4th congressional district all of which are clearly Gerrymandered. --Jayron32 02:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are worse cases. But they redrew the pro-Obama district to ensure he wouldn't get any electoral votes this time - which means that their alleged apportioned electoral college voting is a sham, as they are de facto at-large votes. This time, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mysterious area of Google Maps[edit]

I was looking at Google Maps and I came across a blackened strip on the Yukon\Alaskan border. I don't think it is a lake especially when zoomed in so why is it like that? Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some areas, particularly where there are few settlements or other features, they haven't gotten around to montaging in the detailed commercial imagery, leaving you with low-resolution stuff like Landsat or Blue Marble. What coordinates were you looking at? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Wikimapia says it is a satellite image error. --Daniel[[User Talk:Daniel J. Leivick|(talk) 20:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly looks like either the image wasn't available (the commercial satellite company didn't deliver it, perhaps because the satellite had an error) or they've not montaged it correctly. You can see the orientation of the imagery for that area in the adjacent patches corresponds with a strip of imagery from the satellite. If this were somewhere important like Manhattan then someone would have yelled and they'd have either montaged in a fresh image or even tasked the satellite to take a fresh picture - but rural places like this get neglected. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When zoomed in, the south-eastern area suddenly shows valleys but surrounding areas still remain blanked as seen here. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 20:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If you zoom in further, btw, you'll see they do have imagery (at a closer detail) for most of the east section of that, taken from a different satellite. The level with the hole looks like Landsat, and the partial patch seems to be Terra. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

could it have anything to do with NORAD? μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever people find defects in Google satellite imagery, there seems to be a tendency to ascribe this to censorship of secret facilities. But this isn't how Google images are censored - see Satellite map images with missing or unclear data#United States, where they're either pixelated, blurred, or have low-res montages only. Plenty of really secret places like Area 51 are uncensored. Note that this strip is right next to the Alaska Highway and 20 miles from Chisana, Alaska (and its airport) - a bad place to hide one's death ray installation. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I phrased it as a question and referred to a publicly known facility. No conspiracy theorism here. But it is curious whether Google does censor itself when asked to do so for good reason. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bing Maps' satellite view has the whole area in low resolution (looks like Landsat) imagery, but no high-res. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Google Maps do censor - I presume under instruction from governments. Observatory Circle in Washington DC was deliberately blurred for a long time, while military installations in the Netherlands are still censored (for example, see Den Helder naval base or Volkel Air Base). Then there's the whole street maps thing in Germany (for example: here in Dusseldorf), due to privacy legislation where individuals can demand Google blanks out their house; and *a lot* have taken up that option. Astronaut (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]