Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 October 16

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.

October 16

Female teacher who died in a blizzard

I'm searching for the name of a young female school teacher who died in a blizzard in South Dakota, about 1963. I remember it being in the news. Years later, I was working in a paint factory, in South El Monte, CA., and a fellow worker told me that that lady was his sister. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.136.64 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I searched Google News archives and did not find the particular story you asked about. There were blizzards or severe snow storms in South Dakota in at least January, February, March and December 1963. In January a child died [1]. The SD teacher's blizzard death might have been covered in SD papers without making it into the papers indexed online. Edison (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You could try a library in the state, or maybe the state historical society. They might have something in a clippings file on blizzards and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Grammar ("whose" for "of which")

So we say "a girl whose hair shines like gold". Whose is something that's used for animate objects. And we say "a lamp-post that's covered with slime". But suppose we had to say something like "a book <whose> cover was stamped with gold letters". What would we use in place of whose? La Alquimista 11:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's "correct" English to say "the cover of which", but for want of a symmetical term many people will say "whose" regardless. Or someone will subtly restructure to avoid the issue - "a book, its cover stamped with gold letters". 87.113.178.42 (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly "correct" English to use "whose" for inanimate objects in this way - a well-established usage going back centuries. E.g. Hamlet Act 1, Scene 5: 'I could a tale unfold whose lightest word/Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood'; or Paradise Lost: 'Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit/Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste/Brought death into the world'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! If Shakespeare and Milton could, then I mighty well can too! ^_^ La Alquimista 13:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And the Bible too (KJV): Genesis 11:4 'And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven;' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Roughly contemporary with Shakespeare, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• A search on whose at google gives a derivation of hwæs > whose, with hwæs being the genitive of both hwa ("who") and hwæt ("what"). See also this declension. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm guessing the "prohibition" on using 'whose' for inanimates on the basis that the subject would not take 'who' but 'which', came from the same twisted logic school of thought that proscribed the split infinitive in English (which uses a two-word infinitive, so to speak) on the basis that they would never do that in Latin. Well, a moment's thought reveals the latinophones couldn't split their infinitives, because they only had a one-effing-word infinitive. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

But in Latin the genitive of both quis and quod is cuius, so if such an argument was ever advanced, it was erroneous. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note, however, that our article on split infinitive, subsection the argument from classical languages, calls this particular criticism of that prescriptive rule a straw man argument, "as very few proponents of the rule argue from Latin in any case. Certainly, it is clear that dislike of the split infinitive does not originate from Latin. As shown above, none of the prescriptivists who started the split-infinitive controversy in the 19th century mentioned Latin in connection with it. Occasionally teachers and bloggers can be found who do oppose the split infinitive with such an argument, but it is not found in any statements of the position from the 19th or early 20th century, when the prohibition developed. [...]." ---Sluzzelin talk 20:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Serves me right for guessing. Feel free to slap my wrist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

More good news! If your befouled lamp-post needed the possessive too, you could say "A lamp-post whose surface is covered with slime" without guilt or sleepless nights. - Karenjc (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rhythms del Mundo

Can anybody find out if U2 really played the cover of Still Haven't Found with Coco Freeman. I mean, if they recorded in the same studio together? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia in a novel

Is it ok/legal to mention or talk about Wikipedia in a novel? Even if it is an important part of the plot. Just curiosity. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You can legally (in the U.S.... Your local laws may vary) mention almost anything in a novel. See Freedom of speech in the United States. However, if you aren't living in the U.S., your rights may be restricted by local censorship laws. --Jayron32 18:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What I meant to say was the following: If I write about some girl slept with X (being X a huge celebrity) X is probably going to sue me. So I was wondering the same thing about Wikipedia (not the part where the girl sleep with Wikipedia (O_o), o' course.) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How is asking whether something is legal not a request for legal advice? Wikipedia is a trademark owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Their trademark policy is available but doesn't really address the issue. Whether or not a particular usage will be legal will most likely depend on the usage as well as the nature of the work. Contacting the Foundation regarding your intend usage would be the safest course of action, short of consulting a lawyer. In case you can't access the page, their e-mail address is trademark@wikimedia.org Effovex (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with above, speaking hypothetically tho you can actually get sued for anything, even very frivolous things and you will have to defend that in court for months or possibly years. There are dozens of things a "organization" can sue for including even stuff like defamation and non-payment of rights etc. The worse thing tho in using litigation to tie you up for years on several legal issues some legit some only ruled not legit after a long struggle with lawyers and courts. Long answer short, better to use a fictional name unless you went to law school or have a law firm on retainer for years. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly as Effovex says... in pretty much any situation regarding stuff online, it's best to "when in doubt, contact them directly" - which is what you should do. Though I don't know who would be able to help with the sleeping with Wikipedia part. Alas... ;) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow... I am not writting about that. I was just curious. Sorry the misunderstanding. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

copyright question

I hope to write a how-to book about using various electronic musical keyboards. May I use pictures ("screenshots") of their display screens and panel controls without having to obtain permission from the manufacturer?108.70.139.129 (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, and most importantly, we cannot offer legal advice. Here is an information page for how such screenshots are used on wikipedia under a fair use rationale. The fair use justification for a book, that is offered for sale, is likely to be much more restricted since at least under US law, one of the criterion considered is whether the use for non-profit educational purpose alone, or for a project of a commercial nature. There may be additional issues with regard to trademark law, that may require you to obtain permission and/or add disclaimers in your book. In short: get proper legal advice from a copyright attorney or through your publisher, and don't rely on anonymous online opinion. Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Cross between a building and a tent?

When I look back at old photos of the gold-rush era Wild West, I see that many buildings had low wooden walls with a tent-like canvas roof...often with a large, more impressive, wooden frontage. You also see lots of buildings under construction with temporary canvas roofs...but I don't think those are the same thing.

I'm not having much luck finding a word for these things - which makes a google search more or less impossible. Any ideas?

Better still, I'm interested in the construction details - were they a standardized prefabricated thing (maybe ex-Civil War army surplus?), or were they assembled in an ad-hoc fashion on-site?

TIA

SteveBaker (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain what you are seeing, these are wooden structures for the roof or an actual leather or cloth like canvas? I will continue searching but my first thought on this was the Wild West Tech episode which covers some common construction techniques. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds somewhat like a Lean-to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's discussed at this forum, with particularly insightful(?) comments by "Kevin 2". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The article Mark Twain’s Aurora Cabins talks about the "Typical Miner's Cabin". "The roof is made of clap-boards, or rough shingles, brush-wood covered with sod, canvas, or any thing else that may be available." "The cabin in the photo is a typical miner’s cabin from the early 1860s. It was supposedly located somewhere in Aurora and appears to have a canvas roof and stacked stone and log siding like those occupied by Clemens." Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

One good place to see one is in the TV series "Deadwood" where the Nuttal & Mann's Saloon is constructed like that (that's the place where Wild Bill Hickok was shot & killed). That show is usually spot-on accurate.

But it sounds like there are two different things going on here:

1. Wooden walls, canvas roof.
2. Wooden walls, wooden roof - canvas fixed over the wood to make it more waterproof.

That seems to be backed up by the survivalist forum guys. I don't see the Wild West Tech TV show on any of the online video services - and I'm for-sure not paying Amazon $22 for one episode of a B-grade TV show on DVD!

We have an article: Board and Batten Miners Cabin - but it's no help whatever!

I did find someone selling a model of the kind of thing I'm thinking of:

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/GOLD-MINERS-CANVAS-ROOF-Tent-Cabin-Timber-Hut-6x4x3-5cm-HO-1-87-Scale-Resin-18-/320919802999

But my original questions remain - what are they called (if anything) and were they intended to be portable?

SteveBaker (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Check out the Shack article. At the bottom are many type of portable/non-portable dwellings. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)