Miscellaneous desk
< February 18	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 19[edit]

Google satellite photo mystery[edit]

What is this large and somewhat luxurious-looking complex of buildings outside Nave Pargaon, India? Note the long, fancy driveway with two gates and the swimming pool in the courtyard of the north building. (Although it looks like the tennis courts haven't been used in some time.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be totally off the mark, but after a bit of googling around I'm fairly certain it's the Tatyasaheb Kore Institute of Engineering and Technology - the dome-shaped structure over the entrance and the statue in front of it seem to match, as does the curved line of trees along the park. They have a map on their website that matches the location of your mystery building almost exactly - 10km West of Wathat, just before the road goes North to Kodoli. -- Ferkelparade π 02:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess, but if you zoom out a bid on the Google map, you can see the TKIET is actually marked on the map a couple kms west of the complex in question. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can figure out, Tatyasaheb Kore and friends founded several schools, and this one I'm guessing is the Tatyasaheb Kore Military Academy (TKMA), as it has a tank and a couple of artillery pieces on the front lawn. Scroll halfway down for a picture. Precious little about it on the net. Captain Hindsight (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] claims it was founded by the government of Maharashtra. It seems this institute [2] also wasn't founded by Tatyasaheb Kore although he's listed as the leader. BTW, he's listed as a founder is of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. That article describes a bit of what he did and Vinay Kore also briefly mentions him but it sounds like there's no article about him on en. It sounds like he's particularly notable for founding and developing Warananagar/Warana in Maharashtra hence why many things in the area are named after him. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks spot on. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great job. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic calendar to Gregorian calendar[edit]

What is 12 Rabi' al-awwal, 822 Hijriah, in the Gregorian calendar? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 16th, 1419, a friday. --Omidinist (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though note that the Julian calendar was still universally used for another century and a half, as Gregorian was first implemented in 1582; April 16th Gregorian will have been April 7th Julian. Shimgray | talk | 20:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? You need to convert when both Julian and Gregorian are in use, but in 1419 there is only one April 16. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it's for an article, wouldn't it be preferable just to have Gregorian? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friday April 16th, 1419 is a Gregorian date, as confirmed in places like this. The question did ask for a date in the Gregorian calendar, so we seem to have satisfied our brief.

But that's not the whole story. This is a date not in the Gregorian calendar as such, but in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, the Gregorian calendar that would have applied back then if it had been invented 163 years earlier than it was, which it wasn't. People in the West at that time would have said the date was April 7th, 1419, according to the only calendar they had any knowledge of - the Julian. It makes almost no sense to convert the date to proleptic Gregorian April 16th; I can't imagine why anyone would want or need to know such an anachronistic piece of information. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I mean (er, that is, I should have said "April 7" above, but either way there was only one of each date). Unless you are setting the controls for your time machine, a proleptic calendar isn't very useful in this case. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is for establishing a death date which the average reader will understand at an article in progress. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style recommends using Julian dates when converting alternate stystems for pre-1582 events - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Calendars:

Dates before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar on 15 October 1582 are normally given in the Julian calendar. The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar, but the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January (see below for more details).

This is the usual practice in historical writing, and it's the one our readers are used to, even if they may not realise it - it's very rare for modern writers to retroactively "update" the dates to Gregorian, or to give a conversion outside of the period where both calendars were in use (usually 1582 to 1752 or 1918) Shimgray | talk | 13:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very rare, because it would be very stupid and meaningless. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be marked as being 7 April 1419? Any specific markup for indicating that it would be under the Julian calender? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no special notation - if you want to mention it, the best way would be to say "12 Rabi' al-awwal, 822 AH (7 April 1419 in the Julian calendar), and give just the date with no note for any subsequent conversion. Alternatively, it would be quite reasonable just to say "12 Rabi' al-awwal, 822 AH (7 April 1419)" without any additional commentary; Julian is implicit given the date. Shimgray | talk | 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably stick to the first suggestion, as the average Joe may not understand that Julian is implied. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're overthinking this, Crisco. When we talk about Columbus setting out on his first voyage to the New World on 3 August 1492 (is that your year of birth, btw?), or any other major pre-1582 event, we don't feel any need to specify that the date is from the Julian calendar, mainly because there was no other option in Europe at the time. Anyone reading your article who's educated enough to know the Gregorian hasn't always been there, and to be wondering about which calendar the date came from, would immediately remind themselves the Gregorian calendar only commenced in the 16th century and so a date in 1419 must be Julian. Anyone who had little or no knowledge of the history of the calendar wouldn't be bothered in the slightest about the issue (probably wouldn't be reading the article in the first place, actually). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, maybe this question will help clarify things: what information do you intend to convey by including a Western date? If you want the reader to understand where the Earth was relative to the Sun on that day in 1419, then you would use the (proleptic) Gregorian calendar. This is only meaningful in comparison with our current calendar, for astronomical measurements, for example if you wanted to know the positions of the stars and constellations on that date in 1419 you would have to correct it. Or, as I was joking before, if you want to calibrate the instruments in your time machine, to travel back to visit Ibrahim on his birthday. If you want the reader to understand what day people in Europe thought it was when Sunan Maulana Malik Ibrahim was born, then you just use the Julian calendar, no note or correction necessary. (Also, if you want to be really confused, remember that Easter in 1419 also started on April 16, which would have been the first day of the new year in some parts of Europe. The previous day would have been the last day of 1418. But we always ignore that too and retroactively make all years start on January 1.) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, nothing so fancy. Just the subject's date of death. The inscription near his tomb gives the Arabic date, which is... useless for most English Wikipedia readers. As for the year of birth... that would explain any ear hair I find, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making a video file from console play[edit]

I've seen many youtube videos showing the user of a games console playing the game and providing a running commentary on their play. How is this done, i.e. what hardware and connections are needed to create the video? Obviously I'm looking at a direct feed from the console here, not the lo-tech "point a video camera at the screen" option. Thanks. --Viennese Waltz 08:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typically by plugging the console into a video capture card or (for older consoles) playing the games on an emulator and recording the emulator with screen capture software. Smurrayinchester 10:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemism for menstruation[edit]

I've heard a girl's periods often being referred to as "chums" but I haven't gotten any online/dictionary verification. Is it a valid usage? 117.226.203.41 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Urban Dictionary [3], it refers to a women menstruating in the sea (meaning 5), related presumably to chum as referring to sharkbait (meaning 1) - aren't people nice. Mikenorton (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)English is non-prescriptive (unlike, say, Parisian French, which is regulated by the Académie française), so validity is in the ear of the hearer. I'm guessing it comes from the practice of "chumming", meaning to throw chunks of fish and fish entrails in the water to draw sportfish and sharks closer. Crude, but that's likely the point. Matt Deres (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In female slang, I've heard periods referred to as all sorts of things but never as "chums". However, I have heard the phrase "my friend's visiting" to tip the wink to another woman as to what's going on. In English slang "chum" means friend (ISTR it's of Hindi origin), so that's possibly the derivation. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing what you can learn from EO.[4] Be sure to read the entire thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting but no mention of the etymological similarity between cunt and Kent... --TammyMoet (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do cigarettes figure into the discussion? Unless this is the subliminal connection. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"My friend's visiting" reminds me of an old Dilbert strip. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The South and their acceptance of a certain group of people[edit]

What is the likely outcome from having a single male Swede coming to the Deep South in the USA with no relatives or other excuse for being there except to "see the place"? A: "Git out, ye stinkin' foreigner! *shotgun blast* B: "Cool! We have lots of questions..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ya'll ain't from 'round heer, are ya?" But in fairness, I get that just going from state to state within the southern US. You can expect pretty much the same reaction a single male Swede would expect traveling abroad elsewhere. — Lomn 23:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is... I don't know how they would treat me elsewhere either. But I'm mostly interested in this particular place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the social class, you would be treated with courtesy and manners. The only time Southerners tend to show their true feelings is when they say "bless (his/her/your) little heart". This means basically they think your an idiot but manners dictate that nothing will be said... Williamb (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southerners are actually famed for their hospitality. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you. Just don't drive across Alabama with the words "NASCAR SUCKS" and "HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT" on your car like those guys on Top Gear. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US is considerably more homogeneous than it used to be, and much more so than movies might suggest. Metropolitan and suburban places are disappointingly similar to one another the country over. Southerners, and Americans in general, pride themselves on being polite and hospitable to strangers (but really what country prides itself on being rude and inhospitable?). The same reasonable consideration you'd always make as a guest in someone else's country will suffice here too. Unless you do something obviously stupid, you're no more likely to be blasted by a shotgun wielding madman than an American tourist would be likely to be chased down Hamngatan by a guy with a battleaxe and a horned helmet. Just tell everyone their country is beautiful and marvel at their ability to withstand the humidity (neither of which will be a lie) and you'll do fine. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"what country prides itself on being rude and inhospitable?" Germany? Ib30 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely France, n'est-ce pas? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta disagree with ya, CF. When you get away from Paris, the smaller towns love visitors, especially <airquote> ugly Americans </airquote>. There was a critic/writer who said something to the effect of "France is a lovely country to visit, if you exclude Paris. Paris is a wonderful city, if you exclude the Parisians". From my own visit there many MANY years ago, I can concur with that. --McDoob AU 93 03:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the problems with Paris are because it's a giant city, not because of the French people who live there...it's not really much different than Toronto, or London, or I suppose New York (although I've never been there). There are rude people, of course, but that's just because there are so many more people there in general compared to the rest of the country, so on average there are also more jerks. One stereotypical thing I've always heard, but which turns out to be true (in my experience), is that everyone in Paris is much nicer if you attempt to speak French to them first. If you just walk up to people and speak English, they might seem to react rudely because you were rude to them first, if that makes sense. But they're used to the tourists, so if you speak French to them and they recognize an accent, they'll probably switch to English right away if they can, and if they can't, they'll still appreciate that you tried. They're extremely proud about their language, and why shouldn't they be? It's no different than the US (or Canada, or the UK). Anyway, you're right about the rest of France, everyone is really curious about visitors. Outside of Paris hardly anyone speaks English, but they like to practise they few words they know! Adam Bishop (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be the Southerners would pretend to be nice to your face, then lynch you that night. Fortunately, I think that's mostly a thing of the past, although there still seems to be an "act friendly to everyone no matter how you really feel" attitude, that you won't find much, say, in New York City. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, assuming you're talking about white Southerners, they'd not bother being nice to your face if they were the sort who would lynch you at night. Ex-slaves and their descendants were barely considered human beings, and certainly not worthy of respect or courtesy in common circumstances. A person of color could get killed simply for being inappropriately polite to the wrong person. The Dred Scott decision wasn't a fluke. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacks weren't the only ones lynched. Any "outsiders" were at risk, too, especially Jews from the North, who the Ku Klux Klan also despised. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends a lot on the time period and the location. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in the South for the past 10 years, and having grown up in the North, you'll find that the South is actually a lot less stereotypically "Southern" than it is portrayed in movies and TV and such. Yes, there are NASCAR fans here, but mostly people aren't that different, and they are certainly as accepting (or not) of foreigners and outsiders as anywhere else in the U.S. When I grew up in New England, I pictured everyone from south of Pennsylvania slept with their cousins and wore white sheets and burned crosses for fun. I have been pleasently surprised that that isn't the case at all. A foreign national visiting the South is unlikely to run into any major issues. Just a side note, what is said above about "Bless your heart" is 100% true. If someone says that to you, you've just been cussed out. It isn't a compliment, it's the polite southern equivalent of the middle finger. --Jayron32 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, most people only have Mississippi Burning as their source of information about the South.

@StuRat: there was only one Jew lynched in the US ever: Leo Frank. Is that a reasonable risk? Ib30 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The murder of two more Jews were portrayed in Mississippi Burning, those being Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman. Lynching doesn't just mean hanging, you know. StuRat (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong II: But murdering does not mean lynching. Those two guys were not lynched (even if, at the end the result is the same). Tell any Jew that the risk of being lynched in the South is almost non-existent.

Apparently, most people only have Mississippi Burning as their source of information about the South II.

Ib30 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well our Mississippi civil rights workers murders article says they were lynched. At least 2 sources [5] [6] [7] (same website) says likewise. At least 2 other sources mention lynchings [8] [9] however it isn't clear if they intend to imply these murders were lynchings. Subscription requirements means I didn't check all sources and it's possible I missed extra pages. (I also didn't check out any of the further reading etc.)

In any case, I'm not sure why you say their murders weren't lynchings. From what I can tell, their murders meets a common definition. E.g. our article mentions:

defined by some codes of law as "Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person which results in the death of the person," with a 'mob' being defined as "the assemblage of two or more persons, without color or authority of law, for the premeditated purpose and with the premeditated intent of committing an act of violence upon the person of another."

it seems clear that the murders here were committed by a mob upon the body of the people murdered with the premediated purpose and intent of violence upon the people murder. Are you confused by the lack of hanging? If so, our article suggests it isn't required. Or the fact that these people weren't targetted because of their ethinicty or race? If so, while this is relevent to the risk of a random Jewish person being lynched, it doesn't mean that these specific people weren't lynched. It seems clear they were targetted 'in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people'.

Of course if you continue to dispute any of this, I suggest you take it up in the appropriate article/s. Although given the sourcing, it seems unlikely you'll have much success.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just, wow. As someone who has spent the last 20 years working for extended periods(months at a time) all over the US and happen to live in the South when not on the road, the people of the south are no more offensive or unwelcoming than anyone else in tghe US, and actually quite a bit more polite and friendly than most. In fact, this whole question is kind of offensive. Imagine if asked if this Hostel (2005 film) film series accurately represented Europeans? Where I live is a big oil industry area, so we have Scots, Brits, Aussies, Irish, Canadians, various African nationalities, and many other foreign nationals in town all of the time. They are usually popular guys, fun to hang out with, and I've never seen anyone give them a hard time for being from somewhere else(except for some drunken good natured ribbing). Visit the South, its a great and fun place full of generally nice people. He iro 02:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree ... I've lived in the American South all my life (lived no further north than Atlanta, my current home, and no further west than Birmingham) and have visited most of the other major regions of the country. While there are differences overall, there are also tons of similarities, both good and bad. If I might be so bold as to ask the OP (and hoping this doesn't turn any more into a forum than it already has), what is it that most interests you about this region? --McDoob AU 93 02:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... just about everything about the place interests me. Everything from the way they speak to the culture/settings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good old boys reacting to a group of Scandinavians: "They whiter than us! Uff-da!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then again... I actually was in grandstand and watched this Danish guy run in the heats of the 800 metres at the 2000 Summer Olympics.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Heironymous Rowe. I don't think the South has any kind of market on idiotic xenophobia — there are plenty of places in New York, Massachusetts, and California where you could find considerable numbers of idiots (and I've lived in a few of said pockets! Even then, that sort of thing seems ridiculously rare). But on the whole my experience is that Southerners pride themselves on being genteel with outsiders. I might speculate that their main social problems lie not with being cruel to outsiders, but with regards to the people they are more familiar with. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked by the tone in this question (and some of the other comments). I didn't think this kind of gross generalizing was openly acceptable. It's one thing to ask serious questions about safety in certain areas--of course there are parts of any place that could be dangerous: that's a fair question--but this unabashed play on offensive stereotypes is kind of shocking. Imagine if this was some other country, would the recitation of similar stereotypes be acceptable? Shadowjams (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However: [10]. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You're using a Huffington post blog post to justify some disgustingly inaccurate stereotypes? Would you vote as Alabama's legislature did? Probably not, but does that mean everyone in the south approaches you with a shotgun?!? Shadowjams (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reporting an event that occurred, as is the Post. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP: The South today looks just like any other part of the country, and to a casual visitor the people look and act just like any other Americans, albeit with a distinctive accent in their speech. But since WWII, many people from other parts of the US have settled here, and TV has had a great influence on speech, so even the accent is not as distinct anymore. A Swedish tourist will be as safe and as welcome here as anywhere else - don't rely on the clownish, negative stereotypes that Hollywood loves to perpetuate. Even here in the small Texas town where I live, the kids run around in hipster clothes and have rap music blaring from their car radios, just like all over the US. There are some underlying political and cultural differences between North and South still, but that won't affect your visit. Just be cautious and sensible as you would visiting any other place in the developed world, e.g., avoid bad neighborhoods and dark streets, etc. I'm a native Southerner, and I say come on over and enjoy yourself, you'll have a fun time and some great food. Textorus (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]