Miscellaneous desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8

LDS Church wordmark

What is the font that is used in the logo for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? C L — 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a Garamond. The source PDF is bad, since it replaced fonts with their outlines. MTM (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google "font identifier" and you'll find sites like this which ask questions about the font; and there's a site out there somewhere that lets you upload an image file and it attempts to automatically identify it. Tempshill (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://new.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/. It's not Garamond (Adobe Garamond at least) - the J and the serifs on the Es and Ts are wrong. WhatTheFont doesn't get it either, unfortunately. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bembo? —Tamfang (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Violin Song

What is this popular violin tune in the background of the video at 1:36?

[[1]]

Video is work-safe. Acceptable (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Quintet in A minor, Op. 25:Minuetto by Boccherini. AlexiusHoratius 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's the one. Thank you! Acceptable (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

movie and video game ratings

hi, i'm from india. here, we don't have strict rules and regulations for movies and games adn even a 12-year old can play gta: san andreas, regardless of whatever rating.. i want to know if in the US, the UK and Australia and other developed countries, the video game and movie ratings are stictly adhered to or not. thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.134.5 (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK it is a criminal offence to sell the video game to someone who is under the certification age on the box. So if a game is a certificate 18 it legally can only be sold to someone who is aged 18 years old or over. What happens when a game gets into a household is clearly another matter. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted however that (in the UK) the system is not very strictly enforced (in comparison to film ratings) which is a major issue in trying to control mature content. 217.206.155.146 (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is the same as the UK for movie and game ratings (although for some reason we don't have any "adults only" ratings for games, games rated as unsuitable for people under 15 years are banned - see the OFLCA entry in Video game content rating system# Comparison). Age restricted movies or games can not be purchased by younger people, but there are no laws preventing them from watching them. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like alcohol. You can't buy it but if someone wants to buy it for someone underage and on private property they can, not an unreasonable setup really. 217.206.155.146 (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you need to specify where you're talking about. The circumstances will change things, but serving liquor to underage people is just as criminal an act in Canada and the US as selling them liquor is. By "circumstances" I mean the general acceptance of allowing youngsters a sip of wine or something at special occasions. Matt Deres (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In USA there is no legal weight to the ratings. Some stores will refuse to sell M games to minors, but the ratings are mostly intended to be advisory. APL (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the ESRB is an industry-funded nongovernment body that assigns ratings to video games based on the content that the publishers report. There is no legal requirement that video game publishers put an ESRB rating on their product, but all three console manufacturers do require it, and the large retail chains in the US (such as Wal-Mart and Target) require an ESRB rating for computer games as well, or they refuse to distribute them; so as a practical matter, any game on a shelf in America is going to have an ESRB rating on it. If the publisher misreports the content in their application to the ESRB, they're contractually subject to heavy fines from the ESRB, and there can be product recalls (see Hot Coffee minigame controversy). APL is correct that selling an "M" (for "Mature") rated game to a minor is not a criminal offense in any state in the US; several states have proposed, or possibly passed, legislation to make this happen, but these efforts have all been struck down by judges who agree with the publishers and retailers that criminalizing the sale of "M" games to minors would be a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Some retail chains (like Wal-Mart, supposedly) are strict about asking for identification to verify that a young-looking person is 17 or older; other retail chains aren't, and from time to time in the US there are stories in the press about how in a "sting operation" some large percentage of minors were able to buy the latest Grand Theft Auto game, or Mortal Kombat, or whatever violent game is currently popular. Tempshill (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make sense

From the CNN: "The Laos government said Samantha Orobator will no longer face the death penalty, because Laotian law does not allow the execution of a pregnant woman." Samantha Orobator is pregnant, however, they could execute here in a couple of months, couldn't they?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could, but they seem to be trying to signal that the really don't intend to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the plot of the first act of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. The authorities won't send Sophia Loren to jail because she's pregnant, so she purposefully keeps getting pregnant. Hijinks ensue.Tomdobb (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Laotian governemt hasn't actually executed anyone for twenty years, and are unlikely to start again now, especially with their attempts in the last ten or so years to improve their international image. They still hand out death sentences, but don't actually act on them. Fribbler (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like California then. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup question

Are there any known cases of a government knowingly executing a pregnant woman? --Sean 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany. Tempshill (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a specific case, or just the general mass murder they carried out? I was thinking of a more civilized government, I suppose. --Sean 18:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be most surprised if this has happened under the current U.S. legal system... if a teenage girl was sentenced to death, she'd be post-menopausal by the time the sentence was carried out. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 18:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it depends what you mean by current: Bathsheba Spooner. I don't doubt many a despot has done this but there is a general abhorrence of it in all but the cruellest of regimes and most places have probably had something like the English pleading the belly for many centuries. meltBanana 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Khrushchev claimed Liri Gega was pregnant when the Albanians executed her in 1956 although they denied it and there are claims similar executions in Iran during the Islamic revolution there but I can't track down much more than rumour. It is expressly forbidden under ICCPR article 6(5) and several other recent human rights statutes. Going much further back Felicitas is recorded in The Passion of St. Perpetua, St. Felicitas, and their Companions of being worried that she will not suffer martyrdom with her companions as she is pregnant and pregnant women were not allowed to be killed in the Roman circus. 'Luckily' she has a premature birth so she could be attacked by a wild cow and executed by the sword. meltBanana 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the executions of people for crimes commited while under the age of 18 is also forbidden under the ICCPR but it hasn't stopped Iran (in particular) but also China, D.R. Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United States and Yemen from doing it. Although China, Pakistan, the United States and Yemen are supposed to have stopped. See Capital punishment#Juvenile offenders Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As China, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia or the U.S. are not members of the treaty, it is not clear why it should have stopped them. Rmhermen (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems generally unlikely - if only because murderers are generally kept in jail and the process of appeals and other legalities takes well over a year to work through (frequently 10 years or more). So it's hard to see how a woman could still be pregnant when executed. However, in more brutal countries, these niceties may not be observed - so I suppose anything is possible. SteveBaker (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the first reply, Unit 731. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 12:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further followup

How pregnant do you have to be to prevent the execution? In countries where abortion is legal would the term limit apply? Otherwise couldn't women on death row use conjugal visits to get pregnant and avoid execution? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain you have to be completely pregnant. Partially pregnant wouldn't cut it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paying for incoming calls and SMSes in the USA

I'm not familiar with American mobile market. What is the usual situation now: do you pay for incomig calls and SMSes or not? Is it true that more and more mobile operators launch new tariff plans with incoming calls and SMSes for free? Are they becoming popular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.197.100 (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for this can get fairly complicated but basically, incoming calls are subtracted from your pool of minutes be they "Anytime" or "Nights & weekends." Anytime minutes are generally weekday work hours and are a finite amount. Nights and weekends are typically unlimited. You have to pay for incoming text messages unless you have a plan in which case they're subtracted from the amount on your plan (which may also be unlimited). Some service providers are now overing all in one "unlimited" plans, which include voice, text, data and sometimes GPS for one flat fee. I believe everything on these plans is without limit except anytime minutes. Tomdobb (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do American consumers accept such an outrageous system? All incoming calls and texts have been free in the UK for as long as I can remember. It makes no sense to charge somebody for something they have no control over. --Tango (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I supposed it doesn't seem that outrageous to us. You can have text messaging blocked and you can decline a call. I don't know what mobile phone service costs in the UK, so that may have something to do with it. Texts in the U.S. are usually a 15-25 cent charge, if you don't have a plan. I think I pay something like $10 for 1,000 texts (incoming/outgoing combined) a month plan. Tomdobb (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum: several providers will not subtract any minutes for calls within the same network, regardless if they're anytime, nights and weekends, incoming or outgoing. That is, if a Verizon customer calls another Verizon customer, there is no loss of available minutes for either customer. Tomdobb (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what if a seller sends you a SMS or calls you? Do you have to pay to be disturbed? Of course, you can decline any call, but you won't know who's calling until you answer.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, SMS spam isn't terribly common. Certainly mileage may vary, but I don't think I've ever received any. I believe all providers in the U.S. offer caller ID as a free feature, so you should be able to tell who's calling without answering the phone, but if you insist on answering I can't imagine you'd burn through too many minutes before realizing it's a marketer and hanging up. The lowest plans are usually 400-500 anytime minutes (6-8 hours) plus unlimited in network and nights and weekends, so unless you're awfully chatty, you have a lot of time to burn. Futhermore, you can add your number to a Do Not Call Registry to avoid this type of call in the first place. Tomdobb (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the idea of making the recipient pay for incoming calls is an excellent one, as it gives them an incentive to bring the call to an end. Which can only be a good thing. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is actually illegal in the United States for a telemarketer to call a cell phone number. I am more than happy to exchange this minor impact upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in order to achieve civilization. Tempshill (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomdobb: Caller ID is not that useful when the caller withholds it! --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the details anymore, but the American position was explicitly chosen to be different from the European position (in which, presumably, caller pays). There was a relatively good reason given -- but I can't remember what it was. It's also tied up somehow with cell phones NOT being restricted to specific area codes and exchanges (city codes and prefixes) -- this allows European callers to KNOW they're making an extra cost call and avoid it if they wish.

Such a policy may have been to encourage the adoption of the technology. How exactly, I'm not sure. But anyway, the decision was not an accident.

In answer to "how do we accept such an outrageous system", history is also the guide. At the beginning of the technology rollout, basic landline service was readily available and pretty darn reliable -- not always the case in some parts of Europe. (Buy a cell phone today or order a line for delivery in three months? Not a tough decision!) So, cell phones were pitched not as "just another alternative", but as an upscale feature for the man who can't afford to be out of contact with his people. Pay extra? No problem, the company's paying for it anyway!

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about eastern Europe, but western Europe has had near universal coverage by landlines for a long time, as far as I know. The UK certainly has. There might be a few people in the middle of nowhere, but 99.99% of population have had access to phone lines for ages. I don't see what area codes have to do with. Sure, I know how much I'm going to pay for a call by looking at the number (roughly, at least), but we're talking about incoming calls.--Tango (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Area codes have to do with knowing what you're calling. In the US, mobile phones have numbers that look exactly like land-line numbers. There is no way for a caller to know they are calling a mobile. In most other places, mobile phones have their own, non-geographic area codes, which means you know when your calling a mobile, and can know you will be charged more. /85.194.44.18 (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so an outgoing call to a mobile costs the same as one to a landline in the US, with the difference in cost being made up by charging the receiver? Now I get the point! That doesn't explain paying to recieve SMS's, though. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is strictly "because they can". SMS is basically pure profit margin for the wireless companies. — Lomn 22:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<pedantry> Not exactly 'no way'; one could in principle get a list of exchanges which, I believe, would tell you that 415-225-xxxx is a Sprint mobile number. </pedantry> But, yeah, a court ruling forbids distinguishing types of service by area-code (except in NYC where a separate code for mobiles was already well established; now that NYC has overlays, even that may have been merged into the general pool?). —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK (and the rest of Europe I think) we have what is referred to as the 'Inter-connect Charge' (or termination fee) which is a fee paid by the caller's cellular carrier to the carrier the call connects to. So if an O2 customer calls a Vodafone customer then O2 pay Vodafone the termination fee. This is not what is done in the USA, there is no termination fee, the caller pays his end, the receiver theirs. Incidentally, I am old enough to remember having to pay to receive calls and SMS messages in the UK. Also this is still the case when roaming outside the UK.

salami and penicillin

The salami article said that salami is sometimes treated with penicillium. I am allergic to penicillin-based medications, so should I be concerned about eating salami?

I know the whole thing about not asking for medical advice here -- I'm not -- I guess the focus of my question is, does the penicillium remain on the meat, or does some part of the manufacturing/packaging process kill it before it hits retail? Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The salami article says some unspecified species of Penicillium is applied to the casing of the salami and that most salami have the mold or the casing removed before being sold in international markets. (No citation for this statement) According to a WWII era paper I pulled up on Penicillin instability, in aqueous solution at room temperature at pH 4.5 which sounds reasonable for meat cured using sugar and bacteria, Penicillin loses 99 percent of its activity in about 150 hours. I'm not sure if deactivated Penicillin can trigger allergic reactions. Other foods that contain cultured Penicillium (not the same species used for the antibiotic) include Brie, Gorgonzola, Roquefort, Camembert, and Danish Blue cheeses which are definitely still active cultures when they are bought by consumers. Do note that I am in no way implying it is or isn't safe for someone with penicillin allergies to eat salami which has been treated with Penicillium. (That would be medical advice and I'd feel bad if someone had anaphylaxis because they assumed I know what I'm talking about.) Sifaka ^talk 00:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material lifecycle

Of the lifecycle of a material, from the extraction of raw materials to recycling, choosing between either timber, metal, glass, concrete, brick or stone, which would be the most interesting to write about? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... interesting question. I'd find metal or timber most interesting, I think, because each has many processes from raw material (trees/ore) to finished product to recycling. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass is pretty versatile. See Optical fiber, Fiberglass, Glass-reinforced plastic, Glass microsphere, Lens (optics), Lead glass, Tiffany glass, Vitreous enamel, Bead, Glass House etc. Or just start from Glass and work your way through the links from there. As far as recycling goes, you can even grind it up and use it as sand on the beach again [2] or just build your house from bottles [3] :-). What is most interesting is in the eye of the writer and the reader. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choose the one you think most challenging, it'll stretch you more and make you a better writer. Whole books can and probably have been written on each stage of each of those. I've bought books on things like dust or the number zero or clouds. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media: to pay or not to pay

How can we monetize media (like films, songs, news)? Can we only charge for using it (like selling a DVD, a CD or a subscription) or put ads on it? Or are there other ways of getting money for producing media?--Mr.K. (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual ads are everywhere (newspapers, television, many websites). Donations are important. Eric Raymond proposed an interesting method [4]. MTM (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond's SPAT idea is a good one for relatively small works like music tracks - but it would fail miserably for things like video games or movies because the time between the 'tip jar' being full and the product being delivered would typically be several years - far more than contributors would be prepared to wait. The cost of making one of these products and then not shipping it prohibits vendors from making the product and then demanding money to release it. Sure, a garage band can write a song and play a snippet - using SPAT to collect money to record and ship the finished version - but that's not going to work for the next James Bond movie. SteveBaker (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to selling it for consumers to use, you can license your media for use in other media (music in films, news on other news websites, etc.). Likewise, you can sell it to a stock photo/film/music agency. You can also charge clients for creating specific media; for taking photographs at an event, say, or if a filmmaker needs a specific kind of music you can make it for him. Recury (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the model the BBC uses - have the government tax the people - use the money to pay for works to be produced - give the results away for free. It seems like a horrific thing to do...but it works really well in practice. Also, there is the NPR model - give the stuff away for free and have 'pledge drives' where you hope people will donate to keep the product coming - this also works a lot better than you might expect. SteveBaker (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC works pretty darn well if you look only at the product, but it's a lot harder to measure the relevant opportunity costs. —Tamfang (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For computer games - I've often wondered whether you could use the game mechanisms to have players (unknowingly?) do useful work as they play. It's rather hard to come up with a specific cases - but we could perhaps imagine a game where as a part of the game you had to match similar photos. That would result in a service like Google's image search engine being able to do a better job. Clearly this won't work with passive media like music or video - but I suppose one could come up with a way to fund video games that way. But perhaps there are other ways...after all, we have 2.8 million articles written for an encyclopedia with not a penny spent paying people to do that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google image have that 'game' (http://images.google.com/imagelabeler/). Also the film Toys (I think?) did that with children playing war-games that were really do war somewhere without them realising! Definitely seems a good idea as a way of making gaming work in a different way. ny156uk (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be a coincidence. Somehow - I must have seen that Google game before - I don't remember it though! The movie The Last Starfighter has a videogame which is really training kids to be starfighter pilots. The film you're thinking of is Toys (1992 film). SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foldit is a protein folding game. Theoretically it's making gamers do useful work. Dunno how well it works. APL (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming parliaments

Looking around Wikipedia, it seems clear that Candian article name parliaments by number (for example 40th Canadian Parliament) while the UK seems to keep track of the numbers but not use them in the articles (eg MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005) and Australia doesn't seem to ever refer to its parliaments by number. Is that just a Wikipedia style thing or are they just not referred to that way in Australia? TastyCakes (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia certainly does number its parliaments. Here's a chronology of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, this will help me with my template on the 2008 Australian federal budget article. TastyCakes (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But I don't quite see the connection. Budgets are brought down every year, whereas new parliaments are elected usually only every three years. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the template based on the one for Canadian budgets, and it had "which parliament the budget was presented to" as one of the bits of information in it, along with the finance minister at the time. I thought it was pretty pertinent information so I kept it in the generalized template. TastyCakes (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You've inspired me to create a new article - Chronology of Australian federal parliaments. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Coordinators

What was the first project here to have coordinators, and how many projects currently use such a system? Is there a model that project coordinators are based off of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.23.75 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, try signing you posts by placing 4 ~'s at the end. Secondly, I have no idea, but someone at the help desk might. Thanks, gENIUS 101 20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to Introduce Parents

The occasion is a high school graduation.

Assume my name is John, my mom's name is Sunshine and my dad's name is Edgar.

I am walking towards my classmate Veronika who is with both her parents.

Once our paths intersect, how do I introduce my parents to her/them? I know Veronika (as she's my classmate), but I do not know her parents and neither to my parents. The same thing applies to her, she knows me but she doesn't know my parents.

Do I say "Hey Veronika, (turn to parents) this is Veronika, she's a classmate of mine, (turn to Veronika) these are my parents."? Should I address her parents, whom I've never met before, somehow? Do I introduce my parents to her parents? Or Should I wait for for her to introduce me to her parents and let both our parents handle the greetings amongst themselves?

Also, when I'm introducing my parents, should I use their names? "Hey Veronika, this is my Mom, Sunshine..."?

Thanks. Hustle (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You introduce Veronika to your parents - Veronika introduces her parents to you and your parents.

(i.e. a sample conversation would be "Hi Veronika, this is my mum X and dad Y." and Veronika would say "Hi, X and Y this is my mum X and dad Y, and this is my friend my John"). ny156uk (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the standard way to introduce people, yes. Alternatively, I find parents are very good at introducing themselves to other parents - you just say "These are my parents" and let them give their names. --Tango (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would find Ny156uk's approach awkward, as to me it's pretending the parents don't exist. Personally I would say "Hello Veronika - hello (while looking at the parents and nodding the head) - this is my mater and pater," and let things proceed from there. Tempshill (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if you want this Veronika to really meet your parents. I am assuming this is your girlfriend. In school, we were taught to introduce the older person first. Personally, I wouldn't introduce my parents because they really don't know Veronika, and why would they want to or need to? If they want to know Veronika or her parents, they would do it out of their own accord. You don't need to introduce anyone to anybody. It is not your obligation.68.148.149.184 (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Perhaps that's because I'm of another generation in another country, but I always feel terribly awkward when I meet people for the first time without anyone actually introducing us and I have to introduce myself. When the time comes, the right words will come - don't worry about seeming awkward yourself, you're the one who knows the people concerned! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never introduce someone you haven't met. Because they might not be who you think they are. Maybe this is Veronica's birth mother and her husband. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graduation with Divorced Parents

This is a hypothetical question and is unrelated from my previous one above. Suppose if my parents are divorced and are not on positive terms with one another. What is the protocol, in North America, for inviting them to my graduation? I should invite both of them right? If both want to come, I'm guessing that they won't be sitting next to each other?

For pictures, they most likely won't want to be in the same shot as one another right? Would it not be extremely awkward for them to be taking turns taking pictures with me, just waiting next to each other?

How do I introduce them to my friends? "Here is my mom.... and standing all the way over there is my dad."?

Hustle (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on them. Some divorced couples remain good friends or, at least, cordial. Others hate each other for life. Others continue to hold a grudge but will behave themselves in public for something as important as their child's graduation. There is no way we can advise wouldn't knowing the people involved. --Tango (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have to invite them both - you should probably tell each that the other has been invited, but you don't know whether they'll come or not. You might want to check with the college about seating arrangements for parents so you can be assured that they don't have to sit next to each other if they choose not to. I think you could also appeal to them both to put aside their differences long enough to make the ceremony work - you could stress that this occasion is about their relationship to you - and NOT their relationship with each other. Put like that - it's hard to imagine people not coming around and behaving at least for a couple of hours. Good luck! SteveBaker (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Tango says it is very much a situational thing, but I would hope that most parents are mature enough to be able to survive each other's company for the day of their child's graduation. If it were me - I'd invite both parents and have photos with each individually (it might feel a little awkward but both will want mementos of the day so ultimately it's better for everyone). If my parents were no longer on speaking terms i'd tell them I really want them both there, I understand they have their differences and I don't expect them to be friends or anything but rather to simply accept that the day is about 'me' and my achievement, and not about them and their baggage/history. Of course that's easily said online in an hypothetical sense, I suspect such a scenario in real-life is incredibly difficult and daunting. ny156uk (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP says "I should invite both of them right?" That would be the polite thing to do, but remember that you are under no obligation to invite any given individual. Assuming you have two tickets, you could invite your mom and stepfather, or your dad and his boyfriend, or your uncle and aunt, or your high school coach and most supportive father-figure. The special day is for you, and so the decisions are up to you, but yes, it is usually easiest to make the conventional choice. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parents (unless they are particularly terrible ones) really deserve to go to this ceremony. While it celebrates the achievement of the graduate - it also celebrates the achievement of the parents in getting their kid through the perils of childhood and the educational system. It's also a turning point in their lives - it's the day their child is finally, truly, independent. Many parents may be feeling the pangs of the "empty nest syndrome" (trust me - this isn't a nice feeling) and marking that point with a nice memory and some good photos may help. So unless they made a complete hash of it - they really do deserve to be there. SteveBaker (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]