Humanities desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

June 17[edit]

Sceptre and Ceremonial mace, what is the difference?[edit]

Sceptre and Ceremonial mace, what is the difference? Bookku (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mace derives from a weapon. Was the sceptre ever used as a weapon? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a question about the Sengol, like the question above. Currently this object (which Allahabad Museum wisely labelled "a golden stick") is used to illustrate both pages, and is called a sceptre on one page and a mace on the other. Monarchs have sceptres, while a ceremonial mace is held by a bodyguard of a monarch, a monarch's representative, or in some procession or other ceremony to do with government rather than monarchy. Hence Western parliaments have maces, and the US House of Representatives has a mace, and various houses of local government (including in India) have maces. But this tradition, derived from the Byzantines who seem to have picked it up from Assyria, might be irrelevant to ancient India. Time called the Sengol a sceptre and said that Nehru was receiving the symbol "like ancient Hindu kings", but what kind of golden stick, if any, did an ancient raja carry? Looking at carvings of Ashoka, I see only that his attendants carry an umbrella and fly-whisks (somewhat more useful). The Sengol is very long, with only a small decoration on the end, and that's a shape more typical of a sceptre (since a mace is essentially an arm-extending hitting stick with a big rock on it). But then there are things called chobs (which I found via the Ceremonial mace page), and some of these are mace-shaped (short and lumpy) [1] [2], while others are sceptre-shaped (long and thin) [3][4] or somewhere inbetween [5]. None of them are five feet long, though, and they seem to have been used by the rulers of the Princely States. So I'm inclined to say the Sengol is a sceptre, based firstly on its shape (it's especially long and thin), and secondly on its apparent meaning (if Time is right, it has connotations of sovereignty).

To confuse matters (further): I see Ashoka's coins featured a Caduceus, which was carried by messengers. There is a similar mention of the use of a sceptre by diplomats (sent to talk to enemies) in Sceptre#Greco-Roman_world. Was a caduceus a sceptre? The first word is derived from the Ancient Greek for "messenger", the second from an Ancient Greek word for "stick". Card Zero (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Card Zero correctly identified reason of me asking the question I wanted to be sure if mention of Sengol in the article Ceremonial mace is okay enough, though the final call has to be taken @ the article talk page.

Since more variations in names and spelling variations it might have been difficult to google all RS about ancient Indian sceptre quickly but actually ample sources seem to exist and I am working on it. Mention of sceptre continued in South India much longer since they continued to have sovereigns for longer. Since Semgol and Indian sceptres are mentioned in relation to ruler ruler ship and sovereignty, taking @Card Zero analysis into account and RS too ,I suppose, we can safely count Sengol as sceptre. Bookku (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are brewing up a nice new article, Indian sceptre. Good plan. Card Zero (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optical illusion with McDonald's[edit]

The M-arch without the name McDonald's accompanying it is higher than it is wide. But when the name McDonald's is accompanying the M-arch, it is wider than it is high. In other words, the height of the M-arch appears smaller when the name McDonald's is accompanying it. Any reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to some examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who sees, this, please look at the logo yourself and see if this is true. Georgia guy (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at our article golden arches, observed that the logo on its own is not higher than it is wide, and wondered what you've been looking at. Card Zero (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it in any of the photos in the McDonald's article. There have been many redesigns over the years, so maybe there are older restaurants that haven't changed their signs? Abductive (reasoning) 19:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The aspect ratios of the stand-alone Golden Arches logo and the M arches of a corporate logo said in our article on McDonald's to have been used from 1968 until 2003 are practically the same: height : width ≈ 7 : 8. --Lambiam 19:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The header mentions "optical illusion", so perhaps the addition of the 'McDonalds' horizontal band being near the bottom off-center to the right gives that illusion (to some people). 136.54.99.98 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just passed the McDonald's on the City Road

Up and down the City Road,

In and out of the Eagle.

That's the way the money goes,

Pop goes the weasel.

The logo sat nicely on top of the company name. If the name were longer, then maybe, but otherwise no. 2A00:23C6:2417:3101:3CC6:C1B0:3BFF:3DE2 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if the name were shorter, the logo might slip off. --Lambiam --Lambiam 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How long does Wikipedia CAPTCHA take?[edit]

How long does a Wikipedia CAPTCHA test take? 95.151.194.20 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About three seconds. Why? Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I'm asking this question is because when I do a CAPTCHA test on Wikipedia it normally takes me more than three seconds and it feels like it would take forever. Every time I try adding citations on Wikipedia, a CAPTCHA test always comes up. 95.151.194.20 (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here for years and have never seen a CAPTCHA thing show up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I signed up, I'd get it when trying to add URLs as an IP. Don't know if it still does that now. Iloveparrots (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CAPTCHA test still comes up when I try adding URLs.95.151.194.20 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to avoid CAPTCHA on Wikipedia. 95.151.194.20 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that this would only be an IP user phenomenon, though it could have something to do with preventing bogus edits. You could try a test: Create a registered user ID, maybe just for temporary use, and try to do the same edit. Then see if you still get a CAPTCHA thingie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem odd to Bugs, but it's true. To post this message with the URL [6], I had to solve a CAPTCHA of "wieldreefs". --142.112.221.43 (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you're editing as an IP. Bugs's suggestion was to make a user account and see if the CAPTCHA still comes up. -- asilvering (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

142 is not the original poster. The distinction is not between registered users and IPs, but between autoconfirmed users and other users. So making an account won't make an immediate difference. --Lambiam 19:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And presumably an IP can never become "autoconfirmed"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With an IP there is no rule against the address being shared by many different persons, whereas accounts are supposed not to be shared. For IPs used by schools you often see a stream of good edits being punctuated by bursts of petty vandalism. --Lambiam 22:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OP, I guess you are using a VPN. With VPNs that always happens.Omidinist (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And someone eventually adds a useful comment! Well Done! DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is true. I regularly edit using a VPN (also now), and can add external links (like this one) without being challenged. --Lambiam 10:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it depends on the country you are living in. I have never been able to edit here while using a VPN. My edit has been recognized as an act of vandalism. Omidinist (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VPNs are generally considered open proxies and any of those are hard blocked when known about. If you have an account and a good enough reason, you can request an exemption which will allow you to use this account with such proxies without being blocked. AFAICT, Lambian doesn't have such an exemption so I assume they happen to have used those proxies which are not hard blocked. I'm sure many of these exist but it only takes one abusive user to draw attention to them for them to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify I'm assuming from the context of this discussion that VPN means a free or paid VPN service that is used to route your internet traffic via the VPN for whatever reason. Simply using a VPN as part of your connection e.g. to connect to your home network or office network isn't a problem in itself, most of the time the WMF servers cannot even know you're doing so even when your internet traffic is routed via this VPN. IP blocks will only depend on whether your home network or office network or whatever is used for your internet traffic is blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When open proxies are blocked, a user does not even get to the point where they get to see a CAPTCHA. Not only can they not add external links, they cannot make any changes. When not blocked, a proxy is not different from any other IP address, so the use of a VPN is irrelevant to the CAPTCHA issue. As I wrote above much earlier, to not be challenged with a CAPTCHA when adding an external link, a user has to be an autoconfirmed user. A user, while anonymous (not logged in), even when using a static IP address uniquely assigned to them, will not be recognized as being autoconfirmed. --Lambiam 09:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of that and should have clarified the point. But it doesn't sound to me like Omidinist is referring to CAPTCHAs even if that is what the OP referring to. The OP is using an IP so will always get CAPTCHAs. Omidinist refers to VPNs but they're irrelevant to CAPTCHAs, and the OP. The OP is either blocked and unable to edit except we know they could to post this, or not blocked and will get CAPTCHAs regardless of whether they're using a VPN.

Note that while their first comment was somewhat ambigious, later Omidinist said "I have never been able to edit here while using a VPN. My edit has been recognized as an act of vandalism." In their followup, they didn't say anything about CAPTCHAs, in fact the comment suggest they cannot edit rather then they can edit but need to complete CAPTCHAs. The comment is what we expect since while there are surely a lot of unblocked VPNs, there are also a lot of hard blocked ones, in particular I expect most popular ones have been blocked. The OP is unable to edit point blank when using VPNs because they are using such hard blocked VPN.

(The precise block message will vary, some may refer to vandalism, some may say other stuff. Arguably blocks on open proxies are not just to deal with vandalism but with other forms of malicious editing including paid editing, illicit socking for reasons besides vandalism, etc. But it's not clear if the Omidinist is referring to the block message when they mention vandalism anyway. They might just be referring to the fact they can't edit and are assuming the reason is because it's counted as vandalism.)

You are able to edit since whatever VPN you are using is not hardblocked but this doesn't take away from the fact many people using VPNs cannot edit point blank like Omidinist. AFAICT, this was never mentioned until I did but is IMO important to understand why Omidinist cannot edit when using VPNs, although I should have clarified this has nothing to do with CAPTCHAs

Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and the standard message you get when trying to edit with an account, which I think appears whatever was put in the block message by whoever blocked you, says "Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong." So this further explains Omidinist's comment. They likely saw this message and this is why they said what they said above about vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I had the vague memory there was something specific which only applied to proxies. I finally remembered to check out Wikipedia:User access levels#Confirmed and found that editors with IPBE editing via Tor have a higher threshold for autoconfirmed, 90 days and 100 edits. Reading [7] and MW:Extension:TorBlock I think the way this works is when you have IPBE and edit via Tor which is automatically detected, the higher limit is applied. This shouldn't apply to people using VPNs not using Tor unless for some reason the VPN IP is also an exit node (unlikely) or something goes wrong. (Likewise anyone using Tor to connect to a VPN will only be affected on Wikimedia servers by stuff that affects the VPN since the Wikimedia servers never see Tor.) Note that this is still irrelevant to both the OP who doesn't have an account, and Omidinist who is long auto confirmed. Also even for someone affected, they will have to complete CAPTCHAs until they are auto//confirmed whether they're using Tor or not. (I'm not very sure what happens if you sometimes edit via Tor and sometimes don't, I didn't check since the autoconfirmation time difference is interesting but irrelevant to affected editors.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]