November 11

Does anyone know any possible interpretations of the body language here? [1] Thanks for info.--AlexSuricata (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the cited image, Bush looks perhaps a bit more open and Obama a bit more tense, But check out Image number 5: Is there some Michelle show through? This portends a great 8 years. Edison (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like two men pretending to have a frank and relaxed conversation while reporters swarm behind them and the whole world watches. Plasticup ^T/C 03:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Obama looks more tense - which one has to clean up the godawful mess created by the other? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to keep away from political fights, am I the only one who, till the end of that sentence, thought Clarityfriend was going to say "puppy"? :-) Hopefully, he'll be potty trained in a couple months, though. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he hasn't been potty trained in eight years he won't be in the next couple of months. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, good one!Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What good is it for the US Secret Service to give code names to the president and his family if those code names are released to the public? For those readers who left their scorecards at home, Renegade, Renaissance, Radiance, and Rosebud are respectively Barack, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha Obama's Secret Service code names. Also, wouldn't it be better to have shorter words? Renaissance is three syllables, of which the third is rather long. And finally, does anyone happen to know why they are all 'R' words? Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why bother with "code names" if you tell everyone what the codes are on practically the first day you plan to use them?! (I'm guessing that they want names that are distinctive over a noisy radio connection - I agree that they don't really sound much different from each other - but they don't sound much like other words that might be said over the radio in an emergency.) SteveBaker (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; they're telephony codes, designed to enhance communication rather than obfuscate it. We have an article on

Secret Service codenames for what it's worth. FiggyBee (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(Oh - of course there's an article about it! How silly of me!) So...it looks like using the same initial letter for all of the first-family members is a standard choice - but there doesn't seem to be any particular method to choosing a first letter to go with...they aren't picking consecutive letters of the alphabet or anything. SteveBaker (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really should have looked for the article first. And the reasoning behind them being public is kind of confusing. One of the sources for the code name article says: "These days, though, the code names have little to do with actual safety; instead they play a more ceremonial and logistical role, letting agents bark easily understood directions into their sleeves as a protectee is moving from location to location." And it goes on to say: "Anymore, though? It's really just for convenience -- and tradition". Well, maybe not 'confusing' really but it seems it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Dismas|^(talk) 04:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to look at it another way; the Secret Service has to refer to the people they protect somehow. Titles or real names can be a mouthful or ambiguous (there may be two "President"s in the building, or multiple people with the same name - it's not unusual in America, after all, for a child to have the same name as their parent). Since the codenames are in constant day-to-day use, secrecy is pretty pointless. When the guy who just escorted the President to the helicopter announces "Bigears has boarded Marine One", it's not too hard to work out who "Bigears" is.

As for the initial letter, I expect they select an apt name for the principal protectee, and then the relatives get names beginning with the same letter. FiggyBee (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which causes me to ask, Renegade? What were they thinking[2]? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're using a definition which is too strict. I know what the wiktionary page says and I'm assuming that any other dictionary would say something similar but I generally don't hear 'renegade' used in such a negative way. Dismas|^(talk) 09:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would see "renegade" as a synonym for "maverick", so highly appropriate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why is 'Rosebud' the only recycled name? Richard Avery (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Dismas, I take your point yet looking over the names, many are or could be seen as disrespectful if not politically incorrect, even satirical and the choices hint at some kind of closet humor at the WHCA. Contextualising the code name with Obama hints further at some scepticism within. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Richard Avery, someone might have been keen on Citizen Kane? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree with you that many of them sound like someone at WHCA is having some fun, e.g. Sawhorse for Al Gore who is so... stoic. There were a couple others that were rather interesting as well. On a side note, I wonder why only one of Dubya's daughters was listed. Maybe we couldn't get a source for the other daughter. Dismas|^(talk) 09:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that one – that is funny. I wonder that anyone hasn't objected yet. ("Hey! Waddaya mean, calling

tumbler?!") How do security people keep a straight face? <hand shooting over head> Julia Rossi (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The codenames are probably used so often that the security people stop associating them with the original meaning, so keeping a straight face wouldn't be a problem. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have voted for "Potus," (President of the United States, a cable code of long standing, back to at least F.D. Roosevelt), "MsPotus," "Big girl Potus" and "Little girl Potus." Edison (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible that there is a element of politeness? It could be seen as disrespectful to refer to the president by their first name and you can't call the entire family by the last name. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a clue how I could get some sort of estimate for the number of music CD's have been produced? I don't mean the actual number of plastic disks - I'm wondering about the number of unique music albums. I presume there are more than enough to require an entire human lifetime to listen to them all - but I wonder by how much.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't found this page, it's an incomplete answer, but the Library of Congress claims to have over 3 Million recordings. But it's not clear to me what percentage of those are spoken word. Recorded Sound Reference Center Hope this helps. APL (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, 60 minutes per hour times 24 hours in a day times 365 days in a year times 75 years gives 39,420,000 minutes. At 70 minutes per CD, that means 563,143 CDs could be listened to disregarding time for sleep and other luxuries.--droptone (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 311 thousand torrents on what.cd; it is amazing that someone has the availability of listening to so much in a lifetime. Mac Davis (talk)

Hey, did you try checking Amazon? If you search Amazon's "Music" category for "Audio CD" it returns 1,686,010 items. (Only a small percentage of them are in stock.) If accurate, that, at least, could provide a lower bound for the number of published CD albums. APL (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on Droptone's helpful maths calculation - he is basing his reckoning on listening to one piece of music at a time with BOTH ears. Why not train the brain to listen to TWO pieces of music simultaneously - one in each ear? I feel sure the brain would fight back at first but would eventually "learn" how to do it. I can listen to my wife, her mother, our 3 daughters, and our 5 grand-children all at the same time without any difficulty - all while watching a football match. 92.23.190.27 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you can ignore your wife, her mother, your children, etc... while watching your football match, don't you? I know I pretend to listen, but that's quite different from actually caring... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must be slow or something but I've been listening to Mozart's stuff for decades and I'm still not done. Saintrain (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that Amazon might also include books on CD, possibly increasing the number by a large extent. But that being said, allmusic.com has a similar count: 1,544,354 albums. zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon seems to classify audiobooks under "books" and not under "music". APL (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, Amazon often has different editions of a given album, sometimes five to ten . You must also discard "best of"s, compilations and single releases. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio shows I've been listening to have been flipping back and forth between "Senator Obama" and "President Elect Obama". Is it really the case that either title is OK? I'd have thought that "President Elect" would be the correct form of address - on the grounds that given a choice of title, one should pick the more senior position. SteveBaker (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I would tend to agree with you that "President Elect" should be preferred, I don't feel it's a more senior position since a P-E doesn't really have any power to do anything except name people to a team or cabinet that also doesn't have any real power... yet. Dismas|^(talk) 04:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while the term obviously is commonly used, he's not technically the president-elect until the electoral college actually votes. I don't know if anyone's usage is being influenced by that. 05:15 UTC, November 11, 2008.

And even after he's formally elected, he still remains a senator until he resigns from the Senate (unless he's already done so by then). He might be President elect Senator Obama for a period. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"President elect" is not really a title; it's a description. Obama has appeared in some photos with a placard that says "Office of the President Elect" but there's actually no such "office"; it seems to be mostly a PR thing. --Trovatore (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if the president-elect sets up an office for himself, that is the office of the president-elect. What else? --Anon, 20:15 UTC, November 11, 2008.

I take it you're punning here. Sure, if he sets up an office, in the sense of a room where you go in and shut the door and work or have work-related meetings, then that's the office of the president-elect. It's not an office in the sense of an office of state. --Trovatore (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not punning. I'm saying that just because you saw a placard with that phrase in it, that doesn't mean he's claiming it is "an office of state" as you put it. And therefore it's not appropriate to respond that "there's no such thing". Sometimes an office is just an office. --Anon, 06:35 UTC, November 12, 2008.

Ah, you didn't see the picture, then. Google it; you'll see what I mean. --Trovatore (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did eventually. My comment stands. --Anon, 05:22 UTC, November 16, 2008.

Well, you're just wrong, then. --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tipper Gore, teasing her husband, once said that he was so dull, the Secret Service code name for him was "Al Gore." --- OtherDave (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truly picky want to call him the "presumptive president-elect" until the [[Electoral College votes and the votes are officially counted, but so far Wikipedia is following the usage of the news media, who since at least the 1840's have used the term "president-elect" as soon as a winner emerges in November. Edison (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 24-hour news radio station in Toronto today, in referring to the meeting between Bush and Obama, called them "the Presidents Bush and Obama". This is not an

RS for anything, but it was interesting to note. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Does anyone know this guys name and is there a Wiki page on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloTube (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this special report in The New York Times. Louis Waweru  Talk  05:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the World Cup,the host nation automatically qualifies for the finals-but what happens if they have to switch the host country due to some natural disaster or violence(like the Chile tidal wave of 1960 or the Mexico quake of 1985).Does the new host country automatically qualify too or do they still have to battle through the rest of the qualifying stages? And does the old host country still entitled to its automatic qualification even though it's no longer the host? Lemon martini (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think there has been an actual instance of this happening, but as you say it could. If two nations are sharing the world cup, they'd both get to qualify - so I don't see how this situation would be treated differently. FIFA World Cup qualification might help you more. -- WORMMЯOW  08:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a two year qualifing period. So, I would have thought that if the disaster was to happen now then there would be time for either South Africa to recover or to change the host nation and go ahead with a different set of qualifing. However, if the disaster was to happen in early 2010 then it would be hard to run a set of qualifing matches for South Africa, ignore the fact that for the first time ever they are playing qualifing matches, sort of. Also you would need to go with a country that has already qualified to keep the correct numbers of teams. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1986 World Cup was originally scheduled to be hosted by Colombia. Around 1982, it became clear that the armed conflict in the country made it unsuitable as a host, and FIFA designated a new host in 1983 (Mexico, winning out over bids from the USA and Canada). Colombia did not participate in the 1986 World Cup: Mexico occupied the host nation slot, and Colombia failed to qualify on its own. If the decision to switch venues had been taken later (i.e. after the qualifying rounds were well under way), FIFA could take one of two decisions: either allow both host countries, or only one; it is also possible that the last-minute host would be a large football nation and thus already qualified, making the decision easier. There is no strict ruel that only one spot os for the host: in 2002, for example, the two co-host nations (Japan and South Korea) got spots as host countries. In other tournaments (the 1992 European Cup, e.g.), a participant was replaced at the last minute, so a number of options are available to deal with the situation if it ever were to occur. --207.236.147.118 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read in Wikipedia, as well as other anime blogs and websites, that a second season of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was announced, but none of the places actually have any information about them. I live in Kolkata, which means I've to download my anime episodes to watch them and I don't know whether the Season 2 has started airing yet. Does someone have any information about this?? Thanks in advance. 117.194.230.224 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox on our

"New season" section of that same article seems less clearcut - though it sounds like an elaborate joke to me. Astronaut (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Today as I walked past US embassy I noticed a black flag flown next to their national flag. I assumed it is sign of mourning since it is anniversary of the end of WWI, but as far as I know it is usualy marked by lowering flag not by flying a black flag. Can someone explain what that flag means ? 78.84.222.177 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it possibly the POW/MIA flag which is mostly black? Rmhermen (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The third item on List of black flags says: "Black flags are often associated with funerals in the West, particularly state funerals and public mourning." --Tango (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the anarchists have taken over. Edison (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they have there are easier places to start. 86.4.187.55 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about POW/MIA flag before, but I'm quite sure it was plain black (I looked carefully, acctualy for a moment I hoped to see a skull on it XD). As I said it is more common to lower the national flag in case of mourning and there is no public mournig in USA as far as I know. I noted they had

Flag of United States and related articles (November 11 apparently isn't day of mourning judging from what that article says about display at half staff) and black flag also dosen't say anything relevant. I think it was flown as sign of mourning, because of the end of WWI/Veterans day, but why in this manner ? Do they have some sort of tradition in USA ? 78.84.222.177 (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Part of the function of US Embassies is to educate people about the USA, its culture, and traditions, so you could always go in and ask. Depending on how many security guards they have out the front, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I saw one guard, but... usualy when I happen to pass by I'm on the other side of the street once I walked on their side - it looks very intimidating (barred windows high fence and thiny sidewalk with concrete blocks along the edge) I'd rather avoid even walking there ever again. I looked in their homepage - it dosen't say anything about this78.84.222.177 (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected] and/or http://riga.usembassy.gov/contact-us.html would probably be a safer option than storming the front gate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I don't want to e-mail them, I guess it most likely had something to do with Veterans Day, I think, if there was something more to it, someone here would have known 78.84.222.177 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if this helps: Latvia celebrated Lāčplēsis War Heroes Memorial Day on November 11. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it dosen't, if it had someting to do with Latvia, I think I would know given that I am Latvian. Lāčplēsis day is something alike victory day and happens to be just a week before our independence day - whole Riga is decorated with Latvian flags, that's why I payed attention to flags of emabassies in first place. Only US embassy had a black flag 78.84.222.177 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were trying to get rid of ants and roaches, and didn't understand the explanation well enough :-). --Trovatore (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

On the back of the bus seat in front of me someone had graffited a star of david with a number "6" in three of the points and what looked like two forks coming out of the star with tines outward. There were some other details I have forgotten. I am going to report the vandalism later, but is it some sort of gang or racial supremecist group symbol? 152.16.15.23 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking North Carolina? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Durham, NC. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A guess is a gang associated with (or wannabe associated with) the Folk Nation who seem to have a thing for hexagrams & pitchforks. Hexagram itself is worth a read, for the number of groups that have adopted it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a prety close match in the link to the gang symbols on the bottom of the Folk Nation. I forgot to mention above that it had a G in the center, which matches up with that gang's symbology/graffitology. I guess I am glad it wasn't some skinhead thing, not that "generic" gangs are any better. You're fast on the response Tagishsimon, nice refdesking! 152.16.15.23 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And nice verbing, Friend 152. "Refdesk (v.)" should appear in OED any day now.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there like a list or something of the largest projects on Wikipedia? If so, where could I find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.230.99 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "largest"? Numbers of participants? Work done? Articles within the scope of? Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, at a little under 600k articles, is a large one which springs to mind. I suspect Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting has also touched very many thousands of articles, and would be amongst those with the largest numbers of members. I'm not aware of any studies done; Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory is a useful link for those who are unaware of the number of wikiprojects in existence --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested primarliy in number of articles within the scope, but I would be interested in other factors like rate of growth, size of participating body, ability of the project to affect other projects (like if project A adopts x, project B decides to adopt x as well on the assumption that if it worked for Project A it will work for Project B), and so forth. It seems wierd that for all the internal statistics on things like Featured Articles and number of hits a page gets in a day there are apparently no such statistics on the various projects on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.230.99 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like more than the genesis of the stats you're after has been done. I point you to

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment or Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide you might find some more work or someone interested. Given that the stats are available in a regular form from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index you might find someone at Wikipedia:Bot requests who would fancy building a table or two for you from the raw data. With enough cycles, you could generate the history for the last 2.5 years or so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

See also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Comparison - comparison by FA, unassessed & total article count to June 08. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]