Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 April 7

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.

April 7

Pattern to English sentences

I thought the math desk might have been the best place for this. But then I thought computers because of the cryptographic possibilities. Though it deals with language too. So here goes...

Is there a pattern to English sentences as far as where shorter vs. longer words traditionally fall? For instance, if I were to take some sufficiently long book, say the latest Stephen King novel, and graph each sentence with the length of the sentence (in words) on the X axis and the length of each word (in letters) on the Y, would a pattern emerge? Would there be more short words at the beginning or end? Or would they fall in the middle more? Has anyone looked into this? Dismas|^(talk) 10:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall coming across mention of this specific pattern, but such analysis would fall within the discipline of Stylometry. That article isn't very detailed, but you might find further information in links from it, of by using the term to web-search for more detailed treatments. As usual, I have some possibly relevant dead-tree texts at home, but I'm currently at the office. (Lunch break – honest!) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes such patterns are detectable. See Word lists by frequency. There is abundant software available for word frequency analysis which has been used to investigate Biblical authors and "who wrote Shakespeare". Frequency analysis of text similar to encrypted text can be exploited by a cryptanalyst to attack a simple Substitution cipher because frequency distributions of letters and word lengths in the plaintext are preserved in the ciphertext. Author Stephen King sets out each day with a quota of 2000 words and will not stop writing until it is met. The language distribution in his books might be ascribed to a combination of these factors: English language, an author who is paid by the word supplying an established demographic of readers, and King's conscious and unconscious choices of style. Generic patterns in a written language without idiosyncrasy would be better detected in text from multiple authors. The Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives could offer a valuable accessible non-copyright source for analysis of representative modern English prose used by educated speakers if publication of this research were not being suppressed by administrator(s) aware of their lapses over time being revealed. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat related: Prosody_(linguistics). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why Did You Make Your Content Hard To Read?

I know there is a very lazy trend about which has a lot of websites using this bold sans serif type, but Wikipedia should know that it makes the content VERY DIFFICULT TO READ. CSS3 and HTML5 support readable type very well.

Is there any way to get the pages back to normal type now that you have done this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EShanak (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sort of. I think what you have to do is go to Preferences | Appearance and set it to "Monobook" instead of the default, "Vector". That will give you the old-old version. Give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, see a few sections above, "New font/font size?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And you could join my (so far very poorly organised) campaign to have the people who introduce these sorts of changes actually learn something about effective Change management. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Was there any kind of attention-getting notice at the top of the page? (Like when they ask for money?) Or is it as someone said above, "It's been in beta for months", i.e. Wikipedia users are somehow supposed to be aware that they need to review "beta" in order to keep the owners from pulling a fast one. That's what I might call "passive notification". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No broadcast notice. That would have told too many people about it, wouldn't it? Apparently there was something at the Technical Village Pump page. Don't you look there every day? HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I look there two or three times as often as I look at the beta page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't check out the Village Pump pages every week or so, why would you expect to be aware of proposed changes? There are all sorts of proposed changes, which you could have some say in if you checked the Village Pump every so often. The whole point of the Village Pump is that it is the place for centralised discussions of this sort. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Then it's the WRONG place! Why not broadcast it more widely, like appeals for funds, or invitations to vote? HiLo48 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

IMHO you're stressing too much about this. The people who made this change did so after long and careful consideration. They wouldn't have done it if they hadn't believed it was the right thing to do. Personally I am willing to trust them on this. If they say it was a required change, that's good enough for me. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with HiLo. The Village Pump is a place for discussions, which may involve at best a minuscule proportion of editors. The place for announcements about decisions that affect ALL editors, or for seeking input on proposed changes that would affect ALL editors, is most certainly not the Village Pump. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because broadcasting style decisions the same way requests for money are broadcast is mixing two extremely different levels of importance. It is important that readers not get accustomed to seeing spam they don't care about in that spot. APL (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's true that one might click through an important announcement, such as changing look-and-feel, due to assuming it's just the usual begging-for-money spam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To avoid being caught by surprise in future, here is a link to this week's "tech news": [1]. This also gets posted on the technical page of the Village Pump, where anyone interested in technical changes to Wikipedia can easily be alerted. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They need to issue website-wide warnings or notices, not squirrel them away on some obscure technical desk. If they can post spam begging for money, they can alert the public that a change is under consideration... unless they are not looking for input (which is likely). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point. The begging for money is vastly more important than making sure people aren't surprised by a font.

If you really believe that not surprising people about a font is more important than paying the electric bill, I guess there's no way to continue the conversation. APL (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Would paying them money be a good bargaining chip for getting them to do things the right way? Such as notifying users about major changes... and joining the 21st century by requiring registration? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you see no reason to test the beta features, and no reason to occasionally visit the community Village Pump pages, then it is hardly the Wikimedia Foundation's fault that you failed to notice upcoming changes or take part in the discussions. Just like if you don't follow the news, you can't really complain when a new government is elected without you realising there was even an election. Why didn't someone paste notices on all of your windows, instead of discussing it in obscure current-events journals? 86.146.28.229 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They have no problem spamming all of us with requests for money. The obvious conclusion is that they're not interested in broad user input unless that input happens to have a green back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They spam us all with requests for money, because all users need to be aware of how Wikipedia is funded, and are unlikely to seek out information on donating by themselves. Not everyone needs to be aware of font changes, unless they are interested. It was on the Village Pump, in the Signpost, and in beta. I gather that there was also a notice on the watchlist page a few days ago, to catch all registered users, but I wouldn't know as I'm an IP editor (and yet, I was aware of this upcoming change before it happened). If you want to be informed and take part in the public discussions of upcoming changes, it is very easy to do so. I do not understand the learnt helplessness of many editors who joined in the last few years. Maybe it's because I first edited when all this was fields, and you were expected to just get on with things? 86.146.28.229 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Have YOU ever done formal change management training? I get rather sick of people condemning others who don't behave just like them, for not thinking just like them. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And I'm tired of editors who refused to take part in discussions and work to improve Wikipedia, and then snipe from the sidelines about how they would have done a better job if they could have been bothered. If you've gone on a basic change management course, why don't you take part in discussions of changes on the Village Pump and offer your wisdom? If you leave other people to do it, because you're not really interested, then whose fault is that? 86.146.28.229 (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly not part of a diplomatic and effective approach. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, "Why Did You Make Your Content Hard To Read" (what kind of case (typography) is that anyway? NutCase?) wouldn't be easier on the eyes if it were in Sans, either.

The hack they put up at Signpost didn't work for me, but Monobook is fine.

Until they change the Monobook headlines to Comic Sans, that is. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Have the people who introduce these sorts of changes actually had formal change management training? HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They slept through that class. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well roared, Lions! ---Sluzzelin talk 09:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there any questions that could theoretically go in ANY of the Wikipedia Reference Desks?

Could a single question somehow touch upon all the various topics that get their own reference desk? If so, what are some examples of questions? 50.43.180.176 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Something about the technology and algorithms behind those pesky Floridan voting boxes, and how it affected the state's cynical art scene and national media vocabulary, perhaps? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is a reference desk, not a chat desk. We don't make up questions. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We do when someone asks for one. It's called an answer. Even if it's phrased like a question. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes we need to ask questions of the OP to elicit more information so that we can better provide references to answer their questions. --Jayron32 02:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And sometimes I fart and blame it on the dog. The issue here is that we don't do open-ended speculation. The user is free to search the archives himself and form his own opinion. But we don't make up fictional answers. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are "we" Medeis? 86.146.28.229 (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A particularly ambiguous question might fit every desk. I can't come up with anything good, but for a stupid example: hey, wot duz cardinal mean? ... (Science desk ... Computer desk ... Humanities desk ... Language desk ... Entertainment desk ... Mathematics desk ... Miscellaneous desk). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The most obvious example I can think of is, "I have a question about [insert topic here]. Which ref desk page should I post at?" Posted on all the ref desk pages, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My computer has an entertaining quirk. For all the humanity in me, I can't fathom why the language I type into it, is not the same language that comes out of it. I've checked the mathematics of the algorithms and all the science seems about right. Does anybody know why whenever I type French on my computer, it comes out as English? And also—which Reference desk should I post this on? Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You know that scene where Jeff Goldblum installs a virus onto the alien mothership in Independence Day? How exactly would that virus have to work? Not only was it cross-platform, it had to deal with (as the novelization reveals) the mothership being a literal "living machine", meaning it would have to be a biological virus somehow, it also took roughly two seconds to upload, which would let us calculate its size based on Goldblum's computer specs. Does this make more sense in the English version (I watched it in Polish!)? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it makes no sense in any language. Spoken, computer, or otherwise. Dismas|^(talk) 03:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It makes every bit as much sense as Luke Skywalker being able to get to the most vulnerable part of the Death Star and succeeding with nary a scratch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This was, uh, actually an answer to the question above. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. It wasn't indented like responses normally are. Often we have questions that are simply appended to the end of another question because, for whatever reason, the OP didn't create a new section for their new question. I'm removing the heading to bump it up into the above section. And indenting to clarify that it's part of the responses to that section. Dismas|^(talk) 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is there some reason why either Ye Olde Luke is impersonating 50.43.180.176 by overwriting his signature, or that he is trolling us by asking and answering his own "question" under two signatures? μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I asked the question and later came up with an answer. Or at least, I thought it might work as an answer. Did it successfully capture an aspect of all seven reference desks? 98.27.247.86 (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC) (By the way, before you explode and go bold/italics/double underline on me, this is Ye Olde Luke again, now on the computer at my parent's home)