Miscellaneous desk
< March 13	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 15 >

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 14

copyright

I am making little buttons and selling them at school for $0.75 for a fundraising project. However, if I use pictures online, ex:Mickey Mouse, as the design on the buttons, does that violate the copyright law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.79.170 (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly, yes. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not allowed to give legal advice...but this says that the copyright on Mickey almost expired in 2004, until the Copyright Term Extension Act (nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act", according to our article) was passed, extending the protection two more decades. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also protected by trademark which can be renewed indefinitely.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether Mickey is copyrighted (he is) or trademarked (he is), but whether this particular use is a case of trademark infringement. Though we can't give legal advice, this sounds like a case of definite infringement — it is hard to see how this would be fair use even if the sales are going to a worthy cause. Sorry. A better idea would be to use images from Wikimedia Commons—most of them are under free licenses and are meant to be distributed. There are lots of cool pictures on it. Who wouldn't want a button with snail anatomy on it? Or an angry little bird? Or some fat little pigs! (These examples just taken from the of the day page.) You could have some cool, very random buttons—a lot more hip than boring old Mickey! (Technically some of this photos are licensed in ways that would make it hard to fully replicate their licensing terms in the form of a little button—which is a good argument in my mind for licensing things as "public domain"—but unlike the case with Mickey I think these are much more in the spirit of the law if not the exact letter of it. And they are also way cool.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually OK to use a copyrighted image for a school project, but if you're selling the images, then it's probably a violation. Not trying to give legal advice, though. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sure it's a violation. Don't do it. SteveBaker (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT use Disney characters - these SOBs sue daycare centres for having Disney characters on their walls. Exxolon (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - precisely. SteveBaker (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the daycare centers in question were for-profit businesses, not some place run by the local church or something. APL (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer will also depend on your location. What jurisdiction are you in? Fair dealing provisions in Australia, for example, roughly, but not always exactly, mirrors US laws on fair use, so the answer could well be different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley vs. RR: Chauffeur?

I recall reading somewhere that either Bentley or Rolls-Royce is known as the "Driver's Car" where the car was designed to be driven by the owner rather than the owner be chauffeured around. Does anyone know whether Bentleys are known as the driver's car or RR's? Acceptable (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page (fifth paragraph after the boldface opening paragraph), as well as some others, seems to indicate that Bentleys are the ones that are so distinguished, although other Web pages—Google for "driver's car" +Bentley +chauffeur—indicate that some Bentleys are considered more "driver's cars" than others. Deor (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For much of the life of the Bentley company, they were simply 'coachbuilders' - they took Rolls Royces and built their own bodywork. Hence for much of the life of the company - there was really only cosmetic differences between the two car ranges. I believe that the distinguishing feature for many years was that the Bentley designs offered more emphasis on front-seat comfort - so probably this label once belonged to them. However, both companies are very different these days - and I doubt that either of them gets that title. But lots of cars have been given the monkier "the Driver's car" - certainly I've heard that said of the classic Mini - which is about as far as it is possible to get from a Bentley or a Roller! SteveBaker (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley was considered the 'driver's car' due to its racing heritage, Rolls Royce was always considered to be chauffered. Having a driver for a Bentley is a definite etiquette 'no-no'.

about catchement area

what is the catchment area,storage capacity,merits and demerits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemendranath.p (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catchment area is an area, usually referring to the earth's surface, where a particular phenomena applies. Examples include a "valley" which is the catchemnt area for rainfall; A district defined by one or more local governemnts saying which school students will attend. Storage capacity refers to how big something is - perhaps a memory card in GB or a water tank in litres. Merits and demerits are either a list of the good and bad points of a thing or are good and bad scores awarded to a person for types of behaviour or for project results. This is a rambling answer since the question didn't make sense to me as a whole. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can link catchment area (for a dam) and storage capacity (for said dam). Not sure how merits and demerits fit in though. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

john byng

this may be an inappropriate place to ask this, and i should explain that i'm at work with a pc that stops virtually the whole web but for some reason likes wikipedia, my question is this: the page for john byng states he was the fourth son of george byng. the page for george byng states that john washis third son. which is correct? and what's wrong witth my mind that i notice such things??--Monomath (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John was his fourth son. Thanks for pointing out this error, which I have corrected according to Chambers Biographical Dictionary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The only source I can find at the moment is the ODNB, which states that John (the executed admiral, George may have had other sons called John) was the fifth surviving son of George (the first viscount Torrington, there were certainly other George Byngs), out of eleven. This sort of confusion often stems from different ways of dealing with perinatal death: some sources only count children who reach adulthood, some only children that last a year or two, some others count stillbirths and I've seen one that counts known miscarriages. I'll need to find a better source to know if that's what's happening here though. Algebraist 11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your mind. Wikipedia needs people like you to notice inconsistencies like this, so they can be corrected. This is a collaborative project run by volunteers, who work on whatever it pleases them to work on, and whenever they choose to do so. Consequently, no two articles will ever have the same set of people who've worked on them, although there may be overlaps. Consequently, it's possible for a fact about a person to be gleaned from one source for one article, and from a different source for a different article, and the sources may differ. Were it not for keed minds like yours that notice such inconsistencies, we wouldn't be able to maintain the high standards of quality to which we aspire. So thank you, Monomath. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, there's a template, {{contradict-other}}, that you can put in one of the articles, with a link to an explanation of the problem you've written on the article's talk page. Deor (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally - you can simply leave a note on the talk: pages of both articles. The 'contradict-other' template is better because it informs other readers that something is wrong - but it's no substitute for the Talk: pages. Also, if you can find proof of which of the articles are wrong then you are STRONGLY encouraged to just fix it yourself. Some people find it tough to do that the first time - but that's exactly how most of us got into this. (For me, it was the Red Squirrel article that had wildly incorrect information about the size of red-squirrel litters.) SteveBaker (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How old is junk mail

When I was a kid in the 70's, I don't really remember there being much junk mail as there is these days. Is my perception correct, or was it simply because I had nothing to do with the mail back then (my dad being the one who usually dealt with the bills and so on). Astronaut (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Advertising mail has a few statistics. The amount of junk mail seems to have been on the increase between the 1970s and now. --Ericdn (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

paint color

What is the name of the color that Iowa's commercial vehicle enforcement department paints their police cruisers? I need the specific name of the blue because I have to fix a few paint chips on my car, which I got from them.

Thanks. 12.216.168.198 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you call or send them an email and ask to speak to their fleet management department, I'm sure they'll know the name of the paint from their own maintenance activities. Contact information is here. --Sean 16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if they were free with such information, unless the colour of the cars has changed. It is usually a single-purpose mix, for obvious reasons. Even our local "white" police cars are not exactly white. // BL \\ (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt make a lot of sense, because then they couldn't touch up their paint if one of their cars had to have body work. I will try calling them on Monday. 12.216.168.198 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bet if you went to their repair depot in person (in your car) - and brought donuts to "thank them for looking after the car so well that it runs great for you...and do they have any tips for keeping it running good"...er..."except for these odd paint chips" - you'd get a can for free. SteveBaker (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OR) Police are rather leery of free food (for obvious reasons). Unless someone there already knows you, it's probably not a great idea to show up at random bearing gifts. I'd definitely recommend calling instead, though some departments might well consider that information "restricted". – 74 02:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who repair police cars aren't police. They're just regular car mechanics. SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the police department; some do have mechanics on staff. Perhaps it's just a minor language discrepancy, but to me "depot" would translate closer to "in-house dispatch station" than "repair shop" (I know it has additional meanings in British English). But I agree that, if you can find an outside body shop that normally works on police cars, the odds are good that they'll have the paint you're looking for (and will probably be willing to at least give you a paint code and/or fix your car). Bribery wouldn't hurt there either. – 74 04:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the color may be applied by the manufacturer originally, in which case you might be able to ask them for the code and/or repair paint. (This is particularly likely if the state purchases a large number of vehicles; manufacturers tend to accomodate a number of requests to win a large bid.) Have you checked the vehicle's original paint code? – 74 04:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a shop, though I forget its name right now, where if you bring in something of a particular colour, they will create a paint of the exact same colour for you. Maybe you could take your car, or a photo of it, there. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly! You can't possibly match the color even remotely closely from a photo! SteveBaker (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How pristine is the condition of the car? How exact does the match have to be? I think you may have to account for color fading if the car has had more than a few years' exposure to sunlight. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@12.216's's comment that a single-use colour mix "doesn't make much sense" because they couldn't then touch up the car. I didn't explain "single-use" properly. It means a colour manufactured or mixed to a formula just for this one user. For example, the company Mary Kay has its own pink shade for its infamous Cadillacs. There are lots of them around, but it is not available to the general public. Of course, a specialty auto-paint shop should be able to match anything. // BL \\ (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only brain dead person who was wondering why the OP needed to know the colour of law enforcement car paint to touch up their car which was chipped by a law enforcement vehicle and was wondering why no one seemed to notice the odd question until I finally realised the OP got the car, not the chipping from law enforcement...? Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not alone! The first time I read it, I thought the OP needed the paint colour as evidence to prove that the damage to his car had been caused by a police vehicle. (And an additonal confusion, not due to ambiguous phrasing, is that samples of paint colours, presented on small pieces of cardboard, are often referred to as paint chips.) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Random Article" stats

Does anyone know how often the "Random Article" link is clicked by Wikipedia readers? Also, is it truly random? I ask because I'm wondering, if an article is created and nobody notices it, how long (on average) before it will come up on someone's screen as a random article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some statistics are available here. Also see Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical JSK715 19:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So when I select the first link now, it says "Special:Random has been viewed 30067040 times in 200903." But it doesn't say how often that count is updated. We are now 13 days and about 20 hours into 200903 (i.e. March 2009) by UTC; 30,067,040 viewings in that length of time would be 25.16 times per second, while if updates are less frequent, it might be say 30,067,040 times in 13 days, which would be 26.77 times per second. Anyway, "about 25 times a second on average" must be right if the statistics are reasonably accurate and reasonably current. --Anonymous, 20:18 UTC, March 14, 2009.

Ok, 25 random articles per second, and we've got almost 2.8 million articles. That means that, each second, the chances of an article being hit by "random article" are 25/2.8 million, and the chances of not being hit in that second are 1 minus that amount. Multiplying this number by itself once for each second that passes, it appears that an article's chance of having been seen reaches 50% after about... 77,000 seconds, which is less than 24 hours. Wow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You might also like to check out WP:RANDOM which has links to surf random Wikipedia user pages, images, templates, categories and portals. We are asked the 'how random is it' question very often - one of the best threads is here. There is also an 'official' answer here. If people are viewing articles at a rate of 25 per second and there are 2.8 million articles (in English at least) - then (crudely) someone will typically see it at random after about 31 hours. In practice, it'll get looked at deliberately much more rapidly than that because lots of people patrol the 'new articles' list looking for garbage that needs to be deleted. SteveBaker (talk)

Good News Bible illustrations

Hi! Does anyone know where I can find the illustrations such as these (all of them or just quite a few...) online, free? Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling free religious line drawings returns lots of pages you might want to check out. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artist of the drawings in the Good News Bible is Annie Vallotton; some of them are here. If you want to use them, the copyright is owned by the American Bible Society; see here. - Thanks, Hoshie 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does physical appearance significantly affect job interviews?

The question above about job applications got me thinking about reasons for rejection... specifically, I am wondering about the possibility of candidates being rejected because they are overweight.

I have recently applied for a job for which I hope *crosses fingers* to get an interview. I am also overweight. It doesn't affect my health, or my ability to work, and I don't think I would qualify as horrendously obese, but a quick search suggests that the problem does exist.

How likely is it that this may be an issue? Given two equal candidates, would you choose the thin one over the fat one? Are there any other issues of appearance that might affect the interviewer's opinion (assuming people turn up neatly dressed/groomed etc) If yes, any ideas on how to mitigate the problem (barring spending the next 3 weeks on a treadmill!)? I am in the UK and female, and the job is in a public-sector organisation with a fairly casual culture, if that makes a difference. --92.16.235.230 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equal? If it is otherwise a coin toss, then yes probably. Things like obesity and poor grooming often, though not always, speak to poor lifestyle choices. Everything else being equal, I would give some negative weight to that. I wouldn't give a lot of weight to that though, and hiring decisions would nearly always turn on factors that more directly influence an assessment of how capable someone is to perform the necessary work. So, given a short time frame, I'd say improving your knowledge base and skill set is usually more important. Dragons flight (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I wouldn't give a lot of weight to that though..." - ouch! :D ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, the selection criteria are the only things that are relevant. But first impressions are extremely powerful, which is why applicants are well advised to be well groomed and dressed, even though how they have their hair and what they wear may have zero impact on how they do their job. If the committee's very first thought when an applicant walks through the door is "Wow, she's going to be a big girl when she grows up", that sticks with them. It could well be a deciding factor if two candidates are line-ball, even if it's never actually discussed by the committee. We may say that that's not how it should be, but in many cases it's how it is. General appearance is a hugely important factor in forming an immediate assessment of anyone at all, in any circumstances. If you're overweight, there's nothing you can do in a short space of time to lose the excess, but you can choose your clothing and hairstyle in a way that enhances your appearance and minimises the immediate impression of obesity rather than emphasises it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely though, not hiring someone because they are overweight has to be a case of discrimination? Hard to prove I know. I can imagine the response to this question being somewhat different if the questioner asked if the reason for a possible rejection was that she habitually wore a Hijab--121.44.126.6 (talk)

Discrimination is what you are doing at a job interview. It's the only point in having an interview in fact! You discriminate between good candidates and bad. Unfair discrimination is undesirable because it means you are turning away a candidate who might be better at doing the job for someone less able - and that's bad business. Illegal discrimination is something you have to be scrupulously careful to avoid of course - but that's not the case here - I'm not aware of any law in this regard. Not hiring someone because their weight interferes with their ability to do the job isn't illegal - and it's not even unfair if you have the company's interests at heart. We certainly discriminate on the basis of what people know - and (in some jobs) on the basis of the physical skills they have - and (in other jobs) on the basis of physical strength and endurance - and (in yet others) on the basis of their intelligence/honesty/ability to speak publically/...etc. Why would their weight be any different than all of those other aspects - in a job where it actually matters? But you don't discriminate against a candidate for a bank teller job just because they have too little knowledge of Italian renaissance painters - while you might if the job is an art museum curator. So while you certainly would discriminate against someone who is overweight in an interview for an airline cabin crew position - you shouldn't do so if the job is as a computer programmer because by choosing that as your final criteria, you're missing some other small benefit they may have over the other candidate and that's bad business sense. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has to depend dramatically on the job you are seeking. Some jobs (airline cabin crew, and race car drivers for example) depend critically on their staff not being too heavy or too large for the confined working conditions. Other jobs (face-to-face sales and TV news presenters for example) require the individual to represent the company directly - in such cases, consideration has to be given to how the individual presents to the public. No matter how far-sighted the company is they have to consider how the general public will feel about this person. But then in other circumstances it's irrelevent or perhaps even "negatively relevent". I'm a computer game programmer - although I was not always doing that. I used a professional recruiter to find my first job in the games industry and she advised me NOT to dress nicely or overdo my appearance for the interview because it would give the appearance of being too 'formal' to fit in with the extremely informal environment of the games business. Under-dress for success...well, that's what I did - and it worked. Now I interview people for games jobs - and I too am concerned when a candidate shows up in a suit and tie - it says "I don't understand your business". However, when I was looking for an almost identical job - doing absolutely identical work - in the defence industry - I wore a 3 piece suit with the waistcoat and that whole paraphanalia. Go figure. SteveBaker (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you program computer games now, and you used to do "absolutely identical work" in the defense industry. Should that inspire me with confidence in the defense of whatever nation you live in? ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See America's Army, Close Combat: Marines, etc. The military (at least in the US - I don't know of any non-US examples) do seem to like computer games... --Tango (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - definitely! I used to design computer graphics for (mostly) US military flight simulators. Almost every single F16 pilot in the world trained to fly it on a simulator that I designed the graphics system for (ditto for F18's, Stealth fighter and many helicopters). Then I switched to video game graphics with Midway Games working on games for Xbox-360 and PS-3 (the technology involved is identical) and now I work for "Total Immersion" who make "serious games" - using games technology to train people like fire-fighters, police and the FBI - as well as navy seals. The work I do doesn't change significantly - only the application is different. But (bringing this thread screaming and kicking back on topic) - the significant point is that while the work hasn't changed at all - the corporate culture is 180 degrees apart - and the way interviews are conducted is totally different. It's weird - but true. When you work as a "defense contractor" - you are supposed to be super-professional and exude a suit-and-tie appearance, follow ISO 9000 work practices and tie everyone's creativity up with as much red-tape as possible. When you do the exact same work - for the exact same pay - for the exact same final customer...but it's "games technology"...you're into shorts, sandals and "worst hawiian shirt ever" contests during the free-beer-at-work 'happy hour' every Friday. Logic doesn't enter into it. Go figure. SteveBaker (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ OP Why not bring the topic up yourself during the interview? Get together with a friend and go through good points you could put forward. You already said it doesn't affect your health or productivity. What other things might go through your prospective employer's mind? What arguments could you use to disarm any such impression right out of the gun. You will probably be given time in a "tell us about yourself" section. Don't make it a major topic, start off with your strongest points, then throw in "As you can see I'm a big girl ...." Make a joke and then tell them why it doesn't matter. You can even use that as a vehicle for introducing another strength. (...I spend most of my time off studying textbooks.) Your employer has to find the most suitable candidate, not just the most skilled/qualified. Even if you don't have face to face contact with clients, you'll usually have to work with a supervisor, a team, or other office staff. If you show you are aware your weight might be an issue and are able to deal with it, they'll most likely check it off their list. You could always offer to join a gym or weight watchers, but you might not want to work for that company if they insist. If you aren't strapped for money you might want to treat yourself to a color and style counseling session. As was said above clothes can hide or emphasize things. (OR I once ended up not hiring a skinny lady because she seemed too fragile for the job at hand. So, yes, appearance does figure in when hiring.:-) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it up yourself is – no offense to the responder above – likely to be a breathtakingly bad idea. There are far too many ways for it to hurt you (fair or not), and very few ways it might help. Some of the things that might go through the minds of your interviewer (or the mind of the HR rep who is sitting in).

Wow. That's kind of inappropriate. (We're trying to do a job interview here, and she's trying to tell us about her body image issues. What's up with that?)
Is she going to threaten or sue us later? (Why is she bringing this up? Is the afraid of discrimination? Is she expecting discrimination? If we don't promote her, is this going to lead to lawsuits?)
She seems kind of desperate and pathetic. (Who offers to join a gym just to get a job? Really? It's not like weight loss will ever be a suitable entry on her quarterly performance review. Is this her way of saying she thinks she isn't good enough to work here? Have some dignity.)
She makes excuses for herself. (She's overweight because she was *ahem* studying too hard for work, and couldn't find the time to eat right and exercise. Hm. Boo hoo.)
Now that she mentions it, she is a bit hefty. (Congratulations — the interviewer wasn't thinking about your weight before, but now it's at the front of his mind. You've opened the door to all the uncomfortable thoughts above.)

So, how do you get the job? Here's the short list.

Make sure that your skills meet or slightly exceed the requirements. If you're massively overqualified, be prepared to explain — otherwise the interviewer will assume that you're damaged in some other way, that you're lying about your qualifications, or that you're going to leave in a few weeks as soon as something better comes along. If you're underqualified on paper, but still think you can do the job, be prepared to explain. (In some cases, the job posting or description was written by a hack in HR who has no idea what the job actually is about. Unreasonable qualifications demands may also be used as an excuse to offer a smaller starting salary.)
Dress appropriately for the interview. This has been covered before. Don't be over-the-top formal for the workplace, but if unsure never err on the side of too casual. (Wearing a dress shirt to a 't-shirt and jeans' workplace doesn't have to hurt you; wearing a t-shirt to the 'dress shirt and slacks' employer is likely to be fatal.) You're making first impressions here; 'neat' and 'attentive to detail' are important. As several posts have noted, it may be worthwhile to consult a professional. Properly-chosen clothing can emphasize and conceal. If it hasn't been said explicitly, I'll hammer the point now. Wear clothes that suit you and flatter you — not clothes that would suit the body that you wish you had (or that you think the interviewers are looking for). Don't wear too much fragrance, and consider skipping it altogether. It can be suffocating in small offices, and some people may have allergies and sensitivities. No interviewer will recommend hiring a candidate who makes him physically ill.
It's all about personality. Honestly? If you clear the minimum standards for skills and appearance, the absolute most important thing is personality. You're going to be spending eight hours or more each day interacting with these people. It's more time than you're likely to spend with your family or any of your friends. The smart employer knows that he can teach the odd missing skill to a willing employee, but that it's virtually impossible to teach humility, common sense, a work ethic, or a sense of humour.

Hope that tl;dr helps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been lots of studies that show that all other conditions being identical, tall people are more likely to be hired, people with "whiter" sounding names are more likely to be hired, and, of course, white people are more likely to be hired. I would be surprised if weight did not also have some sort of factor in that as well. But be aware that these questions are about "all other conditions be identical/equal"—if you are considerably better or worse than whomever else you are up against, this single factor likely will not be the deciding one. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that discrimination based on physical appearance can work both ways. I know of a case where a company hired a less attractive woman to work as a clerk dispatching truck drivers, because they felt that if the gorgeous one were sitting at the desk the men would want to hang around the office, or that she would be a distraction. There are also cases where the boss's wife has a say in hiring a clerk, dental assistant or nurse, and would choose a less physically attractive but equally competent candidate to be working with hubby. Edison (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thanks everybody for all the information and tips; I really didn't expect to get so many replies! I really appreciate people taking the time to give such interesting responses, and it's given me something to read as I sit at home biting my nails :) I've been a long-term temp for a while (2 posts over 4 years), so it's been some time since I've had to worry about first impressions with a potential employer.

SteveBaker, the points you make about dressing down for interviews are interesting as I haven't come across this before. This job is not unrelated to the IT industry, and I know the dress code in-post is very casual. I suspect this wouldn't carry over to the interview, though, as the interview panel will likely be composed of managers.

79.96, I'm not sure I could bring it up myself in interview; I'm afraid I might end up laughing hysterically! However, one of the job criteria was manual lifting ability, so at least I won't have to worry about being judged too fragile (although this brought up another point - how do you demonstrate on an application that you can lift heavy things without sounding like an idiot?)

TenOfAllTrades, that's definitely not tl;dr. Thanks for your ideas, which I will add to my (frighteningly detailed) list of "things to remember for interviews".

Again, thanks all for your answers, and in general for your contributions at the reference desk, of which I am an avid reader --23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no! I didn't say "Dress down for IT jobs"!! I was talking specifically about the computer games business - where dressing down is virtually a competitive sport! There are other IT jobs where the full interview regalia is a "must" and yet others where you can aim somewhere in the middle. The puzzle is to find out which - and to what degree. This is where I found a recruitment consultant so helpful when I was switching career tracks. I have to say though, being female is a big help in that regard - the IT dress code isn't nearly so 'polarized' as it is for we guys where the presence or absence of one narrow strip of colored cloth wound tightly around the neck appears to symbolize so much! SteveBaker (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently didn't take any notice of my answer to a previous question about ties, Steve. They're really not supposed to be tight, and if they are, you're doing something wrong. They're supposed to be not so loose that they look scruffy, but loose enough that you're not even aware you're wearing one. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - sorry, Steve, I probably wasn't saying what I meant to say in my response! I know there's a very wide range of expectations for interviews (and jobs). I've attended some where formal business attire was expected at all times, even over several-day and evening-long interview events. If nothing else, they helped me discover that my preferred career lay in a different direction. Women definitely get a lot more flexibility when it comes to business wear, though. I feel terribly sorry for my current shirt-and-tie-wearing co-workers in our poorly ventilated office, particularly during summer. As stylish as a well-done tie can be, 14 years of wearing one to school was more than enough. --92.16.235.230 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]