Miscellaneous desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

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.

November 23[edit]

essay[edit]

question removed, we dont mark essays.

It would be appropriate to sign your removal. —Nricardo (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And politer and more helpful by far to userfy the question than delete it. And as it happens the question got two answers, so it would appear we do mark essays. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Stadium Blue paint[edit]

What was the color of Blue the Tiger Stadium was painted in 1977? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoon57 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Tiger Stadium (Detroit)? This is the only Tiger Stadium whose article mentions being painted blue in the "late 1970s". 130.88.79.39 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical -- Child Pornography on Wikipedia?[edit]

I have a hypothetical for everyone. Let's say that an adolescent boy or girl is browsing around the penis or vagina articles, and discovers to their dismay that there are no good pictures! Let's suppose that said (underage) teen decides to take a picture of their own genitals and upload it to the commons, so they can include it in the respective article. Would this be considered child pornography? What might be some potential consequences for Wikipedia, the uploader, and the people who view the image? I understand and realize that Wikipedia does not offer legal advice, so instead of telling me that please just answer the question =] (its a hypothetical anyways!). Thanks for supposing with me. --71.117.41.232 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1: If it was obviously a minor's genitalia (stated to be so, or visibly prepubescent, or something), then we would delete it immediately. If there was absoltely no way to tell, then we wouldn't be able to tell, so we wouldn't be able to do anything. Point 2: In fact, images of naked children or their body parts do exist in a legal context; they are necessary for purposes of medical study. Pornography is intended to sexually arouse. A simple penis shot in an encyclopedia article is clearly meant to be academic, and thus not pornography. Point 3: We get tons and tons and tons and people taking pictures of their genitals (or household pets) to try and replace the ones we have. It's a weird sort of vanity, and it almost always gets immediately deleted. So unless some of the pictures we already have are secretly from minors (in which case points 1 and 2 apply), this is unlikely to come up. --Masamage ♫ 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they're not taking photos of their pets' genitals. 'Cause that would be weird... FiggyBee (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have pictures of naked kids on Wikipedia already. The article is titled something like Children and nudity or something like that. I'd go find it for you but I'm on my mother-in-law's computer and would rather not have that in her history to be found later. :-) Dismas|^(talk) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity and children is the proper title, and none of those are sexually explicit (just cute kid tushies). Kuronue | Talk 21:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The posters above are correct that nonsexual child nudity is by no means illegal in the U.S. If it was, a lot of people's bathtub photos would get them arrested! But that said, in the hypothetical situation that a young person -- say, a 15-year-old -- uploaded a nude picture of himself or herself to Wikipedia, I would think that it would and should be deleted to avoid even the slightest hint of impropriety. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humans Dancing - Why?[edit]

Seriously, why do humans of all races, ages, nationalities, genders, cultures, sects etc., dance, and appear to have done so through the ages? It might be another way of exercising, or socialising, or showing off even, but although I like dancing in a variety of styles from Jive, to Salsa to Scottish Country Dance (I am over 60), when I stand and look at others dancing, I find it a bit, well, ridiculous. And there are so many other ways to exercise, socialise, and compete - aren't there? 81.145.242.25 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because they all invented rhythmic music, which makes a lot of people feel like moving to the beat, which is dancing. Kuronue | Talk 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a theory that dancing is a form of courtship display. According to this theory, coordinated movement is a sign of physical prowess and probably correlates with a reliable genome. Marco polo (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was best stated in Shall We Dance? (2004 film): "The rumba is the vertical expression of a horizontal wish. You have to hold her, like the skin on her thigh is your reason for living. Let her go, like your heart's being ripped from your chest. Throw her back, like you're going to have your way with her right here on the dance floor. And then finish, like she's ruined you for life." --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When encouraged to "shake it, shake it, shake it" I have at times obliged and shook it. Inexplicably, it can be a fabulous experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.246.106 (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Gadget's response - forget the dancing - the description is a real turn on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.86 (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same names[edit]

Hi, is there a word for 'people with identical names'? as we'd like to set up a global social network group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.20.27 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namesakes. --Anonymous, 01:42 UTC, November 24, 2007.

That's almost always used for people who are named after each other, but the wiktionary article has a list of words in other languages that always, unambiguously mean 'having the same name'. I'd say borrow from one of those. :) --Masamage ♫ 01:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought two persons sharing the same name were homonyms but the article doesn't mention people~. I guess following the definition it could still apply, only it would be applying to the name and not the person (?)(that doesn't make sense). Keria (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Homonyms are words, not groups of words. In "Bill Smith" and "Bill Smith", the names of 2 different people, the "Bill"s are homonyms and the "Smith"s are homonyms, but the "Bill Smith"s are not. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, the literal translation of "homonym" is "same name". --Masamage ♫ 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A guy called Dave Gorman searched for all the people with that name and wrote a book about it.He might have a name for it...hotclaws 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call it the "Doppel Gang". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! --Masamage ♫ 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]