Miscellaneous desk
< January 23	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 25 >

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.

January 24

Robert Young no email response

I emailed Robert Young two days ago asking when he would put up the September edition of pending cases, but he never responded. Is there a particular reason why he did not respond? Perhaps it is because he is busy working on putting up the September update? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a question for the Reference Desks. Please be more careful about where you post in the future! Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, it might help if the OP were to tell us who Robert Young is and what cases they are referring to. That would help anyone interested enough to research the answer. Dismas|^(talk) 05:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young is part of the Gerontology Research Group [1] and involved in research on supercentenarians. The pending cases would likely be pending GRG cases like [2]. The confirmed cases seems to have been last updated in September [3], but the pending cases one seems to be last updated in August. That said, I agree with a SteveBaker, the questions from Deaths in 2013 are getting more and more inappropriate for the RD, and frankly this one is not only inappropriate but silly. And frankly in a situation like this (emailing someone you don't personally know, about something which isn't particularly important and which you aren't paying for in any way and where the person has no real reason why they have to reply to you) there's no reason to expect an answer in 2 days even if they were going to reply. And if the OP has been occasionally e-mailing Young with stuff that is unnecessary or which they wouldn't expect them to answer, like they have been doing here on the RD for the past few weeks, it's even less surprising if Young may not reply. Even the question seems weird. The GRG website seems confusing to navigate but from what I can tell, it doesn't look like there's always a monthly update. And considering it's now nearing the end of January 2015, the more logical question would be something like "when would there next be an update to the pending cases" rather than when the September edition would be forthcoming. And while Robert Young may or may not be the primary researcher behind all this, the page URL makes me thing that nowadays it's possible John Adams is the one responsible for maintaining the web pages. Adams also seems to be the contact point listed throughout the website, so it would seem likely they are who should be contacted regardless of who's maintaining it or doing the research. (I'd also note someone who was involved in the group and a friend of Young and probably Adams recently died, so another reason why they might be a bit behind with stuff.) Of course this is something the OP is highly interested in, so I would have hoped they understand all the background etc better than me, but the more of their questions I read, the less I am confident of this. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the rise of obesity in women going to reduce birthrates?

trolling by blocked user, title says it all

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We all know people are getting bigger here in the west, not just fat but morbidly obese. Does this mean we are heading towards a birth rate crisis like we see in Japan.

As a heterosexual man, I have no physical attraction to large individuals of the opposit gender. I think that many men are similar. And also, I would suspect large women are less able to concieve than healthier ones.

So are we heading for a serious food induced demographic problem. Could rising obesity potentially wipe out a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.100.51 (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'wipe out a nation' is a bit excessive. Remember three things: there are also obese men; there are men who are attracted to obese women; and there are men who don't mind either way. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAAE: see Fat fetishism. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human net reproductive success, at least in developed countries, is largely decoupled from biological constraints and instead limited by artificial constraints like artificial birth control. So no, if we manage to wipe ourselves out, it will not be by lack to reproduce. Moreover, attraction to particular body types is significantly affected by cultural indoctrination. See e.g. The Judgement of Paris (Rubens) for how Rubens in the 17th century imagined the three most beautiful goddesses of ancient mythology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venus of Willendorf shows that fat women were attractive to prehistoric men, too. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Study: Curvy Women Live Longer, Give Birth to Smarter Children. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being athletic actually decreases fertility, though after a certain point being obese hurts it. It's goes back to the same mechanisms behind how exercise makes menstrual cycles less severe: a woman who regularly works out has (as far as nature can tell) the body of a hunter who can't afford to be pregnant too often. A woman who's overweight has the body of someone with a lot of well-providing mates hunting for her. Nature can't tell that the relationship between fitness and wealth has almost completely reversed. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being overweight also causes girls to start their periods sooner. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap digital camera vs cheap digital camcorder

Is there any advantage of a cheap camcorder like this over a similarly-priced digital camera (about £20 now)? I've found lots of pros and cons of cameras and camcorders on the web, but only concerning higher-quality hardware.--Leon (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The digital camera probably has better resolution, and the camcorder probably has a higher frame rate. The digital camera may also lack video capability entirely, or just lack audio. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the EU, video cameras are taxed more than still cameras; this is why still cameras can only record for 30mins before they autostop. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic open-ceiling design for residential space

I like the concept of an open (i.e. un-covered) ceiling, which allows plumbing, wires, and structural members to be accessed easily for inspection and repair. (I'm aware that dropped ceilings provide the same benefits, but the ones I've seen look "cheap", office-like, and generally unattractive.) What are some visually-pleasing designs that allow the ceiling of a residential space to remain uncovered? I've seen one design, in commercial settings, in which the ceiling (painted black) is visually "shielded" by rows of painted, regularly-spaced, parallel planks suspended from the ceiling (or maybe rails). I thought that was clever. I wonder what other designs people have come up with that accomplish the same goals. --108.36.120.196 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

     CEILING
+----------------+ 
|                |
| |    |  |    | |
| +----+  +----+ |
|                |

So, the U-shaped conduits are open on top, for easy access, and contain all the wires, plumbing, etc. You can expect them to fill with spiderwebs, dust, and possibly dead mice, of course. If the ceiling is white, reflected light should be sufficient to work in the conduits. From below, the conduits can appear to be solid wooden beams. This design obviously doesn't shield structural members, but they can be made attractive enough to remain uncovered. The effect would be a rather rustic look. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A possible problem that comes to mind is that, in an existing house, the routing of plumbing, wires, ductworks, etc is not coordinated. Trying to hide all of those with the conduits you described may create a visually-complicated network of conduits overhead in a living space. --108.36.120.196 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had a new construction in mind. StuRat (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the space you have and its existing style, you might simply consider either painting the main structure white or leaving it as uncovered concrete (this would work particularly well in a modernist building). Then leave all services open and exposed, and colour-code them brilliantly (as was originally done at the Pompidou Centre. If I had the right kind of flat I'd do this in a heartbeat. RomanSpa (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handheld electronic game

Hallo everybody, please could you tell me, how did you call the ″handheld electronic game″ when you were a kid (or how you call it now)? I am interested especially in English, German and Czech/Slovak names. Plase do it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Handheld_electronic_game. Thank you! --Jiří Janíček (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that this probably counts as original research. If you intend to include the various names in the article, you should obtain them from reliable sources, rather than relying on the personal recollections of individual editors. Tevildo (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems pretty much to be correct. So let's do it so: you just give me the words, and I then try to find them in the sources - deal? --Jiří Janíček (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier to do a WP:RFC? This isn't exactly the best place to make this sort of request. However, Gameboy's kind of a catch-all and you shouldn't have trouble finding sources.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 5 Shevat 5775 05:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When some of us were kids, we had hand-held electronic games, but Gameboys had yet to be invented! --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a different article for "newfangled" things like Gameboys and Game Gears, with their fancy interchangeable cartridges. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis

Have a look at yesterday's strip of Fingerpori. The dialogue goes as follows:

Stalingrad 1943:

Die, you Nazis!
You should say "National Socialists".

Now, this caused me to ask my question. Were the Nazis themselves OK with being called "Nazis" or did they prefer to be called "National Socialists" or some similar more official term? JIP | Talk 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely they would have preferred to have been called "National Socialists", as they were Germans, not English. You may be surprised to know, my dear Finnish friend, that we speak different languages in England and Germany. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats is beside the point. What I'm trying to ask here is whether the Nazis would have been OK with being called "Nazi" or would they have insisted on the more correct term "Nationalsozialistischer". I find your comment patronising. I know very well Finnish, English and German are different languages. I have provided the translation for convenience. One further time, this entire question has only ever been about the difference between the abbreviatory term "Nazi" and the original German term "Nationalsozialisticher". JIP | Talk 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I did not mean to sound patronising, but this is the language desk. We don't need translations. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Miscellaneous desk. And I, for one, appreciated the translation. Even if this were posted on the Lang. desk, I doubt everyone there speaks Finnish. Dismas|^(talk) 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong desk, then, sorry. And nobody would have to speak Finnish. It's translated from German to English. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 05:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original strip is in Finnish. (And it looks like the Finnish word for 'National-socialist' does not contain the 'nation-' root that is found in German and English, and which goes into 'Nazi'; but the Finnish form of 'Nazi' is nonetheless 'Natsit'.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand you didn't mean to sound patronising. I guess my question is pretty much answered now: the Nazis themselves didn't use the term "Nazi" and didn't very much approve of it, but didn't seem to actually impose any restrictions on its usage. JIP | Talk 20:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi is essentially an English word. This speech of Hitler contain no Nazis, but 51 varying inflections of nationalsozialistischen. I don't know if they were OK with the abbreviated anglicisation, but somehow I doubt that they cared. Let me clarify. Germans (Deutschlanders) who spoke English would already be aware that English speakers had changed the name of their country, and they in return had mangled all of the English speaking countries except England. It's another language and you live with it. Nationalsozialistischer -> Nazi is small beer. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "small beer"? I'm not entirely sure this idiom is known in the Anglophone world, so it might be best to use another term or say it plainly. A small beer sounds unpleasant anyway. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 5 Shevat 5775 05:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'...the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c.1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname Nazi, Naczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean "a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person."... The NSDAP for a time attempted to adopt the Nazi designation as what the Germans call a "despite-word," but they gave this up, and the NSDAP is said to have generally avoided the term. Before 1930, party members had been called in English National Socialists, which dates from 1923. The use of Nazi Germany, Nazi regime, etc., was popularized by German exiles abroad...' etymonline.com Alansplodge (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Flinders Petrie "small beer" is well known in the UK, and I suspect many other English speaking countries, as a phrase to mean "of little consequence, of lesser importance". A small beer in southern Spain in summer is the only proper way to drink it. If you have a large beer it will be warm by the time you get halfway through it. Richard Avery (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I lived in WC1 for a year and never heard that expression and I heard a lot of peculiar English expressions. And nonsense, you just drink it fast if it's nasty English brews that cost £5 a pint anyway. Though I have never had a small beer in Southern Spain in summer. Have to fix this. Thank you for clarifying though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 5 Shevat 5775 09:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Small beer" is quite widely known, but it is rather a literary expression, so it's not surprising that you didn't hear it in a year in WC1. It is recorded in the OED from 1498 in its literal meaning "Beer of a weak, poor, or inferior quality", and figuratively ("Trivial occupations, affairs, etc.; matters or persons of little or no consequence or importance; trifles") from 1710. But the OED has a citation of it in the latter sense from 2010, so it is still current in writing at least. It never referred to the size of the portion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll have to keep an eye out then. Thanks and apologies for the tangential conversation. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 5 Shevat 5775 17:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beware Sir William! Heed the horrid example of poor Thomas Thetcher immortalised on his own gravestone:

"Here sleeps in peace a Hampshire Grenadier, / Who caught his death by drinking cold small Beer,

Soldiers be wise from his untimely fall / And when ye're hot drink Strong or none at all."

Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's how Shakespeare passed away. As the guides in Stratford put it, 'he got drunk one night, went outside, fell asleep, caught a chill, and then he doy'd'. Needless to say, it's hilarious when heard in-person. That is also a fantastic epitaph. I shall have to have one relating to the dangers of vodka for mine.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 5 Shevat 5775 19:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting Henry Purcell who went on a lad's night out, but his wife wouldn't let him back in the house and he had to sleep in the street. He died of the resulting "chill" as well. Alansplodge (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: The proper German for "a Nazi" ist "Ein Nationalsozialist". The word nationalsozialistischer is the adjective form (note that in German all nouns are capitalised, but the non-noun forms of proper nouns are not). In a pinch, the adjective form can stand in for the noun (with an implicit "something" assumed to complete a noun phrase), and can then be capitalised, but this is not done when the root already is a noun, as in this case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word Nazi in German is at least slightly demeaning, and the people known in English as Nazis would not generally have used it to refer to themselves, except perhaps in a joking and self-deprecating way, if any of them had a sense of humor. The correct way to say Nazis in Germany under the Nazis would have been Nationalsozialisten. Even today in Germany, the word Nazi amounts to slang. The usual abbreviation in formal or standard German is NS. Marco polo (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the strip is correct, Nazis didn't particulary like being called "Nazis" instead of "Nationalsozialisten". But I came to understand they weren't very active in imposing or enforcing bans on the word "Nazi". Apologies for my German grammar problems, German is only my fourth best language after Finnish, English and Swedish. This also gives rise to a further question: Why is it "Nazi" in the first place instead of "Nati" or "Natsi"? The original German word is "Nationalsozialist", not "Nazionalsozialist" or "Natsionalsozialist". It is pronounced like the two latter ones, though. But this conversation seems to say that "Nazi" is an English invention, and the letter "z" in English is usually pronounced as a voiced "s", like a bee buzzing, not like "ts". Why was that spelling adopted and not "Nati" or "Natsi"? JIP | Talk 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. But note that Winston Churchill always pronounced it nah-zee, and when it comes to the meanings and pronunciations of English words, of which, as is well covered above, Nazi is an example, he had few peers. But most of us say nah-tsee. That's probably a beautiful case of hypercorrection. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some information on the origin of "Nazi" at the Online Etymological Dictionary, which says it's probably modelled on the earlier "Sozi" as a nickname for a socialist. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this counts as hypercorrection, since the first two syllables of nati-onal would normally be pronounced nah-tsi-. We had to learn the American Pledge of Allegiance in homeroom in German in Highschool when my homeroom teacher happened to be one of the school's german teachers, and nation is "NAH-tsee-own" auf Deutsch. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the point is that, while people pronounce Nazi as if it were a German word, the truth is that it is not a German word. It's an English word (admittedly a contraction of German words, but that doesn't mean the rules of the source language apply). Some anglophone who saw the word for the first time and knew nothing of Hitler or the Holocaust, would say "nay-zee" or maybe "nah-zee", but not "nah-tsee". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, would Germans pronounce the word "Nati" with a "t" sound instead of "ts"? That would be a reason why it's spelled "Nazi" in German. But as previously said, the word appears to be an English invention, and some English speakers mispronounce it with a voiced "s" instead of a "ts". Would all this confusion have been avoided by spelling it "Natsi" like in Finnish? JIP | Talk 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, no, nati would just be be NAH-tee. but in -tion borrowings from Latin it is /ts/. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeds (zees for you novomundanes) are so much more sinister than wimpy "ts"s. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt Nazi is "an English invention" because the z wouldn’t make any sense in that case; z is always pronounced /ts/ in German, but in almost no other language as far as I’m aware. By the way, I wouldn’t pronounce Nati with the /ts/ sound, but the Swiss obviously do. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 22:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Z is "ts" in the Italian language and was most likely "dz" at some stage in the Ancient Greek language. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, look up Sozialismus and Portmanteau. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know about ancient Greek ;o) About the portmanteau theory: I’ve heard that one, but usually only by non-native speakers of German and/or in connection with a political agenda (Nazism = Socialism). Personally, I think it is rather implausible, but I’m in no way an expert. Btw, supposedly Goebbels at one time early on used the term Nazi-Sozi. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 01:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]