Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 July 23

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.

July 23

Same location - Different cell phone experience

At my home here in Vermont, I can use my cell phone to make fairly clear calls. My plan is with Verizon. Meanwhile, if anyone with AT&T visits, they cannot make phone calls and only occasionally get text messages through. Is this simply a matter of the different technologies used by the two carriers, e.g. LTE for Verizon and whatever AT&T uses? Dismas|^(talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It also depends on the coverage of each network, including the cell towers and signal strength each company controls. Depending on where you live in Vermont, the nearest AT&T cell tower may be too far away or not have enough signal strength to reach you. Verizon likes to advertise it has "America's most reliable network", and posts comparison coverage maps in the middle of this page on their web site. Other comparison maps can be found on such independent sites as http://opensignal.com/ . Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I hadn't really considered where the towers are. Thanks. I'm not sure about the accuracy of that Open Signal link you provide though. It shows hardly any coverage anywhere around me and yet I can get a decent 3/4G signal in most places around my house. Dismas|^(talk) 05:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The quality of signal you get depends on more than just the distance to the nearest cell tower belonging to your provider though. The topography of the landscape matters too. I once owned a home that was halfway down a hillside which had a massive cell tower on the top - not 200 yards from the house. But most since most of those 200 yards were straight through solid rock, we got almost zero reception. We ended up switching carriers a couple of times before we found one that had usable signal strength. SteveBaker (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Camera extension tubes

I recently got a set of extension tubes for my FX-format DSLR. This is the first time I've had extension tubes. The set consists of 12, 20, and 36mm tubes. I have three lenses: 18-55mm, 18-105mm, and 55-300mm. That makes a lot of combinations.

Suppose you want to fill the frame horizontally with something that is X cm wide. How can you tell which combinations of tubes and which lens (or lenses) will allow that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

All of them might because you haven't said how far away the object is. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally I can get any distance from the object. But I've experimented around with the combinations, and some combinations will focus on the object and some will not. I'd like to know in advance which combinations can focus. There are seven combinations of the extension tubes and three zoom lenses. So with all of the tube combinations, lens choices, the zooming in and out, the focusing ring, and changing the distance, that is a large number of combinations to try to find one that will work. How can I tell in advance a combination that will work? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Try it and find out", until you get an intuitive sense, is often not a bad approach. (Surely the first thing that you did when you got the tubes was start trying to take pictures of tiny things!) If you want a direct readout, take a few pictures of some graph paper or a ruler. "Start with the shortest or second-shortest tube" is also often a good rule of thumb. Focus at 'infinity', and approach the subject until it's in focus. Get closer while adjusting the focus until you find the closest focusing distance, or the object fills the frame the way you want it to. (Fire off a few shots before you switch to a longer extension; you can always crop if you have to.) Honestly, if you're photographing a subject that requires you to stack multiple tubes, you're probably shooting something that isn't moving very quickly, and you have time to fiddle and swap.

Bear in mind that extension tubes have proportionally less effect on longer-focal length lenses; you'll get more bang for the buck (magnification) with shorter, wider lenses. Physically long, heavy lenses can also be harder to support and manipulate around tiny subjects. Mind you, for very wide lenses the working distance may be less than zero (that is, the focal plane will be inside the lens even when the lens is focused at 'infinity'—too close!) I've done some satisfying hand-held nature work with a cheap-and-cheerful 50mm prime lens and a 20mm tube as a 'walking-around' combo.

All that said, there are online calculators that you can use. A Google search for "extension tube calculator" or similar turns up a number of them, here's one to get you started. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did take some shots when I first got the tubes. But then when I tried to take photos of something specific, I saw how hard it is to get it the right size (or even in focus). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Results:

W/O tubes, cropped and enlarged

With tubes, slightly cropped

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Quoting: Focus at 'infinity' - it isn't easy to focus on infinity with the lenses I use now. On my old manual-focus lenses, I could turn them all the way one way and they were at infinity. They also had markers showing the focus distance, including ∞. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Google searching use of plus sign

If I was to perform the following search "word1 +word2" (ignoring the quotation marks), what function is the plus sign performing? Hack (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It means that the result must contain word2. It's described here [1], which was linked from [2], which was the result of searching for "search help" (sans quotes). CS Miller (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This page doesn't say that it must contain a word. Dismas|^(talk) 08:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I'm sure it used to do that. Perhaps it biases the results to contain word2. CS Miller (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Google Search notes that the '+' was removed from Google on October 19, 2011 [3]. It presently does not seem to work as either a Boolean operator "OR" nor as a literal quotation mark so it may be treated now like a text character. A search for A+ student confirms this. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be filtering results somehow. For example "barack +obama" (minus quotes) returns 4.6m results while "barack obama" (with quotes) returns 201m results. The numbers themselves are unimportant but it's significant that an apparently more precise search is returning more results than a plus search. Could it have something to do with adwords which are formatted with a leading plus sign? Hack (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It is filtering results, probably just as the page we linked points out. It's finding instances of people using the term "+obama" for whatever reason. And it's finding Google+ pages which contain the word "obama". Whereas your "barack obama" (with quotes) example is finding every page with those exact words in that order. Which is naturally quite a few million more than the other results. Dismas|^(talk) 09:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

His / Her Majesty's Ship

In Britain, when a ship is given the "HMS" prefix, does the designation change when a King's reign changes to a Queen's (or visa-versa). For examle, would the Victorian "Her Majesty's Ship Hornblower" be referred to "His Majesty's Ship" during the Edwardian era, or would it always be referred to with its original "title"? (I need a WP:RS for this)  ~Thanks in advance, E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does change for ships in commission but historic vessels keep the original name, looking for a reliable source. Victory for example is still in commission so currently is Her Majesty's Ship Victory despite her age. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a moot point. Technically, the ship's title hasn't been "His/Her Majesty's Ship" since 1789 when the abbreviation "H.M.S" became simple "HMS" (ie, no longer an abbreviation). So these days, the title of the ship is just HMS - and what that stands for is unimportant to the naming of the ship. (See: http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_sailfaq.htm). Victory isn't "Her Majesty's ship, Victory", it's "HMS Victory"...so the name of the ship doesn't change at all. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor point User:SteveBaker but thats not what the page you linked to says have you a reliable reference?. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If the full title can no longer be used, nobody has seen fit to tell the folks who sit in Parliament - see HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "HOOD" AND "RE NOWN" (COLLISION) - House of Commons debate 20 February 1935 or indeed, their Lordships at the Admiralty, who no doubt arranged The Commissioning of Her Majesty's Ship Sheffield at Portsmouth on Friday, 28th February , 1975 (two examples plucked from the internet at random). I read the National Museum of the Royal Navy's note to mean that the abbreviation was first used at that date, rather than the use of the full title being prohibited thereafter. Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It would obviously be going too far to say it was "prohibited" - but then what terminology ever is?! But they made a clear decision to switch from the long form to just HMS - and that's what the ship is intended to be called. Anyway, if you have a better idea of how to tackle this question, let's hear it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The answer was given by MilborneOne above. It all changes on the day of accession. Also, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution and everything else. Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope...our OP went to the trouble to say "(I need a WP:RS for this)" - and so far, nobody has a reference for the assertions we're making. I can show that the naming of ships HAS changed - but that's only tangential to the question. I agree with pretty much everyone here that it would be crazy to keep calling a ship that was named during the reign of a king "His Majesties Ship XXX" when there is a queen on the throne...but where is the reliable source that says that? I don't see one. The best I can offer is that the NAME of the ship isn't "His/Her Majesties Ship XXX" it's "HMS XXX" - so the NAME of the ship doesn't change. What does change is what "HMS" expands out to - but that's not the name of the ship - nor has it been since 1798 or so. I have a reference for that change in the naming of ships...but you still have a layer of unreferenced interpretation going on.

So, nobody disagrees that the name (or the meaning of the name) changes with the gender of the monarch...it's only logical because "His Majesties' Ship" implies that the ship is the property of the monarch - and when one monarch dies and another takes over, the new monarch inherits the navy along with all of the ships - so the name must logically change or be meaningless. But CRUCIALLY: we can't find a reference for that - and that's what we're being asked for. In most reference desk discussions, I'd say we'd answered the question - but this time, we're not done without reliable sources.

Let's stop discussing what we all pretty much agree to be true - because it's WP:OR - and try to dig out some kind of formal proof in a WP:RS. SteveBaker (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-focus, Steve. My apologies for this turning out to be more difficult to pin down than expected (I won't cry for too long if it turns out to be unanswerable).   —OP (Eric):71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Steve, the expansion would of course be "His/Her Majesty's Ship", not "Majesties". It's a possessive, not a plural. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

relating to images

I am a frequent user of Wiki and I noticed something about the viewing of your images. Since you have switched to the new image viewer I have noticed that your images are now smaller. I currently run Windows 7 and found that with the new viewer I can right click to view the image. Now your images no longer have the enlargement they used to have. Have you restricted the size of all your images now?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.62.83 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the solution is to go into preferences | appearance and de-select the use of the image viewer. This is one of those "fast ones" that the developers pull from time to time and don't bother telling the average reader about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an enormous ruckus going on about that as we speak. There are inflammatory debates in half a dozen places. You'd think that the developers would have learned their lesson after the WYSIWYG text editor debacle...but evidently not. Fortunately, you DO have the ability to disable it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least it's being talked about. As far as learning their lesson, remember that even the smartest mule may have to be whacked over the head in order to get its attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Court Order

My university are really bad at grading, and so far they have changed my grades four times as a result of me investigating and questioning them. So, if I hadn't investigated, then I would have got a worse degree.

I want copies of my examination scripts, so that I may rigorously check the marking of them, but the University doesn't want to give them to me. The Data Protection Act 1998 doesn't let me request them, as examination scripts are an exemption (Sch. 7 para. 9).

Because of this, I want to court order them. Whilst the Data Protection Act doesn't help me, I believe that a court will appreciate my distrust in their marking, resulting from the multiple mistakes in the grading of my degree, and let me analyse them. How do I court order them?

I am not asking for legal advice, i.e. what I should do; I know the reference desk is not for that. I am asking for a reference on how to do something. I am going to get a lawyer soon regarding the whole situation, but any research and work I can do myself is a great deal of money saved.

The problem is that our court order article is US-centric, and I'm in the UK [edit: I forget the UK doesn't have the same laws; I should have said England]. I would be more than happy if anyone could assist with a link. The only help I can find from the government regarding court orders is getting a court order regarding children: https://www.gov.uk/looking-after-children-divorce/types-of-court-order . Hopefully you might be able to find a more relevant link.

Many thanks in advance for any help you can provide. 31.49.134.81 (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - as you are evidently fully aware, the Reference desk has a policy of never offering legal advice - and that most certainly is what you're asking for. By recommending an article that might be relevant to your case, we're implying that this is appropriate advice for you - and we're not allowed to do that. Talk to that lawyer - we can't help you. SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, here we go again. No, it is not a request for legal advice. The OP is asking a strictly factual question – in (presumably) England, how does one go about getting a court order? That is a plain & simple request for information. If the OP had just asked that, without explaining why he wants to get a court order, would the question have been acceptable to you? --Viennese Waltz 08:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Viennese Waltz, yes, that is exactly what I am asking. Apologies if in what I wrote some think I gave too much information, but I did not want to waste your time and mine in receiving responses on how to get a court order for custody over children or whatever.

SteveBaker and others like you, if you do not like the question, you are more than welcome not to respond. I did try to make it clear that I am *NOT* asking for legal advice. I am not asking for recommendations or advice on a legal case; I am asking for information on how to do something. 31.49.134.81 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

And how do you propose we give it to you without making a recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct of or relating to law? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if he was after a court order relating to the custody of children, we could have pointed him to this page. Since he said that he wants a court order relating to obtaining information, we could point him to a page relating to that. If you can't find such a page, you can go and do something else. --Viennese Waltz 13:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I can recommend getting legal advice. No matter what, he'll need a lawyer eventually, so may as well start with one. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you assume he'll need a lawyer? There's nothing to stop someone from applying for a court order on their own. --Viennese Waltz 14:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the inconveniences, costs, and possible penalties associated with doing it in the wrong way, of course. Note that many universities have legal aid clinics which are open to students, which can provide pro bono advice or connect you with appropriate experts. These clinics often have a fair bit of experience in dealing with the most common legal and quasi-judicial disputes affecting students, and may be able to counsel you on what the most likely outcomes of your case will be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Need" was probably too strong a word. But they certainly help. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The best advice we can give is to go and see a solicitor, preferably one that specialises in education law. Yes it may be expensive - but some solicitors offer 30 minutes free legal advice, and you will get better advice in that one session than you can get from a bunch of guys (and gals) on the Internet. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their input. Particularly Viennese Waltz who got that what I was hoping for was a page relating to making a court order. I didn't want advice on whether I should make a court order, or what options I should take, I just wanted to know how to do it. I think my Union has a pro bono advice clinic, so I'll ask them how I could do it. I am aware that I can get a solicitor to do it for me, but at this stage I simply want to know how to do it.

Also, for those that can't understand the difference between factual information and advice, factual information would be: "One court orders something by writing a letter to their local court with the subject 'Court Order'." or "Court Orders are made by filling in the form available here..."; and advice would be: "I think you shouldn't court order the information, but instead informally talk to your university." or "You can court order the information by writing a letter to a court. And, I think it would be best to include a lot of detail, and word it formally. Maybe even get a friend or relative to proof-read it or you before sending it." There is a *big* difference. 31.49.134.81 (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not asking for advice on a decision, you've made up your own mind. Now you want us to recommend a course of conduct. Not "Should I do this?", but "How do I do this?" "How", like "in what manner or way?" Way, like "the course traveled from one place to another" or "a method or system that can be used to do something". If you truly can't grasp that sort of English, your odds of understanding (and using) highly precise legal writing aren't good. That's a fact. Why do you think law school takes so long, and why lawyers charge so much? It's not even easy suing an idiot, let alone an institution of knowledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Staying with the purely factual, then, the relevant legal term is "disclosure" (on which we do not have an article - see Discovery#Discovery in the United Kingdom for the placeholder), and the form of order required is a subpoena duces tecum. So, to answer the unambiguously answerable bit of the question, you don't want to "court order" the documents, you want to "subpoena" the university to "disclose" the documents. In order to obtain such an order, you'll need to issue legal proceedings (see claim form) against the university, and establish a cause of action for your claim. Moving away from the purely factual, you would be _very_ ill-advised to attempt to do so without taking professional advice, as mentioned repeatedly above. Tevildo (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure happens when a legal case has already been started, which underlines the impossibility of giving advice about this online. The OP may be advised to request a judicial review but this will be up to his advisers. He should contact his Students' Union immediately. They will indeed be able to get him legal support if necessary but also may be able to get the issue sorted internally without recourse to the courts. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Judicial review relates to challenging decisions of the government (or a government department), so it doesn't seem to be relevant in this case, unless universities have som special status I'm unaware of. Disclosure is generally used to obtain evidence for a specific case (e.g. to obtain sales records for a potential patent infringer), I'm not sure if it's possible to bring a case purely to get disclosure without seeking other remedies (i.e. disclosure is evidence collection, not a remedy in itself). Disclosure would happen as part of the process of most cases you could bring against the university. Make sure to talk to a lawyer, who will be able to guide you through the process, and outline the possible remedies at the end, as well as working out which actions to bring against the university. MChesterMC (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their responses. The answer from the above appears to be that it is not possible to court order the documents. Avenues such as a subpoena for disclosure might be the correct course of action. However, whether it is or not, given that the disclosure would not be for any current litigation, is unknown, and hence the process to produce such a subpoena is unknown. To discover this I will have to read some law books and consult a solicitor. Thanks for the information! 109.148.91.82 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)