Miscellaneous desk
< September 18	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 19

The longest (and surviving) uninterrupted ancestral line of UK/ English/British/Scottish/Irish/Welsh nobles in History.

Sorry folks for the somewhat challenging headline. I sometimes find that the most difficult part of enjoying Wikipedia is struggling to avoid the immediate brickbats of the Wiki know-it-alls lurking in the wings waiting to attack simpletons such as myself - a mere admirer of Wikipedia and a ready apologist for being a self-confessed seeker of the truth in a less confrontational way than asking at a local library. That said, all I want to know is: of all the current and existing Hereditary Peers of the UK Realm, be they, Dukes, Duchesses, Marquesses, Marchionesses, Earls, Countesses, Viscounts, Viscountesses, Barons and Baronesses, whether of English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh (forgetting German, French and other non-current UK family lineages) (I am not interested in Baronetcies); which is the longest unbroken line recognised by Law. I know that Father to Son would seem the most obvious, but I also accept thet some lines provide for inheritance through the female line. And if my question is not sufficiently exact so as to enable a specific and absolutely correct answer, then so be it - with my most abject apologies. 92.30.43.174 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the Peerage of England list and an equally quick scan of the Earl of Shrewsbury article seems to confirm that the Shrews have it. But that's just in England, I'll have a look at the Scottish peerage too, if it's not too confusing.Textorus (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, I misread your question. It appears that the oldest peerage in England or Scotland is the Earldom of Sutherland, established 1230. Textorus (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not father-son always, but the oldest continuously opperating title in the peerage is Baron de Ros. --Jayron32 03:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The United Kingdom~~ England does not seem to have any immemorial nobility. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Burke's, the Earldom of Mar is the oldest in the United Kingdom here. A quote from that article reads: "The learned and accurate Lord Hailes remarks that ‘this is one of the earldoms whose history is lost in antiquity. It existed before our records and before the era of genuine history.’ " --TammyMoet (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Stewart, Earl of Mar died in 1435 without a legitimate male heir, and the Earldom of Mar passed to the crown. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I got interrupted while posting that one and didn't come back to explain why I'd posted it. My reason for posting was to explain that, while primogeniture is the main mechanism for titles to be passed down, there are other mechanisms. In the case of the Earls of Mar, the article I linked to gives the history of the Earldom up until late in the 19th century, and explains the various hiatuses. It can be argued that, even if the Earldom passes to the Crown, then the Earldom is still extant, and the case in the 19th Century where an Act of Parliament confirmed Erskine as the rightful holder of the Earldom illustrates that. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie's overbite

I know he said he couldn't get his teeth fixed because it would interfere with his voice and blah, blah, blah. But my question is, how does getting work done on your teeth affect your voice if your vocal chords aren't being touched at all? I mean, I could understand someone refusing to get a nose job because it might affect their vocals, I could see how that would happen, but what kind of teeth must one have in order for it to have any kind of effect on their voice? And yes, I also know that Freddie had 4 extra teeth in the back which he claimed gave his voice resonance, how did that work? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are as confused as I was, the OP seems to be referring to Freddie Mercury. Dismas|^(talk) 05:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Thanks, Dismas. But still, the things some people wonder about . . . . Which reminds me of the famous answer St. Augustine gave to the people who asked what God was doing before creating the world. Grin. Textorus (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about not including his last name, it's become a force of habit as of late due to me discussing him on forums, so being on a first name basis becomes normal for me. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sound of the voice is determined almost entirely by the resonant spaces in the mouth and nasal cavities - the larynx mostly just provides pitch (consider how the sound of a vibrating string changes when placed in front of different resonators, as in guitars, violins, mandolins, zithers...). note, for instance, that the difference between the sounds 'mmmmm', 'eeeee' and 'ooooo' is determined completely by the shape of the lips. so yes, the shape and position of the teeth could have an effect on vocal tambre (particularly considering that repositioning the teeth might also affect the underlying bone structure of the upper and lower jaws). --Ludwigs2 05:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted)Our article human voice makes some mention of the mouth's rôle in affecting the quality of the voice. Presumably, removing teeth could affect the mouth's resonant qualities. As if anyone wouldn't know who the question was about! DuncanHill (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's who I figured it would be but I'd never heard the 'extra teeth' story before. Dismas|^(talk) 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's not listed here you know, and I always go by what Wikipedia says. Textorus (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know how big of a role teeth played in the sound of the human voice. I thought it only made a difference in how you enunciate certain words, but not how you sounded. And Ludwigs' example of strings sounding different in multiple instruments makes sense. The same way performing live music will sound different in certain venues because of the varying acoustics. Considering that Freddie had some, er, big chompers that would require extensive dental work, I could see how he would be terrified for his voice in his case. Although I wonder if there have been any famous singers renowned for their voices (opera included) who have gotten dental surgery and it made a noticeable difference in their voices. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending whom you believe, Winston Churchill had false teeth specially designed to maintain or to disguise his inherited lisp. Thus both the Queen and the King would have heard different voices had teeth not been as they were.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone considered that it didn't bother him, and that he had no reason to have his overbite fixed? --Jayron32 00:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he actually wanted to get his teeth fixed. In fact, one of his quotes was "I don't like the way my teeth protrude, I'm going to have them done. But apart from that, I'm perfect.". Of course, I'm personally not bothered by his teeth, I've seen FAR worse, but I knew he was insecure about them yet couldn't do anything about it due to his voice, so I just wondered how would dental work would disturb his singing. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Gene Tierney would have considered that. Or, as Hawkeye remarked to Blake after being updated that Cornel Wilde had just kissed Tierney "right smack on" (in a movie): "If he straightens out that overbite, I'll kill him." [1] ---Sluzzelin talk 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney; did he have any ministrokes before 2001?

I think Dick Cheney was much different in George H. W. Bush's administration than he was when he became vice-president in 2001. Is it known if he had any ministrokes that could have affected his reason and emotions? (As you might guess, i didn't like what he did as vice-president. However I would like to find extenuating circumstances for what IMO were wrongful actions by him. If such circumstances were found, it might help a national reconciliation.)The current wikipedia article doesn't mention any. Thanks, 24.7.28.186 (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Rich (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how the OP's wish to smear a serving politician as neurologically unfit for office is a sincere effort to help the USA. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can't: would you care to explain it to us? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly being sarcastic because I offended you. I'm sorry. Perhaps our politics differ. But I am indeed sincere.Rich (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original question referred to changed behaviour. That's not a political issue, although the questioner did put a political slant on it. On a very much smaller scale, a lady in a voluntary organisation of which I am part caused considerable conflict over the past twelve months. She has just been formally diagnosed with a particular medical condition known to cause behavioural changes and is now taking medication for it. No world scale politics here, but the same kind of scenario. Medical/psychiatric conditions DO affect behaviour. We should be allowed to consider the possibility. (I also imply no comment whatsoever about Dick Cheney.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and though I did have a political slant I was straightforward about it. It is also almost certain that Cheney's military opinions on Iraq were different after 2001 than during and just after Desert Storm. I have been told that people who have had heart attacks are at risk for ministrokes. So if anyone knows whether Cheney did have any before 2001, I will appreciate your answer. Otherwise let's cool it.Rich (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleskine House

Who is the current owner of Boleskine House, and does anyone currently live there? --Viennese Waltz 08:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this BBC documentary (video from 2000) the house was bought in 1991 by owners who wish to be left alone. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of makes you wonder what they're up to in there... --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can zoom down and peek in their chimney. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registers of Scotland have a search service here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fly as much as you want ticket?

Is there some life ticket where you can take as much airplane trips as you want? I have seen the idea in the book Small World by David Lodge but could not find any real reference of it (unless some promotional one-month campaigns).--Quest09 (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The characters in Small World with that privilege had it because their adoptive father ran the airline in question - it probably came under the heading "staff perks" rather than a product available to any ordinary customer at a price. Ka renjc 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can get 'around the world' air tickets. These generally are expensive (but cheaper than individual tickets), and limit you to

Always fly east (or west, depending on the ticket).
You can't loop back with another ticket, and then continue with the main ticket - i.e. each origin airport must be east (or the same) as the previous destination airport.
You can't pass your initial airport.
The ticket has a limited lifetime. Normally one or two years.
You may need to book each flight - i.e. the ticket is not a turn-up and go, but a pre-paid token for purchasing real tickets.

However, you can keep zig-zaging north-to-south as much as you want, as long as you head slightly east at each hop. CS Miller (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE applies. Note that most Round-the-world tickets have some additional restrictions. An alternative (or addition) would be a collection of Continent passes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in college, one of my roommates would fly all over the country while we were on school breaks. His mother worked for an airline and he got to fly free or nearly so. I think he might have had to pay $20 or so for meals or some such thing. Dismas|^(talk) 12:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that if you worked for British Airways x years (on higher position) then you may fly free everywhere together with your spouse, furthermore your spouse after your death will also get the same (free flying). I don't know if they didn't make any limitations though since they had some torubles lately, and don't know about different airlines, those cheap doesn't have that for sure, over there even pilot has to pay for his flight ;-) Shaman (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The round-the-world ticket I bought some years ago had none of these restrictions, just that the total journey length had to be under 30,000 miles (48,000 km). I had no problem buying additional tickets for side trips (even within the same code-share partners) or breaking the journey with car travel and continuing from another airport. Astronaut (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia HTML Upload Error

I'm trying to upload a .jpg file of wikimedia and keep getting this error:

This file contains HTML or script code that may be erroneously interpreted by a web browser

What does it mean and how can I fix it? --CGPGrey (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use a tool to remove embedded metadata, probably. Jpegtran is an old command-line program; there may be others... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A jpg file should contain an image, and not HTML which is for describing a web page. Try to open your file in MS PAINT to see if it is an image. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an image alright. All of the images from my flickr stream have the same problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CGPGrey (talk • contribs) 10:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After trying to get FlickrBot to upload a file then trying it manually when that didn't work and getting the same error I searched for the error and found [2]. As described there and from looking at your files, the problem is likely that your files all contain <a href which is forbidden because it will be interpreted by some/all versions of IE as HTML which could lead to people making malicious images by adding more insidious code. Either use [a href etc or don't bother to add a href (intepret that either way is fine) and just put the website link. Hope this helps Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Pope Benedict protest 2010-09-18 CGP Grey 0084.jpg where I modified the IPTC with Irfanview lossless editing tool and replace the < with [ and > with ] Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding a boat, plank by plank

Resolved

I remember reading an article about a philosophical argument that used an example of someone replacing a wooden plant from a ship and continuing to do so until all the boards had been replaced and the old planks used to build another boat -- the question was then which boat is the original. A similar concept was used by those wanting to avoid emissions regulations on VW beetles; apparently, the VIN is old enough that the cars are exempt from tests but they don't run properly -- so the owners changed the VIN and used this philosophical argument to say that what they had really done was change every single piece of the car except the VIN, and in essence, the car was the original (even though all the parts were new) and so it was indeed exempt from the emissions tests. What was the name of this ship...something like Plato's ship, but I cannot remember or fine it! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ship of Theseus. Dismas|^(talk) 13:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The metal components are only the physical realization of the 'idea' of a 'peoples car' (Volks Wagon). So yes, it is still the same 'car' how ever many times you rebuild it. The VIN tells you so and there is only ever that one unique number to have ever rolled off the production lines. --Aspro (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the modern expression Trigger's broom [3] is in common use. The broom in question (from a TV comedy), had 17 new heads and 14 new handles. Alansplodge (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all, and to Dismas for his response in under 5 minutes!! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A hot-rod builder Boyd Coddington was doing this - completely rebuilding old pre-war cars that there was barely couple of original parts, but still registered as 'historical', guys from government didin't like it, they ruled it as a scam. For me I prefer not to overdo, as the subject of restoration loses its identity somehow because of that.Shaman (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a similar case with Bentley's Old Number One. A guy bought it, but then wanted to return it because it was substantially different than the original car. The judge basically said that there had been continuous modifications, and at no point did the car cease to be the real Number One. [4].

And for an example of a real ship with this happening, see the USS Constitution. It's not quite in the same situation as the Ship of Theseus yet (I think some of the timbers below the waterline are still original), but it's on its way to that state in the near future. There have been two major restorations and several smaller ones, and you'd be hard pressed to pick out things that were present when she defeated the Guerriere. Buddy431 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Anytime. Dismas|^(talk) 20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same has been done with Canterbury city walls, there is a sign now pointing toward the only part of the original still standing. Or so they say, I cannot see any difference there to the rest of the wall. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Late to the party...) The question is an important one with regard to the Cutty Sark, which went up in flames in 2007 and is now undergoing lengthy & expensive restoration, or rebuilding, depending on your definitions. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cutty Sark and HMS Victory could be further examples. 92.28.253.68 (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAT score

What are the average/median/mode (whichever) SAT/ACT scores of entrants to Harvard, or other Ivy League schools? I know they look at more than your tests but that's all I'm interested at this particular moment. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Center for Education Statistics [5] compiles statistics like this. At Harvard, [6] it gives 25th-75th percentile SAT scores of 690-780 for reading, 690-790 for math, and 690-780 for writing. Buddy431 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC

So, just moved and set up my TV, retuned all the channels and such like. Also set up this new-fangled HDD recorder, which apparently can record TV without needing any videos. It worked before, but now, does not. On my TV, I can get channels 1, 2, 3 and 4, though in very bad quality, whilst on the HDD recorder, channels start at 3, and very soon jump to the 700s, there are no BBC channels there at all, and consequently I cannot record anything off them. I have tried retuning again and again in digital, and it always finds the same 31 channels. I have retuned in analogue as well, since it is the analogue setting of my TV that produces the channels, and recieved then about a hundred channels, all identical black screens. A third option is to copy channels from my TV, which is not allowed, because apparently they cannot communicate. I have tested all the wires I can find and spent a couple of hours pushing buttons, to no avail. If noone has any ideas how to fix this, is it at all possible to get TV on the BBC website and record that, or copy it over off of iPlayer?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It always helps to mention which makes and models one is talking about in case it is a known idiosyncrasy. Have moved to an area of bad reception (your new neighbour might know the answer to that). Or a property with an old aerial system that needs replacing. Is it pointing in the same direction as all the others? I don't know how digital signals are multiplexed together but someone else might know why BBC is missing. As it effects both devices it sounds like a poor signal. But isn't this a good excuse to find out where all the local pubs are?--Aspro (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're in a low signal area, check here. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem that needs fixing is just to get BBC1 and 2, (which I can get, albeit at low quality, on my TV) over onto the recorder such that I can record programs off them. If it were a low signal problem, surely I would not get the channels on either, and would it not have some effect on others, such as ITV, which comes through remarkably clearly. Besides which, the site linked to above specifically states that I should get BBC 1, 2 and 3. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err just a thought. When you say you have retuned. Do you mean you have done a 1st time tune or factory reset, where you get asked if you want your old channels deleted. As you have moved, a straight forward retune wont find your new local transmitters.--Aspro (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The digital channels (which is what your recorder needs) are transmitted quite separately from the traditional analog channels. There are several multiplexes each carrying a selection of channels. This page shows that BBC 1, 2 and 3 are on Mux 1, but ITV is on Mux 2. So if you are in a bad reception area, or have an aerial that is at the limit of its performance, you might happen to pick up ITV but none of the BBC channels. (And again, the analog channels are quite separate from this). You probably need to upgrade your aerial. --ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see a 'factory reset' in the list of menu options, I went for the startup tuning, same as I did on first buying it, that seems to work better than any of the others listed there. I just seems a little strange to me that out in the middle of nowhere I got dozens of channels, and in the middle of a big city cannot get BBC1 and 2. Noone else around here has said anything about similar trouble, though I have not gone and specifically asked everyone yet. And before anyone suggests it, I am on the ninth floor here, overlooking a small park, so I doubt there could be any interference from surrounding buildings. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if you just have a bad aerial connection. You don't say what area you have moved to. Some areas have gone digital and some are still transmitting only the old analogue signal. A local TV or aerial shop will know which. It is possible that you have no digital signal, so your new recorder will not work at all if it has no analogue input. Have you got your TV in digital or analogue mode? Will it tune to any channel at all in digital mode? Dbfirs 09:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried both 'replace channels' and 'add channels', with the exact same results either time. In digital I can get some channels, though none of the BBC. There is nothing wrong, though, with ITV or Channel 4. this is Portmouth, which, last I heard, had not changed over to digital. Or perhaps it has. Either way, I can get channels 3 and 4, but not 1 or 2, that is the problem.

What can I do? Could I go down to B&Q or Argos and say I need a [something] to plug into the back and make the signal better? I have done that once before, and it seemed to work. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Freeview site says it should be OK for coverage so that's not the problem. If the TV is not too big, the next step would be to take along to a neighbour (with a working digital TV) to see if its OK there. Is it a community areal system (in which case your spur should be repaired by the landlord). You have a ITV multiplex transponder right on your doorstep which might explain getting ITV. Don't plug in boosters yet, you might just boost the noise still further.--Aspro (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone asks, the other details are: This is the Maridian region, Rowridge transmitter. CURRENT ENGINEERING WORKS IN PROGGRESS [7] Signal strength should be OK. Situation recommends an 'A' group aerial with horizontal polarization. There appears to be an independently owned transposer to improve local reception, situated in the Docks themselves. Just placed there out of spite perhaps, in order to add another unknown into the equation. I still think this is a good excuse to explore the local pubs and watch their TV's instead.--Aspro (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I seem to recall from a friend's problems some years back that in certain parts of Portsmouth there are issues with tall buildings or similar structures causing localised poor reception, due to signals being shadowed or reflected. Googling on 'Portsmouth TV Reception problems' throws up some related results, which you might be able to analyse further. You might need to install an improved aerial to improve reception. You might get some useful input from your nearest friendly TV dealer. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few hours ago my phone here suddenly started working, so I thought, maybe the TV has as well, and tried retuning one more time, with the result that a whole bunch of BBC channels have now appeared, for no apparent reason. So, problem solved, thanks for all your help. :) 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

River Plate

Vivo en la ciudad de Anaheim Hills, California, USA. Porque es que han dejado de dar los partidos de River Plate? Antes los veia todos los domingos en Fox Sport o T&C. Recibo cuatro partidos por domingo, pero no el de mi cuadro favorito, River Plate. Podrian ustedes darme una respuesta? Les agradeceria muchisimo. J. Ruben Deluca email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.143.243 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Via Google translate: "I live in the city of Anaheim Hills, California, USA. Because it is no longer given the River Plate games? Before seeing them every Sunday on Fox Sport or T & C. I get four games Sunday, but not my favorite picture, River Plate. Could you give me an answer? Les agradeceria muchisimo." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By which I guess the OP used to watch Club Atlético River Plate games on TV (particularly Fox Sports en Español, I guess). I can't find a reliable source, but there are some recent posts on various websites kvetching that FSeE has shifted its football coverage to more Mexican and less Argentinian coverage. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La asociación del fútbol argentino decidió emitir la mayoría de los partidos argentinos por la TV Público (lo que era Canal 7 de Argentina). Por lo tanto, Fox Sports en español y Torneos y Competencias perdieron sus derechos de emitir los partidos en sus canales. Si le interesa, casi todos los partidos están disponibles en la Internet por http://www.canal7.com.ar, pero la calidad de la trasmisión es muy baja, y como mucha gente quiere verlos en vivo, a veces alcanza el máximo y deja de funcionar. Espero que esta información le sea útil. // The Argentine Football Association decided to give the rights to most of the games to local broadcast station Canal 7. Therefore, FoxSports and T&C lost the rights to carry the games. If the OP's interested, most of the games are available at the website I linked to, but they're poor quality and the service often overloads with so many people watching the games live. Hope that helps.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iconic cars

Paykan has been called iconic car of Iran and Lada has been called the iconic car of Russia. Except France, Germany, Italy, U.K., Sweden, Japan and South Korea, which other cars has been called iconic cars in other European and Asian nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.23 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is quite iconic in the Vatican. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's manufactured in Germany though, isn't it? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Auto Rickshaw is iconic of India (and apparently much of Asia). ny156uk (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindustan Ambassador. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Škoda of Czechoslovakia. Rojomoke (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Delorean of Northern Ireland? ny156uk (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the question is about Europe and Asia, I have to tell you that Australia has two! They are the Holden and the Falcon. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to argue for the Holden over the Ford. (I have owned both so no COI) It was the original Australian made car, unless I'm very mistaken. - Arrr! ☠ - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "original Australian made car". David Shearer produced a car which featured a differential gear in an enclosed case in 1897, and this wasn't the first Australian made car (just the first one that I know about). As for "iconic" Australian cars IMO the Holden FJ qualifies, but the Ford Falcon doesn't, as the XK was basically a right hand drive version of the American model. The Falcon range is much like the Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla; the name goes on but the concept changes. --TrogWoolley (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely OR list off the top of my head...

USA - Ford Mustang / Model T Ford / Chevrolet Corvette
UK - Ford Escort / Rolls Royce
Italy - Ferrari (take your pick of the model) / Fiat 500
France - Renault 4 / Citroen 2CV
Germany - Audi Quattro / BMW (any)

etc Exxolon (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or East Germany - Trabant Rojomoke (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

England - Mini? Or these? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romania - Dacia 1300 80.123.210.172 (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Yugo? Googlemeister (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking of suggesting that - Yugoslavia had one car producer (plus at least some local factories for foreign cars, Slovenia had/has a Citroen and a Renault factory) and crippling taxes on import cars, so most of the cars used on Yugoslav roads were Yugoslav made - the by far most common of these being the Yugo, the Zastava 101 and the licensed Fiat 600 based Zastava 750. Of these, the Yugo can be said to have achieved international iconic status, although not in an exactly flattering manner :) TomorrowTime (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the great British Reliant Robin? Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fiat 126 or Maluch (affectionately meaning small thing, small child or little one) in Poland, or if you want to reach further back, the Warszawa or the Syrena. Mind you, only the Syrena is a Polish design - the Fiat was manufactured under licence from Italy, the Warszawa used, at least in the beginning, designs of the soviet Pobeda. A cared-for, rebuilt and outfitted, street-worthy Warszawa (a little dream of mine) can cost about as much as a brand new Passat B6), takes about 2-3 years of work and is a true rarity now. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Polonez? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right on! There was a saying that, at least the earlier models, were biodegradable: the car would fall apart by itself three years from the production date. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad car jokes seem to be a common thing in all ex-communist countries :) One that springs to mind is this: Later models of the Yugo had heating lines on the back windows, so that your hands didn't get cold when you had to get out and push the car in the winter. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good one! As for jokes, we had a whole booklet published with jokes about the Maluch - mainly playing on its small size. There were drawings, too! --Ouro (blah blah) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]