Miscellaneous desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

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 19

Names

Why do we call famous people by the names we do? I mean, why is it that we call some people by their full names (e.g. Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ralph Waldo Emerson), others by their initials (e.g. H. G. Wells, J. D. Salinger), some by just their first and last names (e.g. Charles Dickens, Edith Wharton), and still others by a combination (e. g. Dwight D. Eisenhower, F. Scott Fitzgerald)? – Psyche825 _(talk) 00:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the J.D. Salingers, H. G. Wellses and F. Scott Fitzgeralds of the world, we call them that because that's the authorial name that appears on the cover of their books, rather than "Jerome Salinger", "Herbert Wells" or "Francis Fitzgerald". As for the Shelleys, Emersons etc - it seems to be just that we've come to know them by their full names, and referring to "Percy Shelley" or "Ralph Emerson" would now sound odd, because nobody says that. Which doesn't really answer the question of how this habit started in the first place, I acknowledge. On the other hand, we do also refer to them by surname only - Shelley, Dickens, Shakespeare - exactly as we do for John Keats, Robert Frost, Henry Lawson etc, as Keats, Frost and Lawson. The other side of the coin is that composers are more often than not referred to by surname only (Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms), except for living composers. But some very well-known long-dead composers always get their full name, most notably César Franck. Why this is so is a mystery to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people aren't always known by the names they prefer. Lee Harvey Oswald was just "Lee Oswald" to those who knew him, but he died before he could get the Dallas PD and the media to stop calling him that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard (perhaps it was speculation) that criminal suspects' names are often given in full to lessen the chance of embarrassing the hypothetical R. Lee Oswald, James Robert Ray, John Donne Gacy, and so on. —Tamfang (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why police and the media initially use full names of suspects. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(afterthought) Dan White escaped the phenomenon because he was already a public figure, but what about Charles Manson? —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times long referred to him as "Charles M. Manson." But once a defendant becomes well known, there's no need to keep using his full name if it's not how he was generally known before his arrest. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. That doesn't explain why John Gacy, James Ray, Lee Oswald et al still always get the full-name treatment, whereas Manson doesn't. The media are paragons of inconsistency on such things, though, so I guess they have a reputation to defend. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the name on the cover has something to do with some of them. For example, neither Fitzgerald nor C. S. Lewis cared for their given names, so when they published their books, they didn't use their given names. Others may have just signed their names in some way for some other personal reason (like the other ones given). – Psyche825 _(talk) 20:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's the real world's equivalent of disambiguation. I've no idea how chuffed Pitt the Younger was about his epithet (probably less happy than Pliny the Younger was) but it's handy being able to differentiate the composers called Bach, the Bushes called George etc As such, the need for disambiguation sometimes will come after the person's time, in which case they'll have no say in the matter. Pliny the Elder died when his namesake was a nerdy stick-at-home scholar, as the latter makes clear in his own tale of the former's death. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the others, although the posts above are educational, but it's pretty common for female writers to be required by their editors to use their initials rather than full names--or even to take a male pen name--because they don't think people will buy stuff by female writers, especially science fiction books. This is as modern as J. K. Rowling, whose friends know her as Joanne or Jo. Other examples are Andre Norton, James Tiptree Jr. and C. J. Cherryh (whose last name is actually Cherry). There's a website somewhere that lists a bunch more, and it's bizarre and freaky how many there are. I wish I could remember where it is... --Masamage ♫ 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey, check it out: Category:Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms. --Masamage ♫ 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P~~hyllis~~ D~~orothy~~ James remarked that in hindsight she was glad to have chosen that form because it made booksignings easier on the hands. —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I put mostly authors' names for examples (my mind went blank, and there's a bookshelf right next to my computer), but this question extends to other well-known people, as well. – Psyche825 _(talk) 20:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth parameter

How is this parameter calculated when determining the depth of a Wikipedia? Please be as detailed as possible. -- Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 01:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to m:List of Wikipedias it's ((Edits/Articles) × (Non-Articles/Articles) × (1 − Stub-ratio)). Algebraist 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a ton of stubs seems to result in great shallowness - the Polish WP has a depth of 8, barely above Volapük WP at 6. Following Jimbo Wales's comment here led me to meta:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles where Volapük comes in 93d, far behind Polish WP which receives the 10th highest score by that measurement ---Sluzzelin talk 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scivias online?

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of Hildegard of Bingen's _Scivias_ as an e-book or webpage or something similar? 71.220.109.203 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is a book which has only been translated fairly recently in the 20th century—the original is out of copyright, clearly, but any translation would be copyrighted, which reduces its chance of being online in anything other than Latin, and even that seems wanting. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the book is on Google Books here. Astronaut (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I'm just going to buy it - no need to stay online and be unable to see parts. 75.161.129.138 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US census -- basements

I'd like to get statistical data on where in the United States basements are more common. I know that generally that the West and South don't have them and the Midwest and Northeast do, but I'd like some hard data if possible. The basement article gives some interesting information about what types of soil are necessary, etc., but again, it'd be nice to have data.

(I'd also ideally like it for around 1980, but if that wasn't possible, I'd survive).

I found this list of census data available for 1980—amazingly out of all of those variables I couldn't find anything that would help me with this task. But maybe you are more clever than I am? --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you with census results i'm afraid, but US basements are generally obligatory nowadays in areas most susceptible to deep ground frosts so that services like gas, water, electricity etc. can be located below the house at a level below the frost line. As a resident of Scotland, where we don't usually have basements, and where we have cold water storage tanks in the attic, it sounds like a good idea to me. So I would tend to concentrate on the northern states were I you. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.243 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Louis C. Waldman?

I really want to know who Louis C. Waldman is. All I really know is that he was living circa 1902 and was an "certified architect in Riverside, California. He was an active architect around this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123abd? (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: go to the Wikipedia page on Riverside, California. Follow the external links at the bottom of the page to the municipal government's website and the local history societies. The city's website will give you the contact information for the local library, which is usually the best place to search for historical information on a local person. (826-5213). The historical societies also offer contact information, as well as links to old phone directories. Good luck! WikiJedits (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm clock

For years, I have owned this alarm clock whose design I have always liked. However, it no longer works properly. It appears to be a copy of a regular alarm clock and it is made in China based on the sticker on the bottom. Does this particular design look familiar? Is there a replacement somewhere? It could be a brand name like Braun but my Google search leads me nowhere. What can you tell me about my alarm clock? --Blue387 (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling (hint hint) gray desk clock (images) gets you something close-ish but newer in Seiko. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the case you like you could 'easily' get a replacement mechanism - I assume it's quartz. Make friends with a proper jeweler and hopefully they should be able to just pop a new mechanism in?83.100.183.180 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blister

When a person has blister, such as from a burn, what is the liquid that forms it? The article on blisters simply calls it a "liquid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.74.154 (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's serum — blood with red blood cells and clotting agents filtered out. [1][2][3]. Weregerbil (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Blood plasma --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Plant

Can anyone get me a picture of the pith of a rush plant? 220.233.83.26 (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but in a couple of months, once they start growing again in my water garden, I could mail you some ;-). Seriously, there's nothing too unique about rushes (juncus) as compared to any of the fibrous grasses you may have seen.

Atlant (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange illnesses

What are some of the strangest human illnesses? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think "strange" is aa good category for an encyclopedia. You might look at the existing article on rare disease. WikiJedits (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat describes a number of very unusual mental illnesses. --Sean 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps leprosy or ebola. Useight (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the one that renders the sufferer insensible to pain? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis? Skittle (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone who had that condition, his girlfriend liked kicking him at random. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding head syndrome definitely has the coolest name. I guess it's a little strange too. Recury (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a condition where every injured area of the body turned into bone until the person became a living statue. Unfortunately I have forgotten its name. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. I always thought Harlequin type ichthyosis is quite strange. Dismas|^(talk) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, thank you very much. I'll add another two, but I don't know their names. The first is a neurological (?) condition that renders the sufferer inherently sociable and friendly but makes it very difficult for him/her to follow logical reasoning or perform practical tasks. (insert name). The other is also neurological and the sufferer feels as if he is being grasped and moved by invisible hands. This can happen in any part of the body even inside. I wish I knew the names. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, try Williams Syndrome Bunthorne (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Foreign accent syndrome? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that Oscar von Redwitz-Schmölz died in 1891 and isn't around to answer this question. He was a German dramatist and poet (composers such as Liszt and Pfitzner set his poems to music), and also an extreme hypochondriac. He visited a doctor every day for 28 years, during which time he complained of over 10,000 different ailments, most of which were completely unknown to medical science. (This information was contained in the Book of Lists #2, ed. Irving Wallace et al, and the author of the article was William A. De-Gregorio, but it isn't confirmed by any English-language Google hit.) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water urticaria, an allergy to water. (Okay, technically it’s not an illness.) Aquagenic pruritus is similar and is an illness however. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water urticaria is sometimes described as an allergy, but it is poorly described in the literature because of its extreme rarity. My friend who suffers from this - and once almost died from it - is a nurse, and his father is a doctor, and I think they'd both have a lot of trouble in accepting that it's not an illness in the ordinary understanding of the term. It's certainly a debilitating medical condition. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does a sufferer from this condition do when they get thirsty? --S.dedalus (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik it only happens when water contacts the external skin, and even then it depends on the temperature. The Melbourne girl mentioned in the article seems to have an extreme case, where any water contact is bad. My friend is only affected by cold water; he loves long hot showers. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some interesting psychotic ones that I like: Capgras delusion, Folie à deux, Fregoli delusion, Intermetamorphosis, Syndrome of subjective doubles, Cotard delusion, Mirrored self-misidentification, Somatoparaphrenia, Reduplicative paramnesia, Syndrome of delusional companions, Clonal pluralization of the self. These are all monothematic delusional misidentification syndromes. Mac Davis (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, progeria, and xeroderma pigmentosum. Mac Davis (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandalizing the vandals

I tried to fix some vadalism stating that this can make green hair grow out of ones arse. however, I sem to have made a bit of a mess, could someone with more knowlege plese fix this up for me as I feel quilty now thanks Phencyclidine

I took care of it. Just a couple missing }} at the end of the info-box template. --LarryMac | Talk 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Captain Cheers and Beers and PCP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oven - What does "the war" and "the ovens" refer to?

Was talking to an old man recently and he kept talking about the war and the ovens what was he on about? wiki the ovens comes up with nothing as does google. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the old man was referring to World War Two and The Holocaust. The end of this section should answer your questions. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis burned the corpses of their concentration camp victims in ovens like these ones at Buchenwald concentration camp. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the possibility that old men occasionally talk to fools. I do, even in soliloquy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely the second world war. But also depending on the age of the user it could refer to world war two, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq: part two. Its basically assuming that you understand which war they served. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but ovens didn't really play a major role in any of those wars. If it had been the war and Khe Sanh, or the war and the IEDs, that'd be something different. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe "the war" and the inconsistencies. Mac Davis (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the article, buy boy does it need work. any help would be greatly appreciated.

lord of the trolls

I am of the opinion that some people enjoy or benefit from the actions of internet trolls, whilst not being trolls themselves. Such persons might exhibit an 'authorative' or 'holier than thou' attitude and seek out positions of responsibility - in short relying on trolls to justify their existence on the net.

Joking aside (ie Answer=administrators) has the internet or popular culture got a name for such people or such activity?83.100.183.180 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a specific term, but here we tell people not to feed the trolls. You may hear people refer to such folks as "drama queens" but this is a more generic term. Friday (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think his question was "is there a word for people that appreciate trolls/trolling." And such people are not trolls themselves. Good question. I don't think there is 1 (can't instantly think of 1). I'd have to think about it. Neal (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes that's right - a bit like a witcherfinder general might appreciate the activities of witches - if you see what I mean.83.100.183.180 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe petty king? Vranak (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmh that's an interesting answer - and a good one. Thanks hadn't even thought of that.83.100.183.180 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratcatcher Shirt

My granddaughter takes riding lessons...part of the show apparel is a "ratcather shirt". HOW IN THE WORLD DID THE SHIRT GET THAT NAME? Where did it come from? Help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.188.254 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's like asking why things are the way things are. Take a look at cause and effect. Ask for the particular question, you may need to provide the company of the shirt, or ask them. Or your grand daughter. Neal (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

And we need to ask why things are the way they are. ;) Sometimes it's even fun. Take a look at etymology. --Kjoonlee 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED defines rat-catcher as "Unconventional hunting dress" (our article on fox hunting refers to it in the Attire section). I can't find any information on how it came to be used in hunting - maybe that style of shirt originated with actual rat-catchers, or maybe 'rat' was slang for fox (as they are considered by some to be vermin). Just a guess. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two earliest citations for ratcatcher shirt in the OED are:

1910 KIPLING Diversity of Creatures (1917) 310 He came back to the bar, after he'd changed into those rat-catcher clothes. 1928 J. B. THOMAS Hounds & Hunting 254 Rat-catcher - referring to one informally dressed when hunting.

Remarkable that what in 1928 was thought of as informal is by now considered formal wear. It rather sounds like a slur which has made its way to being some sort of in-style dress code. See also Euphemism Treadmill --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... what in 1928 was thought of as informal is by now considered formal wear: Yes, remarkable. In many cases, the opposite would be true. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article for such topics: semantic change has some info on amelioration. --Kjoonlee 11:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you went hunting,it was considered to be bad form to wear a pink coat(that is, the red jacket you see on hunting prints,they are called pink after the original maker not the colour)until the hunt invited you to.So you would wear a tweed jacket like the sort we now call a hacking jacket.This was everday countryside sporting wear for other activities such as shooting or ratcatching.Only when you had shown you knew how to behave were you invited to wear a red jacket with the hunt's button on it.

mm/dd/yy

Not sure if Wikipedia has a page on this, what is generally the more accepted format in formal writing when writing the date- mm/dd/yy or dd/mm/yy? Acceptable (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar date is the nearest thing we have. mm/dd versus dd/mm seems to be country specific, with our USian cousins choosing to employ the less logical format, and most of us failing to employ the most logical, which is yyyy//mm/dd. Meanwhile in formal writing, I'd opine that 22 February 1977 or 22^nd February 1977 would be favoured. Your country / rules of etiquette may vary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's regional. The USA uses mm/dd/yy but just about everywhere else uses dd/mm/yy. See Date formats for more. APL (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In formal writing, write out the name of the month, in one form or another. It is much more precise that way, and avoids the sort of ambiguity that "03/02/2008" leads to (is it March 2, or February 3?). Whether you do it as "3 February" or "February 3" hardly matters. Personally I avoid indicated the ^nds and ^ths because it looks a little informal (more like speech) but again, it's not all that important, certainly not wasting too much time fretting about. Above all else, pick a style, and stick with it—consistency does matter. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice on your user page that you are Canadian. I've checked the banners of a couple of respected Canadian publications and found that they follow the same standard that prevails in the United States: mm dd, yyyy (for example "March 19, 2008"). Note that in running text, a comma needs to follow the year as well. (For example, "On every day from March 19, 2008, through the end of the year, Jessica visited her mother in the nursing home.") Marco polo (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(slightly OT) When dealing with automated alphabetisation, the Chinese format is most convenient: yyyy-mm-dd. The alphabetisation puts dates in chronological order. Steewi (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also ISO 8601— Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, to reduce ambiguity, the month is given in Roman numerals, thus "20.III.2008". —Tamfang (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the original question was about formal writing, and in formal writing the use of small numbers or abbreviations is avoided. "March 3" would generally be acceptable, but some documents use things like "the third day of March". 03/03 is right out. --Anonymous, 04:24 UTC, 2008-03-20.