Miscellaneous desk
< January 29	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 31 >

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.

January 30

Recommend me some military/war novels?

Thrilling and action ones, not books like All Quiet on the Western Front, which I felt was supposed to make you think. I'm looking for something closer to something like CoD4 in book form. 67.169.118.40 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy might appeal to you. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Acceptable (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be fiction? There are some nonfiction books I could recommend. War is not a game. --Blue387 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have a day on which you do want to think, try Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels, about the battle of Gettysburg in the American civil war. It more than bears out Sherman's bitter observation to the Michigan Military Academy in 1879:

I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.

Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!

--- OtherDave (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what CoD4 is. What era war thriller do you want? How about Cornwell's Sharpe (Napoleonic war) books? -- SGBailey (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the Sharpe books (and the made-for-TV movies based on them are pretty good too). In that Napoleonic vein - you've got to add the Aubrey–Maturin series and the Horatio Hornblower series. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, CoD4 may enlighten you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon has a lot of ripping-good WWII action. --Sean 14:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptonomicon is one of my favorite books - but I wouldn't describe it as a "Military/War novel". If our OP has an agressive geeky streak - then I'll recommend it on the grounds of being 'required reading' - but it doesn't really fit the requirement. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to watch Call of Duty 4 on the small screen, I highly recommened Band of Brothers. Livewireo (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you might be interested in military science fiction, I recommend anything by David Drake, David Weber, John Ringo, Eric Flint and Steve White. I also recommend the novel Starship Troopers, but not the movie. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, dear god, not the movie. Dismas|^(talk) 16:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you DO like Sci Fi, there's a really good new author out called John Scalzi. His Colonial Defence Forces series (Old Man's War, The Ghost Brigades, and The Last Colony) are all really good sci-fi military books, very "Starship Troopers" like. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this hatred of the movie. Yes it was very different from the book, but it's sneakily subversive and pretty funny. It uses the trappings and conventions of formulaic things-exploding sci-fi films without really following them. And the second sequel is pretty good too (never the first sequel, oh no). Would you like to know more? 79.66.89.178 (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! You actually LIKED the Starship Troopers' movie?!?! It was terrible! I can't think of a single good thing to say about it. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Richards. And, I liked it, too. I thought it acted within an imagined future with extraordinary comfortableness, and its tongue was exactly the right amount in its cheek. Beside, they splattered a lot of bugs big time. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Richards was one of the worst things about the movie, as she tends to about any movie she appears in, but apart from her, Starship Troopers is great. Then again, it's kind of shocking to me how many people really seem to miss that it's black, black satire. I don't think there's anything sneaky about that aspect of it, either. Not that I'm implying that the people here don't get that it's satire -- it's certainly possible to get that and still dislike the movie. (But the sequels? Hrgh. Stay away, for the sake of your own sanity. The second sequel, in particular, has some of the crappiest CGI I've seen in years. It'd look completely outdated even if the movie was a decade older than it is.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above, Bernard Cornwell is good page-turning, undemanding stuff. His Sharpe series is well known, but he does other eras too. Simon Scarrow offers Roman military stories. For WWII non-fiction which reads like fiction, try Paul Brickhill's Dambusters, Reach for the Sky & Great Escape. Pat Reid's Colditz series offers escape rather than combat action, but good value. On the Band of Brothers subject: the histories by Stephen Ambrose are very readable and compelling. Gwinva (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title of songs in video

What are the songs in this video? --omnipotence407 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first track, to 2:50, is excerpts from Whirl-Y-Reel 2 (Folk Police Mix), the 7th track on Afro Celt Sound System's "Volume 1 - Sound Magic". --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second track sounds somewhat Enya-ish. but I can't place it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's seriously hitting "movie soundtrack" buttons in my head, and sounds very familiar, but I can't figure out where it's from. Indeed, at the end it says "Music by Afro Celt Sound System and Danny Elfman". -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've got it. It's "Ice Dance", from Edward Scissorhands. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and here's the classic scene, too! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

willy russel, blood brothers

why did willy russel write blood brothers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.237.116 (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does anyone write any work of fiction? I mean, is there any reason to believe that anything other than the normal artistic urge to create (or Russel's desire to make a living with his skills) was behind the creation of Blood Brothers? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also to expose (The Jungle), for propaganda (Atlas Shrugged), to 'prove' it can be done (Battlefield Earth), to caution (1984), to explore concepts (Ender's Game), to explore the medium (House of Leaves), or to entertain (Harry Potter). There's no practical limit to what motivates a writer to write (but profit is probably pretty high on the list in most cases). – 74 13:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a purely practical reason, it says here that the original Blood Brothers play was written to fulfil a commission from Merseyside Young People's Theatre Company in 1981, and Russell subsequently turned it into a musical in 1982. There's a quote from him that reads "Bob Swash had been badgering me for a long time to write a new musical". Ka renjc 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did he write Blood Brothers ? He tried other bodily fluids, but the Mucous Brothers just didn't sell. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Unfortunately the instant appeal of Blood Brothers eclipsed the other lesser known work Guts Brothers. StuRat, you're infectious... Julia Rossi (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading movie and subtitles

So i´ve tried to dowload movie 'waltz with bashir' which is all good but my onl problem is I don´t know how to get the film and subtitles together if I burn it to DVD... Any light that could be shed on te matter would be appreciated... Thankyou 80.35.203.22 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been released for rental or ownership yet, so how do you have a legal copy? And did you miss that we have a Computers Desk? Dismas|^(talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he asked for legal advice ;-) --140.247.242.36 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been able to get subtitles when ripping a CD (in a strictly legal capacity, of course). Instead you need to use a completely different process, where you play the movie, with subtitles, then do motion capture from the monitor. This is very tricky, though. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HandBrake can easily rip movies and apply subtitles to them (it burns them into the video, so you can't ever disable them once you've done it). It is not very hard to do. But are you asking how to use a subtitle file (like SRT or SUB) to make a DVD that has optional subtitles? I haven't tried to do this before, but Googling around suggests there are a few specific burner programs that can do this. Google the subtitle file name and "DVD burner" and you'll probably find one that will work. --140.247.242.36 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid

This rumour keeps cropping up in Spanish papers, and seems obviously false. The papers claim Ronaldo has signed a pre-contact with Madrid to move there in the summer, and will owe them a significant fee if he does not. My question is would this be legal? He's contacted with Manchester United for a good few years, so would he be allowed to sign contracts with other clubs? Would this supposed pre-contact hold up if it had been signed? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A player under contract can only negotiate with other clubs if he has the permission of his current club, or if he is in the last six months of his contract. On the face of it the answer would be no, but if the Spanish reports did turn out to be correct, the actual outcome would involve a small army of lawyers. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal bulk buys

I'm in England and trying to raise funds for a small charity within my local area. I'd like to get fairly large quantities of sweets such as Haribo at close-to-bulk prices. Is there any way of purchasing the sort of boxes like here (about 5 or so boxes) without the registration process for business customers? Are there any shops which cater for this position in-between bulk and personal uses in the UK, and preferably East Anglia? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxes of sweets like those can usually be found in a Cash and carry (e.g. I've seen them in a C&C in Cambridge, though I'm not sure whether this place is still trading). These usually require some form of "membership", but I don't think it's very difficult to get this, or you might be able to ask around to get someone to lend you theirs. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could contact them [1]. Don't know about the UK, but they have factory outlet stores in Germany. If you make a good case for your charity in your contact message they might give you a discount or let you join their club. You can order boxes of sweets online from their German site [2], but they aren't bulk and I doubt it would come any cheaper than buying locally. If it can be any old sweet, doesn't have to be brand name and you don't need a regular supply, check your local Variety store. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your real goal is to get large quantities of candy at low prices, you might do better to buy it retail during a sale. After candy-intensive holidays you'll find excess inventory goes on sale at dramatically reduced prices. Some of that candy may be holiday-specific, like Christmas trees after Christmas, hearts after Valentine's Day, Easter bunnies after Easter, etc., but some is not. You might want to look for that candy. StuRat (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking at some local stores - speak to the manager - explain you are representing a charity (be prepared to prove it) and ask to buy some candy at retail costs - if it's not an outrageous amount - and if you aren't planning on selling it in competition to the store - I bet they'll just give it to you. SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Decathlon Alternate Team

Hey, I'm wondering if anyone here is or have competed in the Academic Decathlon competition. Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the role of the alternate team? Obviously they're meant to replace the main team members that don't show up, but what I mean is, do only the main team members participate in the tests/speech, or does everyone present that represents a school have to compete as well? For instance, the team at my school consists of 3 Honors, 3 Scholastic, and 1 Varsity member, along with 5 alternates. Would only the primary 7 compete, or would all 12 of us compete also? Thanks for shedding some light on this situation. Vic93 (t/c) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing the answer to this, I emailed my daughter who competed a few years ago (and quite successfully, I might proudly add). She sent the following reply:

"I don't really know how to answer this.... Each team needs at least 2 members in each division (honors, scholastic, varsity), since the two highest overall scores count. If they have only one varsity, they will not be competitive. I imagine the "alternate" thing he's got going is a school deal, not a competition deal, to figure out who will fit this slot? I really don't know... Alternates will likely not be allowed to compete in the competition tho." Bunthorne (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sports

What sort of sport, or similar physical activity, could three people of rather different sizes do together for a few hours?

Not tennis, though.

148.197.114.207 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling. --LarryMac | Talk 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiking, mini golf, go-karts, paintball, laser tag? These are the kinds of things we do on work outings with a variety of people. 205.206.170.1 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? When? Playing Frisbee in Chicago in winter is just not that much fun. Building a snowman in Atlanta can only occasionally be done with lots of determination. (Our neighbors produced a 1 ft specimen last winter. Kudos.) Are the 3 people just different sizes or also vastly different ages? Play darts with adults, for children there's a variety with velcro balls and a sticky target. Archery Bocce ring toss (No page, honestly? Horseshoes Skateboarding Roller skating Air bazooka can shooting Folk dancing Aerobics Juggling Judo Trampoline Show jumping Equestrian vaulting Artistic cycling Windsurfing Surfing Figure skating Gymnastics Hip hop Sport fishing Kite fighting Parachuting Hang gliding Castell > (small version) Orienteering Freestyle football and then there's Beer pong - to name but a few. Take your pick. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Hip hop is a sport :-) Astronaut (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very sporting assessment. If our article on breakdance is to be believed, "Today, breakdancing culture is a remarkable discipline somewhere between those of dancers and athletes." Which, being located between two sportish pursuits of varying definition, would at least seem to imply some degree of sportage. And since our article on Hip hop includes other paragons of physical activity like graffiti and beatboxing, it's starting to sound absolutely sportly. – 74 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a hand-held GPS - I strongly recommend Geocaching. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some quite athletic Wii games out there, I understand. jnestorius^(talk) 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming hotclaws 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play.com order within EU

As play.com are located in Jersey, will customs make me pay taxes? I'd prefer actually experience to advice! Thanks! --217.227.93.231 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first paragraph of Jersey says "Jersey is part of neither the UK nor the European Union; rather, like the Isle of Man, it is a separate possession of the Crown." --Nricardo (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this question will vary by your home country and the value of the item(s) - we need more info. Exxolon (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Companies avoid having to charge VAT on sales to EU customers by exporting goods from the EU to a Channel Islands subsidiary, and then re-importing them as direct sales to their customers. The rule of thumb in the UK is that if the goods are worth under about £18 then Channel Islands sellers can sell them VAT free, thus undercutting UK retailers, who must charge VAT at 15%. Popular items are CDs, DVDs and computer/video games. We have an article on it, Value-Added-Tax-free imports from the Channel Islands. It may give you guidance that applies to your own circumstances. Ka renjc 12:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this falls under legal advice - speak to a lawyer/accountant. Without knowing the details of your personal situation, there is no way we can give you a reliable advice. --Tango (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the News

Has anyone seen this? It claims that Wikipedia will be forced to make some changes AND that some Wikipedians will NOT be happy about this. Does Wikipedia have anything on this?! Powerzilla (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen it. See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions and the pages linked from there, especially the five (so far) proposals for how to implement this. Algebraist 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the proposal for "flagged revisions" essentially means that anyone can edit the article - but the version people see when they first come to read an article will be an 'approved' version that has to be signed off by some qualified/experienced editor. However, anyone may read the 'current' version by clicking on some special tab. Furthermore, (as I understand it) - the leading proposal is to apply it only to the kinds of articles that would have protection or semi-protection right now. Looked at that way - this actually makes it EASIER for anon editors to edit because there would be no more need for protected or semi-protected articles. You have to understand that there are articles where allowing anyone to edit at any time is generally a good idea (mostly very obscure articles) - and those where allowing anon editors to edit is just a complete waste of time. If you look at the history of the articles Computer and Automobile (for example) - you'll see that when they are NOT protected, 100% of Anon edits are vandalism and 99% of logged-in editor edits are vandalism reversal. There would be an average of a couple of vandalisms per hour on Computer. I looked carefully over a period of about a month last year and during that entire month - there was not a single edit by an anon editor that didn't have to be immediately reverted - and not a single edit by a logged-in editor that did have to be reverted. In that context - who needs anon editors? There is no benefit. But - there are more obscure articles where almost all of the decent edits are done by anon editors - and in those cases, we don't want protection. Flagged revisions will therefore make Wikipedia MORE open - not LESS. This approach has been used successfully on the German Wikipedia - it does work. SteveBaker (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which month "last year" had your near-miraculous 100% anon / 0% user vandalism figures on Computer? The last time that article was editable by anonymous users appears to have been 17 October 2007. In the span from 27 August 2007 to 17 October 2007 there were 292 edits total, including 18 good-faith anonymous edits, 115 anonymous vandalisms, 27 good-faith user edits (excluding vandalism reverts and page protection), 27 user vandalisms, and 73 user page reverts (all numbers approximate by my own count). – 74 12:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Time flies. I'm sorry - my memory is not 100% perfect. Well, I guess it was MUCH more than a year ago. At any rate - your numbers are just fine for proving a point. 13% of anon edits were in good faith, 87% were vandalism - that's horrifying. 78% of user edits were in good faith, only 22% were vandalism (I'm very surprised that it's that high) - and (worst of all, IMHO) more than half of the user edits were spent fighting off the vandals! What a collosal waste of time. In order to gain the benefit of those 18 "good faith" anon edits, good, honest regular users had to spend half of their time removing crap. That's really not very productive. I'd also bet that of your 18 "good faith" anon edits, a lot were trivial stuff that the regular user editors would have caught if they had not been spending so much of their time fixing vandalism....and a lot more were regular users who simply forgot to log in. Check out articles like George W. Bush and look at the trouble they had when unprotected. The scale of vandalism is harming the encyclopedia to such a degree that SOME kind of action has to be taken. You can argue that 'tagged revisions' is not the answer - but we need SOMETHING. Because the rise of prevelence of DHCP-based internet access, where a particular user gets a different IP address every time they turn their computer on - plus the fact that many schoolkids use a different computer at their school every time they go to classes - means that we can't effectively block vandals without blocking entire ranges of IP addresses. Forcing people to create accounts with passwords and email verification does seem to at least dramatically slow down the vandals...and it's pretty easy to apply blocks to shut out the few who do make it through. SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing edits with time. I've reverted vandalism before, and it doesn't take nearly as long to click three times as it does to make a textual contribution, even of "trivial stuff". If we ignore the reverts (which I do appreciate, don't get me wrong), about half of the user contributions were vandalism, and around 40% of the actual edits were contributed anonymously. Vandalism *is* a problem, true; I just don't think banning anonymous users is the correct solution. (Does this slope look slippery to you?) – 74 16:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The press is blowing things up again. Flagged revisions are only an extra tool. It won't be applied site-wide until it's fully tested and gained enough support. So essentially nothing is going to change. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though, of course, the same thing was initially said about the ban on unregistered and new users from starting articles, and that both ended up having a large effect (much lower article creation rates, which you can see as being bad or good as you wish), and quickly became the status quo (not a temporary thing, not an extra thing). But anyway, I digress. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information at Flagged Revisions. I do remember making a link to Commons on the German Wikipedia and it's strange to not see the edit appear right away. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]