Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 October 15

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.

October 15

Son of the Mob

Does anyone happen to know where I can find a summary of the book "Son of the mob" by Gordon Korman? If you could post it here, that would be great. Thanks in advance! --IluvNicholas 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazon.com and other online retailers often include a short synopsis (for example) though they tend not to give you the ending. Google is your friend here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the best way to smuggle Cocaine?

Dear Wikipedia contributors,

What is the best way to smuggle cocaine from Colombia to the United States? The reason for this question is because I am planning to write a novel chronicling the adventures of Esteban Sanchez, a 17-year old teenager forced into drug smuggling by his poor single-mother. Esteban meets Rosario, a strange, but beautiful brunette much like Michelle Rodriguez. They talk and make deals and Esteban is at the point where he has to find a way to smuggle the powdered cocaine. How should Esteban do this? I beg of you to take into consideration his safety. Thanks you so much!

71.18.216.110 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell you the various benefits of different methods (I expect the best methods are not yet discovered) as I don't go near the stuff, let alone deal or smuggle it. However, things you would need to take into account are the amount that they are supposed to smuggle (can it be taken by a single person?), the method of travel (commercial airline, surface travel through Mexico, ocean, etc), the amount of health risk the people are willing to take (carrying the cocaine in condoms inside the body is less detectable, but very risky, while a secret pocket in luggage is not a health risk, but easily detectable), and so on. Esteban's and Rosario's contacts are also important - are they able to bribe or blackmail a border official in advance? Bribery and blackmail is probably the safest method, because the border is the most dangerous part. However, the con to this approach is that there is someone in an official place who knows what you have done, and will dob you in if they are caught themselves. In addition it is also open to double-crossing (a common plot device in a thriller novel). A handy word for Esteban's role is 'mule', which refers to someone forced into smuggling drugs against their will. A mule's smuggling technique is often very risky, and they will not necessarily know for whom they are smuggling the drugs.Steewi 02:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You might find the United States Drug Enforcement Agency's (DEA) Microgram Bulletin an interesting read. Skim through a few issues from the Bulletin archives to get an idea of the sort of creative things the DEA has run across. This issue describes plastic manufactured to contain 7% cocaine and formed into suitcase components, and hollow Aztec statues full of cocaine bricks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Look up the book Snow Blind which is all about a guy who smuggled cocaine and his different methods. Also the various Howard Marks books as its all smuggling. Don't do it for real. Prison life is wasted life. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your novel would be more interesting if you invented a novel method of smuggling. I would think along the lines of the safest method being not to have any contact with the goods themselves; they make their own way over the border using a their own transport that couln't be traced back to the sender. For example, see radio-controlled aircraft, carrier pigeon, bat bomb...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It does sort of depend on the novel. If you want to convey the grim cold inhumanity of the drug trade, you need something believable, so you're best of with something that everybody knows about (like swallowing balloons). It would break the dramatic tension if young Esteban, in the middle of his despair, suddenly decided to build a cocaine catapult. (The whole thing could turn into a sort of deranged roadrunner-like string of failed schemes). risk 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"(The whole thing could turn into a sort of deranged roadrunner-like string of failed schemes)." I would read such a novel. 69.95.50.15 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the most horrific thing i've had the mispleasure to read in my life was a short story of an individual who smuggled cocaine in the innards of a young baby, they had 'balled out' and the innards filled with the cocaine. I can only hope the story was made up. Personally I really enjoy 'con man' style movies/books etc. so something that is really 'intelligent' and thought through. Doing things 'right under the eyes' of the authorities often makes for excitement/interest as you can build tension about close-calls etc. I'm not sure of a premise, but something that involves maybe throwing the 'dogs' off the scent at the airport, perhaps by setting up a smaller but more vocal drugs bust on the same flight - you might then be able to make it believable that your individual could 'sneak' through in the middle of the excitement. After all you wouldn't expect to catch 2 drugs busts on the same flight (well I wouldn't!) ny156uk 13:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The story about using a dead baby to smuggle cocaine never really happened. It's just an urban legend.[1] MrRedact 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be pretty responsible writing if your "hero" got caught and spent the rest of his life in prison as a moral lesson to others. 87.112.85.54 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• You might like to see Maria Full of Grace, which is about a drug mule. If I personally had to smuggle drugs into the US, I would design and build a cruise missile that I would launch from the Mexican desert, from where it would fly over a dropoff point (via GPS) in the US to drop its load, and then fly out over the Pacific and self-destruct. --Sean 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

2 questions

Hello, I have 2 questions.

1: In WWII, the Air Force fighter designation was "P" (like P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt), why wasn't it F?

2: If a stealth fighter fought an enemy stealth fighter, they'd have to be in visual range to fire, right?

Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1) "P" was the prefix for "Pursuit" aircraft. If you'll peruse the "Post World War II" paragraph in the P-51 article, you'll notice they talk some about when SAC changed the designators.

2) F-117A's (the current airframe usually referred to as a "stealth fighter") are largely invisible to radar, but they themselves do not carry radar equipment (it's impossible to use a radar and be invisible to other radar sensors, so there's a tradeoff). They use thermal imaging to spot targets, mostly, and anything with a jet engine does put out a thermal signature, so they can use that to track in on each other, I imagine. Luckily, they are only in use by the US right now, and so wouldn't usually engage each other. They are (according to the F-117 Nighthawk article) slated for decommissioning next year, and the Air Force has closed down the flight school. The next generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor, hasn't really been fielded enough to answer the question (imho). Deltopia 03:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that despite the name, the F-117 isn't a fighter; it's a very small bomber. It's not very agile, and carries no air-to-air weaponry. FiggyBee 08:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - the stealth doesn't have any way to attack an enemy aircraft unless it's parked on an airfield someplace. They are also horribly un-aerobatic - they certainly don't 'dogfight' - and they are too slow to run away from any moderately modern plane. They are entirely dependant on stealth - once they've been spotted - they are in deep trouble. Whilst they certainly use really excellent thermal imaging - I'm fairly sure the camera looks mostly downwards. As for spotting a stealth fighter using thermal imaging - that's not as easy as it sounds. The F117 isn't just "radar invisible" - it's also close to thermally invisible too. The jet exhausts are much lower temperature than most jet aircraft (and they have no afterburners). The jet exhaust comes out at slower speeds through a bunch of special 'diffusers' along the wings that cool the exhaust before releasing it. It's engines are pretty quiet too - it's hard to hear it coming! It's weird shape even helps by confusing the eye - it just doesn't look like an airplane and it changes profile as it changes direction to a much greater degree than other planes. So it would be harder to recognise at normal air combat ranges. SteveBaker 03:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the B-2 Spirit US Air Force's current top-of-the-line specialty stealth bomber? Acceptable 02:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Big decision

Playstation 3 or x box 360? i dont know which 1 2 get can anyone help me out, i have a new samsung so i wud like 1 with best graphics and sound quality but i dnt know much about it.......thanx : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wii, hands down! Aaadddaaammm 08:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

well both of them kinda suck wii is always the best but between those two.... XBOX 360 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo2012 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While wii is the best, it's as unhelpful as going to the computer desk with a windows problem and being told "switch to linux". Between PS3 and Xbox 360, my personal choice is the 360 - I've got that lined up for a second console purchase. It's much more affordable, and PS3 doesn't have any exclusive games that, to me, justify the price tag; in addition, I can't afford an HD TV, so blue-ray and HD capacities are useless to me. The best graphics and sound quality are in the PS3; if you want it for playing movies, and your samsung is a giant HD monster of a TV, that's your best bet. If you want to play games, however, I'd go 360. And hey, pick up a copy of Orange Box while you're at it, a friend brought over their 360 and I've not had as much fun with a game in years (Portal, natch). Kuronue | Talk 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Big decision

Playstation 3 or x box 360? i dont know which 1 2 get can anyone help me out, i have a new samsung so i wud like 1 with best graphics and sound quality and which 1 would have the best games but i dnt know much about it.......thanx : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the PS3 hasn't got that extensive a library yet (compared to the 360) but when you buy either you have to remember that the last generation of consoles lasted around 5/6 years so whatever you choose the games on them will only get better. Just compare the first few years of PS2 games to the most recent releases. I personally prefer the PS3 control pad so would go for that but it really is preference. I think the PS3 has slightly better raw power than the X-box a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28seventh_generation%29 gives a nice side-by-side comparison though. ny156uk 12:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For me it's not much of a decision, because Halo 3 is only ever going to be available for the Xbox 360. But you may not be the Halo fan that I am so you should take a hard look here and here and decide for yourself. Also the Wii is super cool and should be given consideration. Man It's So Loud In Here 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Get the one that's cheapest and has the biggest library with the most popular games, of course: The PS2. (Seriously, $600 for a launch system with no game library? That's rent money in a lot of places. And ridiculous.) If saving money is important at all to you, wait a year or two before you buy any of the next-gen consoles -- there will be more games, better games, and cheaper prices if history is any indicator. Early adopters get screwed hardest. (Just my opinion.) Deltopia 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rent money? For over two months! Skittle 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

True story - my mortgage when I lived in Augusta, Georgia, was just under $600, for a three bedroom, nice house in a decent neighborhood. I live in Maryland now; you can rent a mailbox for that much here. A lot of it is definitely in where you live :) But still, if I lived back there, I would be too tempted to spend the spare $500 to make a principal payment on my home loan; I would never be able to convince myself to buy a playstation with it. Crazy. Deltopia 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I recommend getting the one that has a game that you simply must have - until then hold onto your money and bide your time - let them come to you>83.100.252.179 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a games programmer - I work with both Xbox-360 and PS-3 consoles every day. I could list yards and yards of pro's and con's for each console type (well, I couldn't - we sign NDAs and stuff) - but it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. For the majority of games that come out on both systems (or on both systems AND the PC - such as the game I'm working on), it's very unlikely that games teams will go to a lot of effort to produce a game that looks different on the two consoles because one is better than the other. So for games that come out on both machines, it doesn't matter a damn which console you buy - or even if you run it on a PC - the game experience will be very, very similar. So the only reason to prefer one over the other is for 'exclusive; titles that come out specially for that machine and not on the other. Hence the decision comes down to price and whether you prefer the kinds of exclusive games on one console versus those on the other. The Wii is something else - it's cheap - nowhere near as capable as the other two - and the games are WAY different. If you like Wii games, buy a Wii - nothing else will do. SteveBaker 01:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

trivia and popular culture

I strongly suggest wikipedia start a new wikiproject for trivia and popular culture references. I know the official policy is to incorporate the trivia sections into the main text of the article, but personally, my favorite wiki/websurfing activity is to read the trivia sections of articles. I find so many fascinating odds and ends and tidbits of information. Plus, the trivia section has so many interesting links to other wiki articles. Occasionally I revisit an article only to find the whole trivia section removed. That always makes me sad. I wonder how many articles I've visited and never got to read the trivia section. I check the history but it rarely says "trivia section removed." It just says "cleanup."

Anyway, just a thought I wanted to pass on to someone or at least release it into the ether of wiki and the internet. Could someone at least pass this on to someone who makes these types of decisions? Or maybe wikipedia should have a suggestion box or a poll for ideas like this that people can vote on and users could view the results. Thanks.Ozmaweezer 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a community wide decision to remove trivia sections from articles, one that I disagree with, by the way. Think outside the box 12:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is a shame and I feel that Wiki has lost one of it iconic 'quirks'. Lanfear's Bane 12:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's not so much a community wide decision, as a community-wide ongoing endless debate. See Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections for part of it (including 8 archived pages, and I'm sure there are other places where the discussion rages on). Considering that the first four people in this thread (me included) believe that trivia sections should be allowed, I don't think we have a consensus just yet. risk 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Make it five in favour of allowing trivia sections. DuncanHill 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd favor them if they could be managed better, i.e. if they weren't magnets for ever-growing heaps of badly-written clutter. —Tamfang 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikimedia needs to be extended to "understand" trivia sections and show them to the (seeming) large majority who like them and hide them from the (small but vocal) minority who think they're sub-elite cruft. Personally, I've cut way back on my contributions to the encyclopedia as certain cliques have made it less and less fun to contribute.

Atlant 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with trivia articles and sections is that they're hardly ever sourced. It's all along the lines of "well, read the book or watch the movie", but that violates WP:V. Corvus cornix 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I too love the trivia. What more can I say? I'll bet there are some awful ones in the popular culture/latest fads articles - anyone got a really bad example - just for fun (I know this is fundamentally wrong)83.100.252.179 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you guys just start a trivia wiki? It could have no real content, only trivial content. Your "What TriviaWiki Is Not" statement could be "a real encyclopedia". I'm sure people would flock to it. Make it GFDL compliant and you can use the deleted Wikipedia sections without any trouble. --24.147.86.187 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed trivia sections and incorporated them into the main article. This has been because trivia sections are supposed to be places for people (inexperienced with Wikipedia usually) to add facts that they don't know how to incorporate into the article, or so I understand. Also (and this is usually why I do it) because a trivia section gathers stupid nonsense. After a few weeks of sorting through rubbish, I tend to incorporate good stuff into the article (in a way that usually adds to the meaning of the 'trivia' and increases the usefulness of the article) and delete the stuff that doesn't belong. I've tried just maintaining the sections, but it's never-ending and it's really unfair to expect people to work out what doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and how they can improve it by writing lovely, cited facts, when this stuff is there, inviting them to add rubbish. Plus, the 'trivia' and 'in popular culture' sections have to be among the most mocked, devaluing sections to the general public, reducing Wikipedia as a whole in the public's eyes. Which is annoying. Skittle 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a conundrum. Some "trivia" sections do contain some truly awful stuff; but on the other hand I've found some gems there too, which have sent me off in unexpected directions, leading to the creation of new articles. We also find bits of "trivia" embedded in the guts of articles, which have to be surgically removed. I guess it comes down to what one means by "trivia" - one person's trivia is another person's valuable information, depending on their particular interests. Some articles have what is essentially a trivia section labelled as "Other" or similar. Maybe we should re-label "Trivia" sections as "Pending Inclusion" or something like that (I know it's a contradiction in terms, because they're already part of the article, just not in a very prominent place in the article). That way, readers would get that that they're not fully accepted, and may never make it into the article proper - or, they may. -- JackofOz 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If the pages didn't have to look encyclopedic in the meantime, I'd heavily favour such an option. Part of the problem does seem to be the title, since people assume it should be filled with trivial things they happen to know (or 'know') about the article's subject. It can seem a bit like the theory whereby people fill whatever space you provide (which I'm sure has a proper name, and probably an article, plus many interesting links to fascinating articles, but sadly I must go to bed now :) rather than look it up on google, as my heart truly desires). I've found lovely things in trivia sections, but then I've found lovely things in all parts of articles (except perhaps the dense middle-sections of some technical articles, which seem to be written for people who already understand and know everything the section says). I suppose the challenge (which I shall now make my life's work) is to incorporate 'trivia' into articles in such a way that skim-readers read the section and notice the interesting fact. Skittle 23:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Oh, and if you want an example of how stupidly awful such sections can be, I seem to remember And did those feet in ancient time being very bad in the past. Try checking the history, maybe how it looked in May... Skittle 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly a tricky one. I'm not a deletionist - I want Wikipedia to contain all information of all kinds. However, the problem with trivia is that it's just never kept at the quality levels a truly useful encyclopedia demands. It's FAR too easy for any random person to come along and tack on a trivia item to an existing list - who ever checks it? If they don't provide a solid reference, how can you check it? We've all seen those emailed "List of 101 amazing facts" - about 90% which are urban legends - or easily disproved - we can't allow that to happen to Wikipedia. Sure a good, solid list of boo-boos in a particular movie is interesting to read. But how interesting would the list be if 90% of the items in the list were flat out untrue? It would just be pointless and annoying.

These lists all too frequently end up a complete and utter mess. A dedicated editor, trying to maintain a high quality article has a HORRIBLE time. If the trivia section has a handful of items in it, people (mostly anon editors with zero prior editing history) will relentlessly add more and more - none of them checkable - half of them untrue - most of them entirely irrelevent. When you try to clean them out, the people who stuck them in there will rant and edit war and threaten to set the admins on you (like that's going to work!) - they'll generally be an utter pain in the ass. So - in the end, we're better off without this stuff.

I've written two articles to the best standard that Wikipedia espouses (ie they made it onto the front page as featured articles) - and one of them had a trivia section of sorts. That article was about the Mini (a variety of British car). At the time, it seemed a good idea to list the important movies that the Mini appeared in. This was for the serious reason that the car ended up being a cult icon of the 'swinging-60's - and that had a lot to do with how it was shown in the media. Well, I picked a handful of movies in which the car had 'starred' prominently (eg, "The Italian Job", "Goodbye PorkPie", etc) without which the Mini would not have been the success it was. I swear - within a month of doing that, we had 'grown' a list of 60 or more movies and a bunch of TV programs! Some of them (eg "The Bourne Identity") undoubtedly 'starred' the car - but couldn't possibly have 'influenced' it because they were made after the car ceased production!

Then I watched one of the movies that was listed (I think it was "Hotel Rwanda") - and after watching the movie all the way through, I didn't spot a Mini ANYWHERE in the darned thing. When I challanged the editor, he pointed out that it was off in the distance, parked someplace in ONE scene. Argh! That's a totally USELESS piece of information. If every item appearing in every movie for the briefest of moments should be listed in a trivia section for that item, the encyclopedia would end up being mostly gigantic lists of completely irrelevent information! When I decided to delete that entry - we ended up with a 3RR violation from the other guy - then all sorts of other nastiness. Appeals to higher authority...you name it.

It was WAY out of hand. Back then, we hadn't gotten to the present situation where trivia sections can be reasonably be deleted on sight - so to avoid any more major arguments, I decided to fork off a second article "List of Movies with Mini cars in them" - linked to it from the main article and moved almost all of the list over there - keeping only those few items that could be worked into nice prose descriptions of how these movies influenced sales and popularity of the car. In other words - ONLY mention movies that influenced the history of the car - not mentioning any where the car merely happened to be the one the producer happened to have handy on the day!

Eventually, the deletionists AfD'd my "List of Movies with Mini cars in them"...which I think is a shame, actually. But the article about the Mini is MUCH better off without that ever-growing, unmaintainable, unsourced, never-complete list. Overall, I think that getting rid of 'trivia' sections everywhere is not appropriate. Having sourced lists of errors in movies, easter eggs in computer games, that kind of thing - IS relevent - and the suggestion to turn those into prose is often unhelpful. But having "Trivia" and "Appearances in the Popular Culture" sections being tacked onto articles as automatically as "See Also" and "References" are is a truly terrible idea and it absolutely has to be stamped out.

SteveBaker 03:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A problem is that the deletionists made this {{trivia}} tag and it would be silly for the inclusionists to have a tag that says that the section should stay. Thus, the impression is given that the deletionists form a majority. Maybe if there is such a section that has gotten out of hand, there should be an alternative that says "Trivia sections are meant for information that is side-ways related to the article. Before adding info here, please first check if it shouldn't go into another section of this or another article." Or something along those lines. Of course everything in Wikipedia should be true, however trivial it is. (And vice versa - if it's true it should be in Wikipedia. Somewhere.) Maybe the disputed info there or elsewhere in the article should go to a separate 'fact sheet', as I proposed on my user page. However, that is not entirely the same thing, so this suggestion is only is-ways related, so is it a trivium? Ah, good, I've already added the tag. :)

Steve, what you did is also something I suggest on my user page - if an article or section becomes too long, just make a separate article out of it and leave the main entries in the main article, with a link to the long list at the top - that's the standard way Wikipedia works, something I doubt many people will disagree with. If even that list becomes too long, it could be split into even more separate sub-articles. However, I agree that your mini example is rather over the top. But it is also quite exceptional - I've never encountered something as extreme as that. DirkvdM 07:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the original question, it already follows from the above that I disagree with splitting off specific sorts of info from Wikipedia. Everything should stay here. I'd also like to see other wikiprojects integrated into Wikipedia. Such as Wiktionary. If the title of an article is a dictionary word, then the meaning should be given in the article. That will in most cases be a very short section, so it's silly to make what is basically a stub for that. And on a different site even. DirkvdM 07:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My only comment on "if it's true it should be in Wikipedia. Somewhere" is that it's undeniably true that any notable person you care to name goes to the toilet, has pimples on their backside, and sometimes has bad breath. That's an extreme example, obviously, but extreme examples have their uses. The purpose of this one is that it demonstrates that a line has to be drawn somewhere between trivial and non-trivial true information. The only question is, where? -- JackofOz 09:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with both Dirkvdm and JackofOz here - but drawing that line in the sand is tough.

In the end, I like the rule we use in the WikiProject:Cars group - which is to say that in 'trivia' lists of "Movies this car has appeared in" or "Famous owners of this car" you should restrict yourself to movies (or owners) who had an influence on the history, fate or development of the car. This sharply limits the extent to which these lists can grow - and also makes it more likely that the section will be written in more-acceptable prose style.

But even so, I note with growing horror that the Mini#Exotic Minis and celebrities section of "my" featured article (yes, I know it's not "my" article - but I did 95% of the grunt work to push it from a stub to an FA) has started to grow unreferenced junk in it again and will soon have to be pruned. So now we have: Niki Lauda, Enzo Ferrari and Steve McQueen all owned (and regularly drove) Mini Coopers. Does it matter that Steve McQueen owned a Mini? It's perhaps relevent to the Steve McQueen article - but did his ownership of the car have any measurable effect on the brand? I very much doubt it - and we certainly don't have any references to that effect. Are we really sure he regularly drove his Mini? I very much doubt we know THAT for sure - with references.

I happen to know that Enzo Ferrari discussed the car at length with it's designer - and maybe that is worthy of mention. That the designer of some of the most elegant high performance cars in the world loved this tiny little $1000 family car to the degree that he bought one says something pretty significant about the car. I think I can even dig up a reference in my Mini book collection.

But this stuff is a major pain for an article maintainer to keep up with. Anyone who happens to read the article and who has some vague recollection will go and tack it onto the end of the trivia section - and those things are just NEVER properly fact-checked or referenced. They are more likely to be incorrect than any other kind of information we have here. So all in all, I don't want that kind of cruft in my article unless it comes pre-fact-checked.

Pushing trivia sections out into other articles is a way to deal with that - the resulting 'trivia' article can then be appropriately tagged and attacked by the deletionists without greatly upsetting the work of serious editors who are trying to turn out quality articles. "List of Trivia relating to 'X'." articles could then stand or fall on their own merits. No doubt people reading that article can be given a blanket "This is a trivia article and you should treat unreferenced items with deep suspicion" - without dragging down the tone of an otherwise great article.

The trivia-section problem is a serious one - something needs to be done about it.

SteveBaker 13:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Two little points. "Having sourced lists of errors in movies, easter eggs in computer games, that kind of thing - IS relevent - and the suggestion to turn those into prose is often unhelpful." While it's generally a good idea to incorporate 'trivia' sections into the article, this doesn't necessarily mean they have to be in prose. If you have a list of information, you could make a small list incorporated into the article (or a table, or an image, etc). The problem isn't something not being prose, it's having a 'dump' section in an article where people drop random thoughts and 'facts'.

Secondly: "However, I agree that your mini example is rather over the top. But it is also quite exceptional - I've never encountered something as extreme as that." I have often suspected this is a problem; those who think others are 'deletionist' have perhaps not seen the accumalated junk that the so-called 'deletionists' have. I can assure you Dirk that such examples as Steve's Mini list are not 'quite exceptional' in the encyclopedia as a whole, although they do tend to be exceptional in the articles on art, engineering, hard science, history, etc. They are so common that they crop up (sometimes named, sometimes not) in almost every joke about or criticism of Wikipedia that I have encountered made by a member of the public who is not a regular editor. Skittle 15:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack, that sounds like a good point. Concerning the going to the toilet, I grant you that we should exclude the blatantly obvious. Concerning the pimples on the back - if someone wants to write something down, chances are that other people will want to read it - it should just go into a 'gossip' article that serious people will not read, and until then can be stowed away in the trivia section. Concerning the bad breath - the info also has to be verifiable, and how are we going to verify (source) that? Anyway, it's pov, and that does not count as fact.

Steve, your point about McQueen owning a mini illustrates my point nicely. If there were no article on McQueen yet or the editor doesn't know it, then that fact could have gone into the mini article. Until somebody else moves it. It's a nice section for "I want to put this somewhere, but don't know where, so I'll put it here." If you don't allow people to do that sort of thing or just bluntly delete it, then info that might be useful somewhere would be lost. By extension, if there is info in an article that is not relevant there, then a copy editor who doesn't know where it should go can put it in the trivia section. Which makes it very useful. Of course, my fact sheet idea might be better, but until we have that...

Lastly, I don't see why info in the trivia section should be less verified. If it isn't and you seriously doubt its correctness, then move it to the talk page, with an explanation. That's borderline deletionist, but still quite acceptable even to me. DirkvdM 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a curious mental model for how Wikipedia works!

• A random fact strays into someone's head - they rush to Wikipedia and need somewhere to put this fact. They have to find somewhere to put it or the fact is somehow lost. At some subsequent time (by means unspecified) the fact is classed as TRUE (or perhaps FALSE so it is removed). Somehow a readable article emerges from this process. At any given time, many of the things said in the article are utterly false.

• My model is: Someone sets out to write or improve an article. They presumably know a lot about this subject - and between their knowledge and (hopefully) their reference books - a set of lucid, carefully laid out facts - along with the references for those facts are placed into the article. Subsequently, people fix tiny errors and flesh out areas that need it - using facts from some source that the original author(s) missed. The article gradually gets better - but throughout the process, it's always true, useful and well written.

OK - I'm probably wrong about the way you think - and my way is hopelessly idealistic. But it's abundantly clear to anyone who actively maintains high quality articles that the first model is exactly what 'Trivia' sections encourage and the second way is the only way that decent encyclopedia articles come about.

There was some skepticism about whether the Mini article is typical or not. Well, my other featured article (Mini Moke - yeah - not entirely a separate subject from the first one) was a much more deliberative work. The original article literally was just a stub - two paragraphs and a crappy photo. I bought the only four books on the planet ever written about this funny little car/jeep/dune-buggy thing (one of which is a children's story!) - I crawled all over an actual Mini Moke owned by a friend of mine and got photocopies of a rare owners manual from the UK owner's club. People from Australia and NewZealand owner clubs sent me photos. The article was written, perfectly referenced (little blue numbers at the end of every single paragraph) - and unsurprisingly, it pretty much sailed through the featured article process...and goddamit - someone added a bunch of annoying unsourced 'factoids' to it!

You can see the things I didn't write - they stick out a MILE: "In the Dick Francis mystery Smokescreen, a crew shooting a film in South Africa travels in a Mini Moke. The Jimmy Buffett song 'Autour De Rocher', from the album Far Side Of The World, also mentions the Mini Moke. The Traffic song 'Berkshire Poppies,' from the album Mr. Fantasy (US release: Heaven Is In Your Mind) also mentions the Mini Moke. Mokes were also used in the reality TV series The Amazing Race: All-Stars. Teams were to locate one and drive the Mini Moke to the pit stop."...I mean - who the heck cares?! Dick Francis used the name of the car twice in a cheesey mystery book written 35 years ago. The name of the car is briefly mentioned in a bunch of albums that nobody has ever heard of and appeared for 30 seconds in one episode of some reality TV show? How can any of us confirm those facts - and why would we ever bother? Aaaarrggghhhh!!!

The best place for those half-baked unreferenced and not 100% relevent thoughts is on the articles "Talk:" page. If you have a 'fact' - but no proof - then go to the talk page and write "I recall that XXX is true - does anyone have a reference for that?" - the possibility that this is true is recorded for posterity - but it hasn't been put up as "THE TRUTH" where Wikipedia's audience will see it.

SteveBaker 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if someone bothers to write it down, some other people are likely to want to read it. Putting it on the talk page first if there is no source makes sense, and I also indicated that (just the other way around - ok, the wrong way around :) ). But if it's true and doesn't fit in the main story, then a trivia section is a logical place. Until that gets too big, in which case trivia can be grouped together in a subsection. In your example in an article named 'Mini Moke in the media', which is then linked to in the 'see also' section. Unless enough of these 'trivia' are important enough to remain in the main article under a subsection, at the top of which there is a link to the main 'mini moke in the media' article. Makes perfect sense to me. DirkvdM 17:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody object to moving or duplicating this discussion on one of the Village Pumps and continuing it there? That’s seems like a more appropriate and useful place to me. --S.dedalus 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia] Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea I had the other day.

Some people love trivia and "in popular culture" sections. They're fun to read, and they're fun to add to. (Trouble is, of course, is that they're too much fun to add to; they eventually accumulate gobs of trivial cruft that's just banal. But anyway.)

The main objection against them is that, in the eyes of people who want Wikipedia to be a serious, stolid, "official" encyclopedia, they look too frivolous. So the idea I had is, what if they were hideable, via some JavaScript magic? People who don't like them could click a "hide" button once, and never see them again. Problem solved! —Steve Summit (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. That could be an option in the preferences. But should they disappear completely or should there always be an option to expand/show, so there is only a header, with a 'show' link next to it? Maybe that could also be an option in the preferences. But this thread is going a bit stale, so I'd say wait until it has disappeared, in case you get more pointers, and then post it at the Help Desk (is that the right place for such a suggestion?). DirkvdM 11:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hair changes

I'm 25 years old and I don't use any chemicals in my hair I don't straighten my hair and I do not blow dry my hair. I have recently noticed that a lot of my hair is changing from dark brown natural color to very very coarse black hairs and I don't know if this is an aging issuse or what so if someone knows then please let me know what's going on... Thank You, Amanda P 75.67.39.27 17:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't answer medical questions here - if this bothers you, you should see a doctor. SteveBaker 12:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"communication"powerpointpresentation for seminar purpose

i need powerpoint presentation on general communication. where can i get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.46.62 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use the google search key filetype: to search for specific file extensions. For instance, filetype:ppt "general communication" gives you powerpoint presentations on the internet that contain the phrase "general communication". It's probably best to ask for permission if you want to use it for a presentation of your own. risk 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• You'd probably be better off making one of your own. If you are learning at this seminar, using someone else's presentation will come out and get you in heaps of trouble. If you're teaching, I'd be wondering why you've been asked in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of fish dating site "Compatibility Predictor"

I would like to join this dating site but when I do the compulsory quack personality test, or "Compatibility Predictor" as they describe it (which cannot be changed or retaken) it says I have "no self control". I believe I have very high self control - the exact opposite of what it says. I would imagine that someone with no self-control would be an aggressive, rude, emotional, heavy drinker. I am very polite, cool, and do not drink. I cannot bear to be described as someone with no self-control, hence I cannot join the site. The other aspects of my personality are fine.

Could anyone tell me how to fill in this 48-question test to give a more realistic result - ie that I do have excellent self control? 62.253.53.14 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your [spelling edit: he means "you're"] just in denial, or you could just make a new account and try until you get it.--Dlo2012 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If one of the questions is "Do you wet the bed", answer "No". That might help. But more seriously, if you answered the questions honestly then either A) you have no self control or, more likely, B) the analysis of the questions is poor. If its the former, misrepresenting yourself to get a better "review" is not going to help you in the long term. If its the latter, do you really wish to be part of a site that gets it so wrong, especially since you will be using the same analysis to choose a potential partner? Rockpocket 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If they are willing to start throwing such ambiguous terms around based on an algorithmic analysis of a small questionnaire, I doubt the psychological research behind any of it is anything to write home about. If the site drops the ball this badly at the introduction, why would their matching algorithm be any better? In fact their matching algorithm probably works off this initial misguided analysis. risk 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: just find a new dating site. --Candy-Panda 12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A reason for joining it, is that its free, also very large. The twenty-something owner says he employs no staff but makes $5-10 million a year from it. (Yet he still only lives in an apartment, hmmmn.)I agree they should do something about the quack test. I wonder if there's a software bug. 80.2.192.65 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not solemnly swear...

Ok, so if you have to be sworn in for court (after I'd read the article before about not swearing on the bible) and you are a bona fide card-carrying Satanist, what are your options? I personally wouldn't feel proper swearing on a book I'd consider false, but if I did go ahead and swear on something I didn't believe, would that still hold me libel for perjury? Why take an oath on the bible anyways and not the Constitution? Wouldn't THAT make more sense? Hmmm...65.248.93.200 22:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From the Perjury article - "Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter" - i.e. when you are giving material evidence. The taking of the oath is a procedural matter. As to what would happen if you took the oath, gave evidence and then informed the court that you swore to tell the truth on the book of a belief system you didn't personally acknowledge - I don't know. I'd save yourself the trouble and simply affirm instead. Exxolon 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Those who do not believe in swearing (and there are even Christian groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who will not swear) may "affirm" instead. Corvus cornix 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would a Satanist even worry about this moral dilemma? Clarityfiend 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had to appear in court a few times. (I'm a journalist; it goes with the job.) I live in the U.S., and I carry a little pocket-sized copy of the Constitution with me. They always accept me using that. (How could they not? After all, that's what the whole legal system is based on.) — Michael J 05:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this very much depends on the country. You appear to live in a predominantly christian country. How is this done in, say, Indonesia? I'm sure one can use the bible there too. How is that in christian countries? Can one swear on the Koran or Torah in such countries? DirkvdM 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Jews are exceptionally reluctant to take any kind of oath (even one privately between oneself and God) and the Rabbis have discouraged it for at least two millenia. In particular, swearing on the Torah would be an anathema. (Besides, you're not supposed to touch a Torah's parchment) In western courtrooms, Jews generally affirm to tell the truth. To the best of my knowledge, a Jewish religious court (Bet Din) has no true equivalent to swearing in. --Dweller 10:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that, but my question was if one could if one wanted to. DirkvdM 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked... the Dayanim have the right to force witnesses to swear, but don't generally. --Dweller 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Straight Dope covered this a while ago here - [2]. Cecil knows all. Deltopia 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable method. Still, even if one religion is predominant in a country, it's a bit iffy for a court to first assume that a person follows that religion. Because if they don't then they are treated like an exception. But before the law, everyone should be equal. DirkvdM 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My only direct experience of it in court was when I was in the jury pool (I didn't get chosen). We all had to "affirm" en masse that we would truthfully answer the questions put to us by the examining attorneys and the judge. This was in Los Angeles; I suppose things could be different in the Deep South or somewhere. --Trovatore 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See ACLU_of_N.C._&_Syidah_Matteen_v._State_of_North_Carolina and similar cases Kuronue | Talk 04:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)