Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2018 May 2

Miscellaneous desk
< May 1	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 2

Google maps street view: ancient cities

Hello! I wish I had google street view for Ancient Rome. I’m sure somebody’s made a tool for puttering around depictions of Ancient cities. Is there such a thing? 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:64 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Rome used to be available in Google Earth but it has gone. Here's a video of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqMXIRwQniA I think it was based on this http://www.romereborn.org/ --TrogWoolley (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was able to get this old Google Earth thing mostly working.

1) Install Google Earth Pro

2) Turn OFF the 3d buildings layer.

3) Install the "ancient rome regions" from Google's earth server [1]

4) Here's the weird part. That will install a bunch of markers on the map around rome. Click on one of those, and scroll down to below the educational text. There's links to download the "ancient terrain" and "ancient Roman Buildings". If you click on those, and then wait maybe five minutes (there's no progress bar), most of the ancient Rome package will load.

This is clearly not intentional, and the images in the educational pages never load. But it's still working well enough to enjoy exploring the ancient city. At least until the "Rome Reborn" project is up and running again. ApLundell (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the name of font that is used in the following document?

What is the type of font that is used in the this document? How can I know what is the name of the font? (It's not Times New Romans font. There's a slight difference between them).93.126.116.89 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There are dozens of online font identification services. Type "what the font" in Google and they will appear. Take a screenshot of the document and upload the image. The service will identify the font for you. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

At this low resolution, it's difficult to make out the detail on the glyphs, so it's tough to say for sure.

If I had to guess I'd say something in the "Garamond" family. That looks about right, and it would be a natural choice for this sort of published document. You might try its open source clone Cormorant.

Hope this helps. ApLundell (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The proportions suggest Times Roman to me (rather than any Garamond) partly because T is as tall as h; though e and y (in the body type) are wrong for Times. The headline looks like oblique Times, and the italics in question 7 are very Times-like. Part of the headline is Ukrainian, so maybe it's a Soviet knockoff of Times. —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It certainly has some interesting hyphenation: 'testi-ng', 'coloni-es'(Q4), 'mi-scarriages' (Q11). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there are list of non-notable (news) sources?

Firstly - apologies if in wrong place, just seemed the most logical location

I hope this is fairly self-explanatory in the primary sense - its opposite, a list of accepted news sources would also be great, but I'm aware that there might not even be an informal list either way.

I suspect I'm asking a duplicate question but I couldn't find that magic set of key words to get an answer

Many sources are obviously not suitable and can be recognised as such on seeing them. A few others I've seen have been specifically banned as non-notable sources. However while I'm generally fine on UK sources, determining suitability of the "grey area" news sources from other countries makes it tricky for me to judge whether to use it.

Many Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, notability only means "Does it have enough useful information in reliable source texts for us to write an article about". If you mean reliability, Wikipedia does have some guidance at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As far as I know, there is no canonical list of reliable or unreliable sources. If you'd like a specific source looked over by others and assessed for reliability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is useful. --Jayron32 12:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't notability mean the exact opposite of what you say, Jayron? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It does. Apparently my phone autocorrected to the wrong word, and I didn't notice. Thanks for catching it. I have ammended my post to the correct word. --18:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: thanks for the answer. I sort of meant reliability and sort of meant notability (in the sense that determining whether coverage is large enough to avoid the local issues that show up in some notability considerations). In any case, thank you for the pointer. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Coverage being "large enough" is really a "squishy" idea, and for that reason, Wikipedia really has no policy regarding the location or geographic reach of sources, there have been two attempts to enact some community guidance on this, and both have failed (see Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) for them). There's no equitable way to draw such bright lines that makes sense, so each source and each use of each source is assessed of it's own accord for each individual situation. ---Jayron32 12:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Outside the wikipedia universe, the OP might be interested in this list from Snopes: [2]. Obviously, new non reliable news sources pop up all the time nowadays, so it's hard to keep such a list up to date. Xuxl (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Fake news talks about unreliable "news sources". But, ironically, they've become notable by being notorious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. As the article says, most of them are fly-by-night organizations you will have never heard of.

List_of_fake_news_websites is not comprehensive, but most of the items on the list are not notable enough for articles. ApLundell (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yet their mere presence on the list gives them a place in Wikipedia which they wouldn't normally have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Also here to chime in on there being no definitive list. Other things to watch out for would be any journals on Bealle's list of publishers with questionable practices, and vanity/print-on-demand publishers. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)