Miscellaneous desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 28 >

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.

October 27

Multiple questions, 2 main subjetcs, Thanks

I have been watching Cheers, and some how have managed to make it to season 5. 1. Who is the actress that plays Loretta Tortelli, the blond wife of Nick Tortelli the ex husband of Carla Tortelli the barmaid? Loretta seems to be the only woman in the show that is even vaguely appealing physically. Which leads directly to 2. When looking at the clothes the women are wearing, men to but specifically the women, and looking at their haircuts and general fashion sense, I am appalled! I realise that Cheers is a comedy, all be it a very poor one (it has not stood the test of time at all!!) But were the female characters dressed so ridiculously on purpose or was this really the fashion in the 80's? They look terrible! In one scene, Diane Chambers is actually wearing a sailor suit, the type seen on small boys in black and white photos from the 1900's. What was society in general thinking?! Or was this all part of some lame joke by the writers of this dross? I have not seen a single woman in 5 seasons besides Loretta Tortelli, who I can even imagine as beautiful. 3.Has the perception of beauty really changed that much since then? Even the hot babes that Sam Malone is supposed to pick up, are rarley more than not very ugly. 4.How could Cheers have been so popular? There is zero character development. I am on season 5, that right, 5 years and the same storyline is still going on, will Diane and Sam fall in love, there is no imagination at all! The writers were stuck in some sort of time loop, doing the same thing over and over and over again. The only saving grace is Norman Peterson who incidentally is one of the few actors I have never seen in anything else. 5. How can that be explained? The best character, and best actor, Kelsey Grammar not included, never went anywhere with his career? 6. While watching this crap, I started to think about just that. Sorry to change the subject but... I remembered learning in school about the life cycle of the tape worm and how it emerges from the anus and lays its eggs around the rectum. It may not have been the tapeworm, upon reflection but it was some sort of human dwelling worm, and the following has bothered me ever since. One end is attached to the lining of the intestines, while the other is reaching out to the rectum to lay its eggs, would it be possible, and or feasible to, for want of a better term, to catch it in the act, and pull it out of your bum, if indeed this is possible, would it be advisable? Would it tear the intestinal wall? Sorry if this seems like I am trolling, but I would really like an answer to these questions, they have been bothering me for some time, and where should one turn to get answers to well nigh unanswerable questions such as these if not to you good people on the reference desk. Thank you wholeheartedly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, your first question is answered in the article you linked to, Loretta Tortelli. Second, the humor of the show wasn't derived from comical outfits (well, maybe a joke or two in the entire run of the show, I don't remember every episode by heart), so yes, it is how people dressed in the 80s. And finally, it was funny to many people. Just because it's not funny to you doesn't mean that others didn't find it so. It's a matter of taste which, no offense, you don't seem to agree with.

Oh, and your tape worm question really belongs at the Science Desk. Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1980's fashion, see the Wikipedia article 1980s in fashion. On a purely WP:OR basis, having lived through the entirety of the 1980's, and with family pictures to prove it, the hairstyles and fashions on Cheers were pretty accurate. --Jayron32 04:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your intestinal worm query can be answered by reading tapeworm and enterobiasis which deals with the two most common intestinal worm infections in Watford. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Norm, George Wendt did have his own tv show where he was effectively Norm. It didn't make it, and was axed after 6 episodes. The character also turned up in all the other Cheers spin-offs. -- WORM MЯOW 10:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall some TV discussion around the time of the death of Norman Wisdom, to the effect that comedy does not age well. His shtick, apparently popular enough in its day, does not resonate today. The first couple of paragraphs in Cheers set out the extent of its success. It is unlikely that a completely unfunny TV comedy would have had the life it had nor the plaudits. Perhaps, looking for the wrong thing, you're missing whatever in it is funny. Still, kudos for persevering. Only six more years of it to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's sadly true. When I was a kid, my parents took us kids to the drive-in one night to see The Square Peg, and I can still remember the streams of tears of laughter we all shed. What a hoot! It was one of the classic "funny movie" memories of my childhood. It came on TV about a year ago, and I carefully scheduled it into my diary, to relive that memory and have some good old belly laughs again. I even made sure my partner would be watching, as these things are twice as good when shared. But what a disappointment! I could only raise a few mild smirks now. Either the film had changed or I had. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

south china mall

it says it is currently the largest shopping mall in the world by total floor area. however i loked at it on google earth and otherskestches of what the entire building looks like...it's not A building but several as it appears...my opinion but this does not make it even the top ten largest malls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwking (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. --Jayron32 04:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jwking, this would've been better asked at the article talkpage, but if you look at the New South China Mall article, the sentence in question "China is the largest mall in the world based on gross leasable area, and ranked second in total area to the Dubai Mall.[2]" has a little number inside brackets on the end of it. Clicking on that number will show you the source for the information in the sentence, which in this case is http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/09/malls-worlds-largest-biz-cx_tvr_0109malls_slide_2.html. If you don't think the information in the article is accurate or that the source of the information is reputable enough, post on the article talk page Talk:New_South_China_Mall asking for additional sources proving the information in the sentence. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers and Wikipedia:WikiProject China might also be good places to ask for more information. Exxolon (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could the buildings be connected underground? Googlemeister (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better Google searcher help

I want to browse sites that sell desserts for shipping online in the U.S. I have tried a bunch of Google searches but they aren't really zeroing in. I tried "online desserts" and "order online" cookies cakes pastries, and some others but I'm either being too exclusive or too broad, getting only a few results, or way too many that are not online retailers at all. Can anyone give me a search term that will find pretty much only a wide variety of online merchants who will ship desserts?--141.155.156.196 (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I type "order desserts online", about 70-80% of the hits on the first page are websites where I can order sweets (cookies, cakes, pastries, etc.) online and have them delivered to my house. Is that what you are looking for? --Jayron32 05:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

multiple (noble) peerages of different ranks

How, exactly, does peerage rank and succession work when an individual has multiple titles of different ranks? What is the benefit to a state for one person to hold both titles / ranks?

For instance, if someone was both the Duke of X and the Count of Y. I would assume that they would be referred to as "Your Grace / Lord" (indicating the title of Duke). Does their first son assume the title of Duke and second the title of Count? Does the first son inherit both titles?

How was one titled with multiple peerages and, other than the land, what are the benefits to the individual? It seems as though you would always want to be addressed with the highest title / rank / peerage, yes?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordBright (talk • contribs) 05:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely on which countries system you were working under. The peerage system of the U.K. opperates differently than did the (former) systems in place in places like France and Germany, for example. In the U.K., heirs of the titleholder are often granted lesser titles (subsidiary titles) under the main title. Sometimes, this can be a lesser, but seperate title, for example if someone is the Duke of Flabonia and the Earl of Stankonia, one may grant their son the title of "Earl of Stankonia" as a "courtesy title". The son is not actually the Earl, and has none of the rights associated with the Earldom of Stankonia, those rights are still reserved to the father, but the son is granted the title merely as a "courtesy", usually to indicated the "heir apparent" to the family estates, much as the heir apparent to the Monarch is the Prince of Wales. See Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom. --Jayron32 06:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK (and constituent countries prior to the Union of the Crowns), one is always addressed by one's highest title. Well, almost always; Camilla is referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall, despite being entitled to Princess of Wales, for reasons of public relations. To answer your question re: first and second sons: no, all the titles are inherited by the oldest son (in the case of the original grant stipulating 'heirs of the body male') or oldest child (in the case of 'heirs of the body') upon the death of the title holder. To use a current example: Prince Philip has the titles Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich. He is only known by the highest title. As his heir, Prince Charles has since birth been allowed to use the courtesy title Earl of Merioneth. As his heir, Prince William may use the courtesy title Baron Greenwich. (Neither of them do, of course, having somewhat higher titles in their own right from their mother, an unusual situation occurring only because she is The Queen). Andrew and Edward, Charles' brothers, get nothing; nor does Prince Harry. Upon Philip's death, Charles (or William if Charles dies first) will inherit all three titles, which then gives William the courtesy title Earl of Merioneth. Upon Charles' presumed accession to the throne, all these titles will 'merge with the Crown' and disappear, though apparently there is a plan to re-create Duke of Edinburgh as a title for either Andrew or Edward, can't remember which.

In terms of benefits to the individual, these days they are few. Titles give one a place in the order of precedence, and some titles bear with them certain responsibilities, for example Duke of Norfolk as Earl Marshal. In the UK, some titles allow one a greater familiarity with the Sovereign; I can't remember the details but I believe ducal titles allow one to kiss the Sovereign on the cheek. The Duke of Cornwall (always the Heir Apparent of the Sovereign) inherits the Duchy of Cornwall, a large collection of land ownership and business interests. There are some other rights that go along with titles, generally revolving around duties at the coronation of a new monarch. → ROUX ₪ 07:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article may also be of use. → ROUX ₪ 09:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sibling as offspring

My friend has odd feelings towards her younger sister - she feels like as if her sister was her daughter. When I asked her why she acts this way, she couldn't explain anything but that she wants her sister to be her daughter. Is such behavior normal and/or accepted in the community? The friend is 21 y/o, and her sister is 5 or 6. 195.158.7.82 (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be unusual for siblings with wide differences in ages to have a different relationship than those which are close in age. personal experience here, but my nextdoor neighbor had a "half uncle" who was younger than he was, and who he treated like a cousin. He called him his "uncle", but we all hung out together in the same peer group. A similar situation exists between real life uncle-nephew Charlie Benante and Frank Bello. Benante is Bello's uncle, but is only 2 years older, so their relationship is much different than a standard uncle/nephew relationship. In families where both parents die, the oldest siblings often takes a parental role in raising the younger siblings (see the fictionalized Party of Five, for an example, though there are also real-world examples as well). --Jayron32 07:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair body of work done on the parentification of older siblings, which is fairly normal with this sort of age gap. It's also relatively common with smaller age gaps, although it can sometimes reflect a lack of adult care (if, for example, a 9 year old feels responsible for the parental care of a 5 year old, beyond the usual). It's quite common for the teenaged and adult members of an extended family or community to all be responsible for raising the children, with the older children given some limited responsibility for the younger: it's a useful system that ensures plenty of care for the young, as well as teaching people how to look after babies and children. At 21, your friend is an adult looking after a small child, possibly she has even been the child's main carer?It's normal to feel parental responsibility in that situation, particularly if you don't have any experience of extended family providing similar care (and thus 'parent' is your only point of reference for this sort of care). 86.162.69.141 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil's advocate, but it's possible that at 21 and 5 or 6 that you friend's younger 'sister' is in fact her daughter who is being raised by your friend's parents as their daughter/her sister. This is not uncommon with teenage pregnancies (though less common than it used to be with generally more accepting attitudes in many societies these days). Your friend's revelations to you of her feelings may actually be a veiled attempt to convey this information to you. --jjron (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One famous example. Matt Deres (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genetically, she is as equally invested in her sibling (50%) as she would be in a child. -- ToE^T 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEVELOPMENT OF UGANDA'S ECONOMY

The usefulness of projects to the development of uganda's economy —Preceding unsigned comment added by KENNEDY NEWTON (talk • contribs) 09:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your question is...? TomorrowTime (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a homework question, since the editor created a page called Talk:List usefulness of projects to the development of uganda's economy (which I have deleted). I think the editor wants ideas for things to go in an article. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]