Miscellaneous desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

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.

March 25

Longest running AfD

Does anyone know what is the longest running AfD in Wikipedia? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I once nominated an article for deletion on February 24 of this year, and it was closed on March 20, after 25 days (although it was relisted because SPAs and socks flooded the whole thing). That was my longest AfD ever, but I don't think it was the longest AfD ever. Probably some BLP article, since they usually get relisted if no consensus is reached. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked this question because I thought Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude & Breast Freedom Parade will be a record holder, and of course it is going to break your record. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is about to be closed either today or tomorrow anyway, also after 25 days. Gave an opinion there to allow some sort of consensus to be reached. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your one has only been relisted twice so I don't see any particular reason to assume it's going for a record. It would hardly seem surprising if an AFD was relisted 3 times even though I'm not specifically aware of any example. Wikipedia:RELIST while recommending against relisting more then twice does not forbid it and in fact instructs what to do if it's done. I presume it would also depend how backlogged AFD is (i.e. how long after 7 days before it's dealt with although I think it also depends on how complicated the case is and whether the admin feels it needs to be relisted or thinks may be just leaving it another day is fine). As a very quick test, I checked out Category:Relisted AfD debates and very quickly came across some that were opened not that long after yours (6th March or so) and were still open including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jozef Kovalík which was opened only a few hours after yours and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey Circus (2nd nomination) + Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denpasan which were both opened before (so depending on when they are closed it may be longer then yours). Combined with the example given by Nlh5, this all concurs with my belief the while length may be abnormal, it isn't unheard of at least in recent times. (Just to further make my point, it looks like I only check out 8 AFDs in total and got these 3 examples, the only thing I knew of course was that they are in the category for open AFDs that had been relisted.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Taking a random example from there, the oldest one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 11 it's easy to see quite a few were relisted twice. Also one from 12th March (last re-/listing date) is listed as still open. It's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Smith (artist) which isn't open anymore but was closed recently (25th March) with no consensus after being opened on 21st February. Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Improving AFD debates/Stats 2 AfDs were relisted 4 times during the 1-year period under consideration. Don't know what they were though. Hut 8.5 10:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stats are interesting. The the page should link to the AfD discussions. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent one which was relisted four times and was open for more than a month. Warofdreams talk 11:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That example of a 4 times relisted AFD is interesting since it was opened on 23 January 2012 and closed on 1 March 2012 (and then went for deletion review) as it was therefore open for about 38 days (didn't check the exact times). That's only about 5 days longer then the Corey Smith example above of ~33 days which was relisted twice. I guess this really emphasises that while the number of times an AFD is relisted is a factor, it also depends on how long before someone does something each time after the general minimum of 7 days. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the list of deletion wars at the bottom of WP:Lamest edit wars. It doesn't say which particular AfD lasted the longest but I'd guess it's amongst those! The top one has had it says: (22 AfDs] (26 counting deleted ones), 13 DRVs, 1 RfD, 2 MfDs on the userspace draft that was eventually restored, and an MfD on the userfied old copy of the page.) (and a a (failed) proposal to prohibit further nominations, and an AfD for that, too) Dmcq (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. By nature of that list, it only tends to include stuff which had a lot of feeling on both sides even if people think it's a much ado about nothing. But AFDs only tend to be open for a long time if few people really cared (whether it was an obscure topic or perhaps simply one not many people were that interested in like stuff concerning parts of Asia and Africa); so it was difficult to get participants in the AFD or people looking for sources so admins kept relisting in it the hope someone would look at it. It's possible an AFD that stayed open a long time may come across as lame, e.g. if the reason no one wanted to close it was because it consisted of 2 people duking it out with no other participants and it was continually relisted in the hope someone else would come along but it's just as likely the longest AFD was more sad then lame. I haven't actually looked but I'm guessing in the GNAA case most of those AFDs only lasted 7 days if that (perhaps a but longer since no one wanted to be the one to close them but they wouldn't have been relisted). The example earlier of a 4 times relisted AFD did include an DR but that's partially a result of the small number of participants. Nil Einne (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting my memos in word to look pretty

Can anyone recommend a guide to formatting my memos in Word so that they look as pretty and official as the ones produced by expensive management consultants? I try to underline and italicize and that stuff but my attempt to beautify looks unorganized. Thanks.

Loginskeptic (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main piece of advice I would give you would be to learn how to use paragraph styles. It makes documents much more manageable and consistent in their presentation. In a nutshell, using styles means that instead of telling Word "make this paragraph bold and larger", you tell it "this paragraph is a header" and then tell it separately that headers should be bolded and larger. The same applies to all paragraphs, and you can set different rules depending on whether a paragraph is a normal paragraph, a quote or a footnote, for example. By separating the document's contents and the rules on how they should be presented you make it much easier to make changes later. For example, if you decide that headings should be smaller and underlined, you don't have to change the formatting of each heading - only the style rules. This also allows you to experiment more with different ideas. This article should be useful as an introduction.

You might also want to download a few templates for ideas, but be creative and try tweaking them to your preference. AJ Cham 03:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Loginskeptic (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AJCham is spot on - it's primarily about paragraph styles. MS have some preset paragraph title styles (such as title, header 1, header 2, subtitle, emphasis, etc) and, ofcourse, 'normal' for the paragraph itself. Suggest you have a play around with those built-in features and see how they work, and then begin to modify them to see how different styles work and look. Other thing is to get some of those consultant's docs and see how you can replicate their features such as margins, footers, headers, solid lines, inclusion of images etc. The other matter will be pagination, with the likes of page one being styled different to the rest, for example, and the matter of different sections (whoch can be challenging). Hope that helps. Benyoch (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can download lots of example templates, e.g. from Microsoft. I think Word used to come with installed examples, but I don't have a copy any more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Cub 50 Motorcycle

I have a Honda Cub 50 Mod. C102 motorcycle. The title was lost long ago by a previous owner and I don't know how to identify the year of mfg. by the vehicle identificaton number so I can obtain a title. The VIN no. is, C102-C092XXX. The 3 x's are not the actual last three numbers in the VIN. Can any one ID my scooter by the numbers? This mod. was mfg. between 1960-65 and is also known as the Honda Super Cub 50, mod. C-102 which indicates it has a electric starter in addition to a kick starter. I have researched this on several sites and cannot find an answer except mod. ID's that changed to seventeen digits I think in the early 1980's. Any help or guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. Pabear01 (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains a little information, but not much. Basically, the C102 part indicates it's from 1960-65, whilst the second 'C' seems to show that it's from 1964-5. The numbers after the second C give the position in that series - i.e. your bike was around the 92,000th built after Feb 1964. A Honda Cub Owners club may be able to help you narrow down further. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could try taking your bike to a Honda dealer. They might be able to look up the VIN and tell you the model year. RudolfRed (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do fruit detectors detect?

OK, spring break is over, and for me that was a flight from Hawaii back to the mainland yesterday. Been a while since I've visited the 50th state, and technology has advanced: rather than simply ask you if you're carrying any fresh fruits, they now have a scanner for this.

Apparently it works, because the woman in front of me in line had a banana in her carry-on, and it was detected.

HOW???

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fruits generally emit gases which can be detected. Collect (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Ethylene. Anonymous.translator (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment is very sensitive nowdays, it could well have picked up on the ⁴⁰K and ¹³⁷Cs emissions above background levels. Hope they didn't discover her stash of Kava. --Aspro (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These detectors are obviously colour blind: "Imported ceramic tiles, bananas and other legitimate cargo can emit low levels of radiation that first generation detectors cannot distinguish from a potentially hazardous radioactive threat. " emphasise mine. [1]--Aspro (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bananas? Is this because they're irradiated before export? I don't know. I'm just asking. And if so, why wouldn't other fruit be irradiated, and therefore detected, as well? Dismas|^(talk) 10:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bananas have a fair bit of potassium in them, which contains a good bit of radioactive Potassium-40.Tobyc75 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE: Banana equivalent dose. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the specifics about the systems in Hawaii but I believe here in NZ (and also I think in Australia) from observation and also from shows like Border Patrol and Border Security they just use some sort of specialised X-ray machines. See [2] for example. I can't find any details on the specifics, I believe they are optimised for detection of food and organic matter. But the other key thing would be training and staff concern. If your bags are actually sent thru an X-ray by customs in a country or state where they don't really care like Malaysia (regardless of whether you're supposed to declare it), they may very well see your banana (it's not like the shape of bananas isn't distinctive) but they're probably not going to care (unless perhaps there's something odd with the banana and it looks like there may be drugs in it). This isn't going to be the case in NZ, Australia or Hawaii. BTW IIRC they've been doing this in NZ since at least the 90s, so it isn't exactly 'advanced' Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: [3] [4] has a brief mention of detecting organic matter (arising from largely unrelated discussions). Likely the X-rays machines used at airports for detecting organic matter have greater emphasis on that range. [5] and Backscatter X-ray suggest backscatter X-ray is good for organic matter but I don't think this is what's normally used (the controversy over full body scanning makes this a difficult area to search). [6] suggests this has happened in the Auckland airport since at least 1999 confirming my earlier belief. It also mentions at least then they were using products from Rapiscan Systems. And it reminds me of something I forgot earlier, I believe in the past only certain people were selected to have their bags scanned (anyone subject to a full search and I think others chosen at random) but nowadays IIRC all bags seem to be X-rayed just before you exit (after you've seen the customs officer). Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian and New Zealand quarantine services also use beagles to detect food of all kinds, with considerable success. HiLo48 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They use those in Hawaii (and other places in the U.S.) too, the Beagle Brigade. Buddy431 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP here, away for a couple of days. Thanks especially to the first two answerers, who replied within TEN MINUTES! I knew that fruits were sometimes bathed in ethylene to hasten ripening; news to me was that all plants produce it themselves by natural means.

And thus, for the sake of future reference, in my opinion the imaging and radioactivity arguments are far less likely to be what the detector detects. Yes, bananas are high in potassium, but this machine also detects mangoes and papayas and pineapples and the rest of the tropical fruit spectrum, few of which are known for their natural radioactivity.

Resolved

– to my satisfaction

Thanks! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]