Miscellaneous desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

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 13

Fame in USA

I've suddenly become very worried by the possibility that the most famous British person in the US is Simon Cowell. Firstly, how can I verify this? Secondly, what can I do about it? (ps actors don't count, as they're not famous for being themselves) almost-instinct 11:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding actors makes life a little difficult for yourself. Also defining 'most famous' is tough. You could do something as rudimentary as go based on number of google-hits with their name in speech-marks and the web address being a .com (but that's a problem as .com is both US and international). Alongside Simon Cowell, and excluding actors you could put such people as the Queen (Elizabeth the II) and bands such as The Beatles (sure they're not still performing but in terms of fame they're still hugely famous) and many other popular UK based bands. I'm not sure why you'd rule out actors, given that actors are a huge part of the group of people we'd define as 'famous'. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actors are just doing and saying what they're told to do or say by their script - eg Hugh Laurie in House is British but that has no bearing on the bulk of his fame in the US. almost-instinct 12:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also get actors who end up doing other notable things - Ricky Gervais, for example, is hosting the Golden Globes. In the short term, that skews the numbers as far as fame and popularity (which aren't always the same). You'll want to know if you're searching for the most famous British person now, or at a certain point in the year. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I would what to take Gervais' overall fame and deduct the purely acting part, leaving the British Guy On My TV portion. And I mean now-ish. Obviously, I'm in no position to be fussy ;-) almost-instinct 13:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Actors are just doing and saying ... by their script..." - How do you know that "reality show" hosts are any different? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question does not seem suitable for the reference desk, as it looks more like a request for a comment or an opinion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm: this is not a request for a comment or an opinion. To rephrase my first question: How can I can quantify Simon Cowell's fame in the US compared with other non-actor British people? almost-instinct 13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An objective measure of someone's fame could be the number or quantity of mentions in the media serving that group (in this case the US), weighted by the circulation of those media. Another dimension could be the quality of the fame - for example I expect Elizabeth Taylor gets less mentions than some fad popette, but many people would regard her as being more famous. Some people become houshold names - a survey could be done which compares the product recognition of Simon Cowell with other celebs. I suppose you could reduce someones fame by reducing their exposure in the various media. A lot of public people are almost instantly forgotten as soon as they stop appearing on tv or other media for one reason or another. There have been academic and other books and papers published about fame or celebrity - try searching in Google Scholar or Google Books. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, see Proxy (statistics). You'll have to come up with a measure or measures you think correlate with fame, along the lines of suggestions made above. Good luck with that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your conditions aare a little haphazard and arbitrary. You want to exclude the quotient of fame attaching to actors, leaving only their UK-fame-ness; but you do not want to apply the same condition to the Cowell, and exclude the fame ataching to his activity as host of a karaoke competition. That doesn't compute for me, but your milage may vary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Q Score -- I think it's exactly the type of measurement you're looking for, though note that as it's valuable marketing info you likely won't be able to get your hands on it. — Lomn 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I suppose actual values I could put into my yet-to-be-decided-on formula could include the Q score, minutes spent onscreen, viewing figures per minute, value to advertisers (either through personal endorsement or value of advertising on the shows appeared on) number of articles in the press, number of gratuitous references in the press, number of appearances on chat shows ... any more? Do any American publications produce annual lists of, say, Influential Celebreties? almost-instinct 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what is meant by "influential". You'll have publications like People with a "most intriguing people" issue. But that doesn't measure their influence, just maybe their visibility. Seems to me that Time or Newsweek had a writeup sometime back about the 100 most influential people in the world. Sorry about the vagueness, but you might be able to google it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given what I'm asking, I'm in no position to quibble with anyone else's vagueness :-) almost-instinct 16:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 1960s Quiz book that was written in the early 70s. Here and there it asks "Who was...?" about someone who had a short time in the public eye. One of those questions is about Regis Philbin, who at that time was known pretty much just for being Joey Bishop's talk show backup. Your average American certainly knows who Regis is now, and might be saying, "Joey who?" So he's a lot more famous. But is he very much more influential? And in what way? It's a slippery concept. The article about the influential had many names unknown outside of a specific profession, but were nonetheless regarded as highly influential. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By analogy with consumer products, some celebrities may get a lot of mentions in the media, but not have much impact with the public. Like a heavily-advertised new product that does not sell very well. Others may have little media attention but be noticed and remembered by the public. So you need to decide if you are going to measure the quantity of mentions in the media, the quantity of exposure of an average member of the public to them, or the extent to which people are aware of them and remember them. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are surveys of which celebrities are most recognized, but I can't immeditely lay my hands on one. In a paper in the Annals of Improbable Research, the highest-ranked British persons collectively are the Beatles, and the highest-ranked individual is George Harrison. However, the list is not comprehensive and does not include, for example, Elizabeth II or Princess Diana (either of whom is, in my subjective opinion, better known to Americans than Simon Cowell), nor does it include Cowell himself. John M Baker (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am an American who has never heard of Simon Cowell but who knows of many other notable people in the UK. Marco polo (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself lucky :-) almost-instinct 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit (quite a well-informed one, I hope) who has never ever heard of Regis Philbin (see above). Is that a good thing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been an American TV presence for a long time now, on talk shows and game shows. But he seldom does movies or TV series as such, so it's very possible he would be little known outside the USA. As far as Simon Cowell goes, I know of him but I never watch the shows he's on, but whether he's better known among the average American than ERII or Diana, would be an interesting survey to take. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of an idiotic ad campaign in the U.S. for some hair product many years ago in the U.S. which involved endorsement by some utterly unknown redheaded female, Rula Lenska, presumably some sort of celebrity in the UK. She became a standing joke for late-night TV comedians. It is a sick, sad world if Cowell is more famous than the Queen or the Beatles. (Does the question exclude dead Brits like Churchill or Henry VII?) Lenska, whomever she is or was, would probably be an improvement over Cowell. Edison (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our article suggests that is exactly what you were meant to assume, and it was an entirely manufactured "mistake". 86.178.229.168 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Elizabeth Taylor recognizably British? I always assume she's American. But she doesn't really do anything anymore; she was Michael Jackson's friend for some reason, and Maggie's voice that one time on the Simpsons. Does anyone under the age of, say, 40, even know her as a movie star? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that due to the fact that American Idol is a fairly new phenomenon, while bands like The Beatles and Rolling Stones have been around for a while, would make the musicians more famous simply by dint of longevity. The longer you exist, the more people are exposed to you. JJohnCooper (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect you may not be getting - not sure if you want it or not - is that you may want to reduce your figures by a small portion to indicate that not all Americans who know who Simon Cowell is (like myself) know that he's British. Or, are you concerned about the fame of the person regardless of whether or not people recognize him as British. (i.e.: People like me who have never really seen "American Idol," but suspect from my reading that the closest comparison is a character from my childhood, Oscar the Grouch.)209.244.187.155 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon measured against a well-known popularity benchmark. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is an impossible question to answer without conducting a survey of hundreds of people. But one thing to keep in mind is that most Americans aren't old enough to remember the Beatles. I'm sure almost everyone has heard of them, but I bet many teenagers would be hard pressed to name Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr. That said, most Americans don't watch American Idol either -- a given episode will be watched by less than 10% of the country. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be the Queen?..88.96.226.6 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

saw

Who konw saw IV Mark Hoffman working department name ?-58.152.255.207 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your question is not clear. Can you try to rephrase it? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... I think the question is: "What was the police department Mark Hoffman worked in Saw IV called?". I suppose. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,you right :)--219.73.35.84 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the phrasing confusion is cleared up and its intended meaning confirmed, while the original question remains unanswered. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness World Record citation please (1997—2001 and 2002+)

Do you have a Guinness Book of World Records, for any year 1997—2001 or for 2002+. I'm looking for a citation for The Theatre of Small Convenience, Malvern, England, which claims to be the smallest theatre (building) in the world since 2002, and for the Piccolo Theatre, Hamburg, Germany, the previous record holder. If you have one or both books, it would be great if you could provide citation details (title, publisher, edition, page, authors (?) & ISBN) to verify both claims. GyroMagician (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is that the GBR for 1991 (ed. Donald McFarlan, ISBN 0-85112-374-0, Guinness Publishing Ltd.) lists the Piccolo as the smallest theatre, on p.163. If you Google "smallest theatre in the world you will get competing claims today.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that's a good start. Yes, I thought there might be competing claims. I think it's all in the wording - The TSC claim to be the smallest theatre (building). I think the building part is key, for their claim at least. But I'd like to have it from the horses mouth, just to be sure! GyroMagician (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2002 edition, page 196, describes the TSC as "the smallest commercial theatre" in the world. The previous edition in my library, the 1997 edition, page 146, says the Piccolo is "the smallest regularly operated professional theatre". Reconcile the difference in the wording as you may. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! It's slightly absurd, but perfect for the claim on my page - now updated. I'll ignore the difference in wording, and hope I never get into a discussion about it. Thank you both very much. GyroMagician (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Translation

Can someone who speaks Arabic tell me what this means?

منيح منيح :) أنا مصري.

Luthinya (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask on the language desk? Anyway, Google Translate says: "Minih Minih:) I am an Egyptian."--Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, Google said, "Minih Minih:) I'm from Egypt" to me. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the punctuation. If you remove the period at the end, it changes it. I don't know Arabic so I don't know why that might be. But rather asking us blind men, they ought to ask at the Language desk, where people can probably explain it more accurately. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice taken. Somehow I did not spot the Language Desk the first time round...foolish of me. Thank you all! Luthinya (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Insurance number and privacy

When I apply for a job in the UK, I have to give my National Insurance number. Just wondering how I can find out how much information about me that allows my prospective employer to see? I am aware that nobody here can give me a definite answer, cause that would be legal advice, so I'm just looking for hints about what search terms I should use. The National Insurance article here doesn't mention privacy, and I've tried googling "national insurance number"+privacy, but didn't find anything helpful. Any hints would be most welcome. cheers! 89.195.20.176 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OR) - The only experience I have of this is using NiNOs to cross-check you names and dates of birth agsinst details provided for an English course for recent immigrants. So they must be able to find out those two pieces of information from it, at least--86.25.237.165 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Your NI number is used by your employer to make payments on your behalf to HM Revenue & Customs so that you build up contributions towards your State Pension entitlement. If it is a genuine number, then your emplyer has no legal access to any information about you whatsoever. There may be some very limited information (such as previous names and addresses) exchanged if the number is not genuine. As far as I know, there is no obligation on you to give your NI number until you have a contract of employment. I wonder why a prospective employer is asking for this, unless they have had problems with illegal immigrants in the past. HM Revenue & Customs hold a database which includes previous names, addresses and date of birth, but this is not available to employers and is used only for checking purposes. Dbfirs 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(later) Prospective employers are able to check that the name and date of birth that you have given correspond to your NI number. Most employers will not need to do this in advance because the information is automatically checked free of charge after the first pay-day, but some will wish to pay for a "pre-check" if they have had problems with employees giving fake details in the past. Dbfirs 22:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Canada the equivalent of the NI number is the Social Insurance Number. The SIN (as it is called) allows you find out quite a lot of things about you, especially credit checks, and is a much sought-after piece of information by identity thieves. I would recommend not giving either number to anyone not entitled to have it. Your employer is of course entitled to have it, and you'll have to trust them not to misuse it. Of course you are already trusting them since they employ you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, prospective employers need to ensure that they are employing people with permission to work in the UK, and the easiest way of doing this is to check that they have a valid NI Number, with the cross-check that the date of birth matches. Failure to do this could cost a large fine and/or imprisonment. [1] gives more detail on this. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Social Security Numbers in the United States is more complex and more insidious, but I have a very strong feeling that it applies to the social-insurance numbers in many other countries. The Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service will give employers very little direct information, but that's not where the greatest danger lies.

Rather, the number is used as an extremely handy (even essential) unique identifier for databases, both for law enforcement and for purely-commercial purposes. And even the purely-unofficial use is problematic, since it allows all sorts of cross-checking between private databases that can be either helpful or harmful. Hospitals, schools (when not forbidden by law or policy), banks (by law) and credit-reporting agencies use Social Security numbers to identify individuals, so their privacy policies have to be rigorous and their technical safeguards very secure (which they often are not). Having someone's Social Security number, plus (for starters) a name and date of birth, makes it much easier to steal his or her identity for fraudulent purposes, so it's always wise to be careful with it.

How much of this applies to analogous numbers in other countries I don't know, but since credit-reporting agencies, private detective agencies, direct-marketing companies and the like have branches, affiliates, associates and subsidiaries in many nations, I think the potential problems could be very similar. In totalitarian and post-totalitarian states with huge secret police forces and limited tolerance for dissent, they're much greater. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Municipal Airport and various of small airports in LA

Is there any difference between orange county airport and municipal airports. Is the airprot in Compton Airport, El Monte Airport Santa Monica Aiport is these likely for out of state. Could they go to Mexico or New York or the Midwest? Or those airports is only west coast states. Since Municipal means city and orange county could be international because it goes to Mexico.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Airport is owned by Orange County, California. It's the only commercial airport in Orange County. The List of airports in the Los Angeles area shows larger airports such as Los Angeles International. That list also shows Compton, El Monte, and Santa Monica (among others) as general aviation airport, which usually means small private planes. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHat's the contrast between small private planes and public access airports? Does private ones menas only certain groups can access the airports for business purpose or it just menas the airplane tickets costs is higher?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read our lengthy airport article. It also has links to articles about specific types of airports. Orange County airport has scheduled passenger service; like LAX or other airports you're probably familiar with, it's serviced by many airlines and people can just walk in and buy a ticket and fly somewhere. Some general aviation airports don't have any scheduled passenger service; you drive up to the air service's building and you rent a plane to fly it somewhere, or you take a flying lesson, or their pilot flies you where you want to go, or whatever. (You would call them in advance of your visit.) Many airports, including John Wayne Airport, have both the regular passenger terminal and the GA "terminals". Anyone can buy a ticket from a private operator like this; it's not restricted to "certain groups". The cost of having a pilot fly you in a Cessna or Piper to where you want to go will be much higher than getting a ticket at any airline that services regular passenger terminals. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion of the wiki

Please provide me with data showing the growth of users on your site since the start of 2001. I am trying to create an S curve demonstrating the diffusion of the wiki. Technomamab (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything we have is in pages linked from Wikipedia:Statistics -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might be misreading this (in which case, disregard please), but your wording ("your site") seems to indicate you think this site is in some way centrally planed, when it is in fact completely community-driven (grass roots, so to say (my, I do use a lot of parentheses, don't I)), and there is no real central committee, just community rules. I think that's an important point to note if you are researching the wikipedia phenomenon. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not 100% true - we do have the Wikimedia Foundation - they own things like the name, the logo and the domain names - and since they collect money and pay wages for the (tiny) staff and also provide servers, etc, they do (in effect) "own" the site. SteveBaker (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in effect. The quite literally and exactly own Wikipedia. --Jayron32 02:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they own "Wikipedia" the name (and associated trade dress), and the physical servers on which Wikipedia is hosted, but they don't own the content of Wikipedia. All contributions to Wikipedia are still copyrighted (owned) by their contributors. The Wikimedia Foundation simply has a non-exclusive right to their use. -- 70.90.187.65 (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]