Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 August 10

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.

August 10

Digital antenna range and signal overlap

A friend who has cable TV (the one who would benefit from a directional parabolic speaker) recently bought a digital widescreen TV and has seen his cable bill rise by 50% after the end of a year-long promotion. He is considering terminating cable and all pay service entirely to use the off-air signals available in his South Jersey Delaware Valley market. (I have strongly recommended this, since the free HD signal is far far better than the cable signal, and, other than Turner Classic Movies, 24 hr news, and The Weather Channel, he has no use for Syfy since they cancelled Farscape or the History Channel since it has become the hick story channel. Netflix, Hulu, and pirated movie and TV downloads will more than fulfill his needs, and he can watch about 1/3 of the Phillies and all the Eagles games over the air for free. (His significant other can watch Dancing with the Stars either on air or pirated the next day at no charge as well.

He has looked into buying a digital antenna. Our article seems quite good. But he has read claims that he can receive signals from 150 miles away, which would mean the Baltimore, MD, Reading, PA, and New York City broadcasts would become available. He has two concerns, neither of which our article addresses. First, are the 150- mile range claims credible? My opinion of the reviews at Amazon.com is that they read like advertising copy, and, since they are written by reviewers who have no other review writing history, seem like highly uncreditable paid plugs. His second question is, if the range claims are true, and he gets overlapping channel reception from different broadcasters in different markets using the same channel, will he not just get interference? Or will a rotating antenna be necessary, with the signal received depending on how the antenna is aimed? Does anyone have any information I can refer to him? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

150 miles seems quite absurd for digital TV. The most you can expect is maybe 50 miles, and then only with ideal conditions and a heck on a directional antenna, on a tall mast. One thing to note is that anyone selling a "digital antenna" is probably out to scam you. That is, there is nothing inherently digital or analog about an antenna, that comes in later, depending on how your TV interprets the signal. I get pretty good reception using nothing but rabbit ears and a UHF loop. The next step up is a good omni-directional antenna for the roof. For max reception, go with a directional rooftop antenna with a rotor, so you can turn it remotely. I recommend this site to see what his reception will be: [1] (any signal listed as strong can be picked up with just rabbit ears and a UHF loop). Note that they only list the primary station on each frequency, but many frequencies also have substations (so 47.1 also comes with 47.2, 47.3, 47.4 and 47.5). Another website has more detailed info, which is needed for directional antennae:[2]. This will tell you the direction and distance to each broadcast tower. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

His rooftop connection gets worse reception on one VHF (PBS) and two UHF (one PBS, one for-profit) stations than it did when it was analog transmission. The antennas I saw on Amazon said "optimized for digital singnals". Surely that isn't pure crap? μηδείς (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Almost pure crap. The only thing that can be optimized for digital is that digital tends to avoid low VHF in the US, due to power restriction regulations at those frequencies. There were also some high UHF channels added to analog TV above channel 69 that were never much used and were finally dropped when they went to digital. So, an antenna that gets better reception in the high VHF and the UHF bands for channels 69 and under could be said to be "optimized for digital TV", I suppose.

To see all the strong stations, including substations, in his area, try: http://www.titantv.com/. StuRat (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As for why he might get worse reception under digital than for analog on the same station, there are many possible reasons:

1) Digital does not handle weak signals well. A signal that was just a bit fuzzy under analog becomes completely unwatchable under digital. So, he'd need a better antenna if this is the problem.

2) Digital stations are often broadcast on a different frequency than the analog stations were, even if the same channel number is displayed on the screen. So, his antenna may have been better at the old frequency than the new one. If this is the problem, he needs to find the new frequency and get an antenna optimized for that.

3) The digital transition also resulted in a lot of changes in which station is broadcast from which tower. Often, several channels share the same tower. So, the signal might be coming from farther away, or in a different direction than before. If this is a problem, a better antenna may be needed, or a directional antenna may need to be rotated to point to the new tower location.

If you give me his ZIP code, and the stations he's having problems with, I can comment further. StuRat (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ZIP 08080 is nearby, and the two most problematic stations are WHYY 12 Phila and WNJN 23 Camden, both PBS. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are both listed as strong stations for that ZIP, on old radio frequencies 12 and 22 (not 23). Do you happen to know if it's a directional antenna ? Because, if it's a directional antenna pointed the wrong way, this could be a problem. The strong stations in his area all seem to come from two directions (97-99° and 348-349°). So, if using a directional antenna, he'd either need a rotor to rotate between the two positions, or two directional antennae, one for each direction (he could have a switch box to select which antenna feed goes to the TV, if the TV doesn't allow dual coax inputs). The two antenna system would be better, since he wouldn't need to wait for it to rotate while changing channels, and he'd have a backup in case either one is damaged.

If he has an omnidirectional antenna, then I suspect problems with the stations themselves. Perhaps they aren't broadcasting at their full licensed power (I have a station here that doesn't seem to be able to keep their power level up). Other than waiting for them to get their acts together, his other options would be to switch to directional antenna(e) or add a signal pre-amplifier at the antenna (this is important if the coax cables travel a long distance from the antenna to the TV, and the signal degrades over that length). StuRat (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe his old antenna is directional. WHYY 12 was always the best reception, now it is the poorest VHF out of Phila.

Can you post how you got this information?

I am curious, if he were able to get Baltimore and NYC's channel 11's with a better antenna, how would that present itself/ Would it only work with a directional antenna aimed properly? Would the signals interfere, or be distinct? μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I used this site: http://www.antennaweb.org (I provided this link previously). You might want to contact WHYY at talkback@whyy.org and ask if they are broadcasting at a reduced power level, and, if so, when, if ever, they expect to return to full power. Point out how their signal is now much weaker than it was under analog. If they don't expect to go to full power soon, then directional antenna(e) will be required. Baltimore and NYC are 94 and 101 miles away, respectively, which is well beyond the range you can get with even an excellent directional antenna (I believe the curvature of the Earth comes into play over these distances, blocking the straight-line path).

They intentionally avoid using the same frequency in adjacent markets. In the unlikely event of two stations being received at the same power level on the same frequency, they would indeed interfere. You might get nothing, or it might switch between the two, especially as you rotated a directional antenna toward one or the other. (And the channel number might also appear to change, since, with virtual channels under digital TV, each station broadcasts the channel to be displayed on the TV, and it's not always the same as the radio frequency channel, as in his channel 22/23 case.) StuRat (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He does get NYC AM radio stations quite clearly. When he called to ask me to look into the antenna he mentioned that there were claims of reception at 150 miles and I saw the same myself at Amazon. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FM is between VHF 6 and 7, so if he got FM from those cities, that would indicate he might be able to get VHF from those locations. AM radio uses much different frequencies and subsequently bounces between the clouds and ground, so can go hundreds of miles. I'd say your initial assessment that those are fake reviews is correct. (Did the manufacturer make those claims, or were they solely in the reviews ?) To get much beyond 50 miles, he'd need to build his own tower for the antennae, which is probably illegal in his area.

Looking at the radio frequencies for the stations in his area, they range from 4-49/51. Since 4 is "low VHF" (the VHF range below FM radio), he should actually avoid any antenna which claims it's "specially designed for digital TV", as that likely means it doesn't handle low-VHF well, so won't get channel 4.

It would also help to know the specific model of antenna he has, as several drop out at certain frequencies. See these charts: [3]. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The radio reception is from a car antenna, NYC FM comes in, but too poorly for music, and talk and news are on AM. The house antenna is 2 1/2 stories higher. The house antenna may date to the original owners from the 1960's. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

2.5 stories doesn't make all that much difference, and, if the music is too poor to listen to on FM, then the reception will also be too poor to watch on digital TV. Old isn't necessarily bad on an antenna, as the technology hasn't changed much in decades (there are new fractal antenna designs for cell phones, but this design hasn't made it to TV antennas yet, although some of the old designs were somewhat fractal, before the term even existed). However, it's possible the antenna has been damaged. For example, some of the links may be disconnected or misaligned. So, switching to new directional antenna(e) would also be good for this reason. Not including the cost of installation, this would run around $200, so should pay for itself with savings from the cable bill in a few months. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My friend seems to credit your advice and believe the antenna and the lead are old. Is a coax cable the best (most reasonable and sufficiently powerful) replacement for his old-fashioned two-wired crab-clawed connection? Does no-one else here have a new antenna for an off-air signal? μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If he has a new TV it's going to have a coax connector, not the old separate connectors for UHF and VHF. So, since it needs to be in coax form by the time it reaches the TV, he might as well put it on coax right at the antenna, since, I believe, coax is more resistant to certain types of interference.

Unfortunately, the percentage of people using over-the-air broadcasts has gone down, and many of those just use rabbit ears and a loop, so the market for high-end antennae is now quite small. The result is that they've stopped putting money into development, and either continue to sell variations on the same old theme, or sell total scam antennae. Most of the scammers sell indoor antennae, though, like this one: [4]. (They are probably worried that any professional installing an outdoor scam antenna would notify the buyer, who would then return it.) StuRat (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So, to review, if he gets either a single directional antenna with a remote controlled rotor, or a pair of directional antennas, each pointed in the proper direction, and connects them via a coax, using a powered signal pre-amplifier at the antenna, he should get, at the very least, the following stations clearly:

 3.1 CBS
 4.1 Independent (black)             Camden, NJ
 6.1 ABC
 6.2 Livewell Network
 6.3 Livewell Network
10.1 NBC
10.2 Nonstop Network
12.1 PBS-HD
12.2 PBS
12.3 PBS
17.1 MyNet
17.2 ATV (classic TV and movies)
17.3 This TV (classic TV and movies)
23.1 PBS                             Camden, NJ
29.1 FOX
35.1 MiND (infomercials ?)
35.2 NHK (infomercials ?)
35.3 France 24
35.4 MHZ4 (news and documentaries)
44.1 Independent (infomercials ?)    Camden, NJ
44.2 BOUNCE (recent movies)          Camden, NJ
48.1 TBN (religious)
48.2 Church Channel
48.3 Jesus Christ TV
48.4 Spanish TBN
49.1 Telemundo                       Camden, NJ
51.1 Independent (shopping)
57.1 CW
61.1 ION
61.2 Qubo (kids)
61.3 ION Life
65.1 Univision
65.1 Futura (Spanish)

To me, a lot of that is junk (shopping channels, religious channels, foreign language channels, etc.), but he will have all the major networks.

I marked the stations coming from Camden, NJ (the rest are from Philly). Note that Camden, NJ doesn't contribute much to the total number of stations, so he wouldn't lose all that many if he just got one directional antenna and pointed it towards Philly. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, he gets all those and some out of Vineland and/or Hammonton as well. The problem is still 12 and 23, and it was either 57 or 61 that comes in poorly as well. I'll let you know what is done eventually.

Two last questions, how much better is a unidrectional as opposed to an omnidirectional antenna for any given station? Second, is the old two-wired antenna with the c-shaped screw connectors running one wire for UHF and one for VHF? He currently has those attached to a coax adaptor. Might he get a better signal if only one of the two crab claw connectors were attached at a time? μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Directional antennas are quite a bit better, both by picking up a signal from further away, and by rejecting signals coming from other directions that might cause interference. (I don't use the term "unidirectional", because many directional antennae also pick up signals well in the opposite direction from where they are pointed.) If he's currently getting channels from a couple other directions, and wants to continue to get those, then perhaps he should keep his omnidirectional antenna, and possibly supplement it with a directional antenna pointed towards Philly.

Yes, I believe coaxial cable, when used for TV, carries VHF on one line and UHF on the other. Note that each adapter/connector has the potential to introduce noise and/or reduce the signal strength, and you want to keep those to a minimum (so one long coax cable is better than several small ones joined together).

If I understand your final question, you are asking about only connecting VHF or UHF, and switching the connection depending on which he is watching. No, I don't see any advantage to that. They shouldn't interfere with each other on a coax line. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. Right now he has a flat tape-like connection with two wires in it running from the roof which has probably been in place form the 60's or 70's. It has two c-shaped connectors which would originally have connected to two screw mounts on the back of the TV before coax was generally available. That connection is now screwed into a teensy coax adaptor which connects to the TV using the latter's coax input. Are both of the wires internal to the cord carrying the combined UHF and VHF signal? Or is one wire for UHF and one for VHF? (I remember there used to be separate UHF and VHF inputs to TV's before the 1980's, but don't remember the details.) μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the UHF and VHF are kept completely separate in the coax cable. StuRat (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly what I asked. Should I assume that his old-style flat two-internal wire tape-from connecter with two separate internal wires is carrying separate UHF and VHF signals, one on each wire? And if so, given your last remark, should I assume the coax adapter with two screw inputs is keeping them separate? μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the UHF and VHF are kept separate on that type of cable, as well. BTW, if the UHF and VHF were connected to the wrong connectors, that would explain the worse-than-expected reception, so swapping them is worth a try, just in case this is the problem. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that will be quite a triumph is swapping the coax adapter connections works! μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And also "if"... :-) StuRat (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Fancy Moves in .doc and .pdf

I'm preparing a presentation to hand over in .doc or .pdf and I have compiled a long list but it's way too long but I can't bear to cut it down. Is there a way for me to in .doc or .pdf create a short list and then have a "roll over" button that allows the page to switch to the long list? TY everybody.

Toottoottrain (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You can do almost anything in Word using macros, but it will require a degree of programming. Here's some info on hiding and showing text.[5] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This won't in any way answer your question, but I'd like to point out that when you're writing a presentation (or, in fact, anything that you want someone else to read) there's no such thing as too short. People (especially business people) have extremely short attention spans, and the amount of effort you will need to put in to achieve what you're trying to do will vastly outweigh, by some orders of magnitude, the amount of effort that your audience will put in to reading it. I guess that if you're writing something for a degree course where you need to hit a minimum word count then you might not cut stuff down so ruthlessly, but even so, you'd be much better served by trimming as much as possible in order to get more varied thoughts in. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's much more low tech, but if you need to you could have the short list, then have at the end "For a more detailed list, see the appendix", and then just paste the full list at the very end of the document. Smurrayinchester 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

USSR/USA comparison

I remember seeing a wikitable somewhere (on this site, of course) that compared the USSR and the United States in several aspects (culture, area, economy, etc.). I wanted to look at it again, and I could have sworn that it was in the Cold War page, alas it was not there. Could someone help me find it? Thanks! 64.229.153.184 (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I came across the same table a few days ago. It is at this link. Tombo7791 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, there it is. Thank you! 64.229.153.184 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

US food labeling laws and health benefit claims

How is it that foods like Triscuit can make health claims on their packaging ("may help reduce the risk of heart disease...diets rich in whole grain foods & other plant foods, & low in saturated fat & cholesterol may help reduce the risk of heart disease"[6]) while many other food products, supplements, and beverages such as beer and wine, cannot? For a recent example, the FDA cracked down on POM Wonderful for making similar health claims (see POM_Wonderful#FTC cease and desist order). However, I see little, if any difference between the health claims made by Triscuit and those made by POM. Could someone with more knowledge about this issue than me, please explain it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probably the use of weasel words like "may" that get them past the regulators. "Eating at Taco Bell may reduce your chance of getting cancer" (since you won't live long enough to get it). StuRat (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are attorneys and judges making decisions about health benefit claims? Shouldn't these types of decisions be made by uninvolved health scientists? Am I living in a parallel universe or something? Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the interaction between the legal system and science is never good, as judges and attorneys seems to know just about nothing about science or math, and their decisions reflect that. StuRat (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there a plan to rollout a "science court"? I remember hearing about it back in 1995 or so. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The current way that the law handles science is about as bad as you can imagine. It used to be that you'd call on scientific experts and try and suss out whether the scientific community thought something was crackpot or not (under the Frye standard). But since Daubert (1993), the way it works is to basically have the judges decide what's valid science and what's not. Which is awful, since judges know, in most cases, literally nothing about detailed scientific questions, and it turns out it's very easy to confuse a judge. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that Triscuit is piggybacking off existing studies showing the health benefits of whole grains and plant foods low in saturated fats & cholesterol. It seems that POM lacks such studies. StuRat (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? Really, I'm seeing no difference in the claims at all. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is an extremely fine — some would argue nonexistent — line between what is a legal claim and what is not in this respect. You aren't allowed to claim that non-FDA reviewed foods or supplements can cure any specific disease or have any specific medical effect. Furthermore, part of the issue with POM is they twisted the results of certain studies, ignored evidence that contradicted them, and so on — this was ruled by the judge (see above regarding the importance of the judge) as being "deceptive". But it's a super fine line. Other products trying to do the Trisket thing have gotten smacked down by the FDA in the past; Cheerios in particular went too far in advertising the heart benefits of its fiber content. The main difference between the POM and Cheerios claims and those of Trisket are their specificity: POM and Cheerios put too much of a scientific specificity in their claimed effects (whether real or not, you can't make it sound like it's a drug), whereas Trisket keeps things vague. It's not really about there being studies or not being studies — it's about whether the consumer will think that they will get standardized, specific health outcomes out of consuming this food product, and whether the FDA has examined and approved such a food product for that sort of treatment.

In the end, I tend to agree with you that there is flagrant violation of this rule. There are huge numbers of foods and supplements which are essentially marketed as medicines of some sort without any FDA approval or confirmation — it is only about two steps down from being unregulated. (Some of this is by design; American law on "dietary supplements" was made purposefully loose and vague.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the FDA has a list of specific statements that manufacturers are allowed to make, and specific criteria that must be met in order to make those statements -- the Triscuit statement is one of them. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What there are is a list of "authorized claims" — you can see the ones related fiber here. (There are lots of sub-categories of claims.) You aren't limited to verbatim recitation of the claims, though, but if you stray too far from them, the FDA gets mad. As to whether you've strayed too far or not, that's a fairly subjective judgment. The FDA letter to General Mills is instructive over how baroque and fairly not-straightforward these requirements are. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Looie496 appears to be mostly correct. You can find a list of FDA approved health claims here [7] although the manufacturer seems to have some discretion in the precise wording. As per [8] and [9], it seems a manufacturer has the opportunity to submit 'a notification of a health claim based on an authoritative statement from an appropriate scientific body of the United States Government or the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or any of its subdivisions'. The FDA has 120 days to either prohibit or modify this statement and I think it can then go to court if the manufacturer doesn't agree with ther FDA. The notification for the Triscuit health claim appears to be [10]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Creepy wikipedia links

Can anyone supply me with links to some creepy wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried Creepy. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly subjective question, which is not what the Ref Desk is good for. Some people find Surinam toads to be inherently creepy. Some do not. Some people are creeped out by urban legends. Others just find them stupid. I find Toxoplasmosis creepy. I'm sure there are others who'd roll their eyes. It's not a very good Ref Desk question. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As said above, we have no idea what creeps you out... So does Cryptozoology work for ya? Dismas|^(talk) 18:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke to you? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Paranormal wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's a request or a question instead of just a demand, please see Category:Paranormal. Dismas|^(talk) 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing creepier than this. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Some species of caterpillar creep. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Creep (TLC song). Shadowjams (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This CREEP was one of the scariest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, scary like Ghostbusters. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget cats that creep into crypts. Richard Avery (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Try this list and Wikipedia:Unusual_articles#Folklore? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Flint & Kent store, NYC, 1946

Hi, I'm trying to establish the location of a Flint & Kent store in New York City, as of 1946. A quick Google bombs, and there's nothing in the image database for the New York City archives when I search the two names together. Help? There's a Woolworth's right next to it.

Sadly, I can't officially upload the image, it's not mine. Possibly might be able to at some point, once I have permission. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As soon as I posted, thought of looking for a digitized directory. (Page 404) 11W42 would be 11 West 42nd Street? Sadly, this building seems way too tall. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (5th Ave NYPL) is certainly not across the street in this image. Perhaps the F&K logo is a red herring, just a billboard? Woolworth's had way too many NYC stores. (See Page 1336.) -- Zanimum (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Trial Litigation Second Opinion

The party in litigation has to calculate if it's worth it to go to trial or settle, but a big problem is the lack of completely trustworthy guidance. Trial means $$$ for attorneys so a client can't completely rely on their attorneys to not deceive them into going forward. So I wonder are there consultant services designed just to give a second opinion about whether to go to trial or settle? Longdormant (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

One solution to this conflict of interest is to use contingency pay, where the lawyers only get paid if they win. In this case, they won't want to take a case they aren't likely to win, or they will have such a high contingency fee that it's clearly not in the client's interest to accept. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

They could just ask a different attorney than the one that would represent them in court. --Tango (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hogwarts Crest

Who designed the Hogwarts crest as it is seen in the book? Was it Rowling herself? 117.226.137.123 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is described in the book, I would only assume Rowling. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The American editions were illustrated by Mary GrandPré, so it's not for sure Rowling. Can you give us the specific crest that you have in mind (which book and edition is it from, and where?) Buddy431 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the US edition is going to have a different coat of arms to the original, unless the text of the book was changed too. You could try asking the question on the Harry Potter Wiki]. Alansplodge (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For "crest", I think it likely that you're actually referring to the entire coat of arms. The blazon, that is, the formal language describing the coat of arms, would likely have been created by Rowling (as it's text). Any visual depiction would probably then have been created by the artist, but the blazon is generally considered the core of the design (though the artist could certainly hold copyright on the particular depiction). Of course, Rowling might have had help writing the blazon, and the artist might have had help interpreting the blazon, but it's unlikely that assistance in either case was officially credited as such. — Lomn 13:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)