Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 January 11

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 11

Online word count software with specific parameters

Are there any programs available for free on the internet which can perform a word count of a piece of text in which the words "and" and "the", as well as any words shorter than two letters, are not counted?--142.166.223.135 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the piece of text in a text file or on a web page. If it's on a web page it will count image captions and headings and sub headings. I also forsee problems on a web page. The only words shorter than two letters are words one letter long.
Sleigh (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be easiest to copy and paste into a word processor and then use find and replace to change 'and' and 'the' (and 2 letter words) to a space or remove them altogether. Then you can just do a word count the normal way. SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

traduction

comment obtenir la version en langue française ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.153.73 (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. Ecoute. La version de Wikipedia en langue Francaise est ici: [1]. Le Reference Desk en langue Francaise est ici: [2]. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe fr:traduction. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Traduce: "To cause humiliation or disgrace to by making malicious and false statements." Free Online Dictionary. Edison (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hermann, Engels, Man Syndrome

Dear Wikipedians, I notice that there are lots of two name (normally two people) things where one of the two has been largely forgotten by history/the masses. Chomsky published much of his work which made his name with Hermann, Marx wrote with Engels and The Booker Prize is sponsored by Man Group (though that's more well known, but you get the point). My question is, is there a specific name for this thing, where one half of a famous pair is simply forgotten over time? Prokhorovka (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd sure be interested to know. I guess it's mainly a case of two or more people working together on some enterprise, but then (presumably because our the quirks of our brains) a single person (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jimmy Wales, whoever) comes to represent the whole enterprise in the popular imagination. Associating a single person with an enterprise is a very widespread notion, I think. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And is it always the first mentioned that gets remembered? Marx and Engels, Jobs and Wozniak, Simon and Garfunkel, etc? Or is it just that the first mentioned is first mentioned for a reason, e.g., more talented, more extroverted, in general more likely to 'succeed' or to get themselves noticed, which may then explain why they are the one that is remembered? (And BTW I don't think the Man Booker Prize actually fits here - as Booker_prize#History_and_administration tells us, rather than being "forgotten over time", the Man Group is very much a Johnny-come-lately to that and IMO deserves its current relegation.) --jjron (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) The Booker Prize naming is a different issue: the common phenomenon where something is referred to by its old name even when that thing is renamed. The Man Group has only sponsored the prize for a small, recent, part of its history (cf the Mercury Music Prize which is now the Barclaycard Mercury Music Prize). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan well and truly breaks the mold here. Operas are normally far more associated with the composers of their music (Verdi, Puccini, Rossini, Bizet, Mozart ...) than with their librettists (Cammarano, Barbier, Boito ...). In fact, the librettists rarely get a look in at all. It's just "Verdi's Whatever". But the librettist Gilbert gets mentioned, and mentioned first, each and every time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because in G&S, unlike in conventional opera, you can actually make out the words. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that was ILL, Trovatore. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Straight into that funeral pyre for him. :) It's probably because being able to make out the words is so crucial to the point of G&S, namely sharp political satire, that they got relegated in the popular mind from operas proper to "Savoy operas" or even "operettas". All terribly snobbish, the very sort of pompous thing they were trying to deflate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My favorite is the Cyrillic alphabet - which developed out of the Glagolitic alphabet designed by Ss. Cyrill and Methodius. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded of a cartoon in which Ziggy is at the "Questions" counter at Sears and asks, "Whatever happened to Roebuck?" -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

George Carlin once pointed out in reference to the music called Rock, "Whatever happened to Roll?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Music historians recognize a distinction between "rock music" and "rock and roll music". Rock and roll is generally confined to the music of the 1950s-1960s, with rock music being a distinct genre to develop later out of rock and roll, and which some consider to be a larger genre of which "rock and roll" is a subgenre. See Rock and roll, rock music. The TV series Seven Ages of Rock notably starts in the late 1960s with Jimi Hendrix, The Who, and the Rolling Stones (there were two different first episodes, an American and a British one, but they both started around the same time). Few people would describe, say, Guns and Roses as a "rock and roll band", but they are clearly a "rock band". --Jayron32 02:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that this distinction between "rock music" and "rock and roll" is not something that most people would be familiar with; I had never heard of it until I saw it on Wikipedia. At least in America, "rock and roll" is often used to encompass everything that has descended from the interplay between rhythm & blues and country music in the 50s, no matter how distant it seems from Bill Haley. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's membership includes everything from Neil Diamond to Run-DMC and, yes, Guns & Roses. I was watching a documentary about rap history, and Ice-T claimed that "rap is rock & roll." By that he didn't mean that it's something Buddy Holly would recognize but rather that it shares a musical and cultural lineage (especially its provocative anti-authoritarianism) with other descendents of the original "rock & roll." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the distinction. Perhaps it might be said that all Rock is Rock and Roll, but not all Rock and Roll is Rock. Still, then, why drop the roll? What did it ever do to hurt anybody? :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think those who make the distinction make it in the reverse direction: The Big Bopper is "rock", but Pink Floyd is not "rock and roll". But it's still rock and roll to Billy Joel, and I agree with him — and underrated and perspicacious commentator. --Trovatore (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the answers, but would a fair summary be that basically, no, there is no specific name for this phenomenon? Prokhorovka (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There are verbs, such as overshadow (where the forgotten person is forgotten unfairly) and outshine (where the forgotten person more or less deserved it). Other than that, probably not - such names for it as have been made up would, I think, be revealed by a web search for Simon Garfunkel Sears Roebuck. I found a post on the Straight Dope messageboard promoting "to garfunkel" as a verb [3], and TVTropes has "Stuck In Their Shadow" [4] and "Garfunkel" [5].  Card Zero  (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands

In your listing of accomplished Canadians who are immigrants from the Netherlands, you show Romeo Dallaire a retired general and serving senator. You seem to have missed me--Lieutenant-General L.W.F. Cuppens CMM CD born in Nijmegen 3 Dec 1944, and Lieutenant-General Jan Aarp also born in the Netherlands.

I am quite proud of my Netherlands ancestery. My father Frans Cuppens was a renowned stained glass window maker in Atlantic Canada. He passed away in 1986. I would appreciate my name being listed with the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.201.234 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has only one article at present about anyone named Cuppens, from any country - Kris Cuppens, a Belgian actor. An article about the person concerned must exist before they can be added to such lists. Roger (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this may be the first time a three-star general has posted to the Reference Desk. As Roger says, it's probably best to limit these lists to people who already have an article, although I see that hasn't been followed completely on the page Canadians of Dutch descent. There are already at least 150 Wikipedia articles on Canadian generals ([6]), although it appears most of them either served during the world wars or were famous for additional reasons. Whether an article on you would be appropriate for Wikipedia would really depend on how much has been written about you in third-party sources. It's generally considered bad form to write an article about yourself. You can try suggesting an article about yourself at the "requested articles" page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No disrespect to the General, but we know for a fact (or, almost a fact) that the Queen answers questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desks in her spare time (and may even ask a question or two now and then). We really ought to include her in as a Reference Desk Regular.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see it now: Hello, this is the Queen. I'd like to know what Wikipedia thinks I should do about my eldest son Charles. He's simply awful.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What's a "small gold compact" that the Queen apparently carries in her handbag? Neither of the links in the original question were valid any more. A compact camera? A compact pistol? JIP | Talk 15:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See Compact (cosmetics). --Tango (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

HS1 and HS2

Objections to the proposed HS2 rail link have been very much in the news recently in the UK. However, I cannot recall any comparable controversy surrounding HS1 which was built only a few years ago. (Admittedly HS1 is only just over half the length of HS2, but people in the UK are usually quick to object to anything new.) No objection or controversy is mentioned in our article. Were there any or do I just have a very short memory?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly remember some annoyed houseowners in Kent who were forced to move, including at least one or two cottages who refused to and at points were not unlike Chinese nail houses. For the most part though people seemed indifferent or supportive, and certainly at our country village primary school where the line bulldozed past, we were all happy to be winners of county-wide billboard competition, creating adverts for the line (as a regular user of HS1, I definately appreciate it to this day, too). Despite all this, I'm struggling to find sources one way or another from before its construction, though there has been criticism afterwards such as this and this. Following leads from the High Speed 1 article, CNN mentions some homeowner anger briefly but that seems almost it --iamajpeg (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the controversy over HS2 is amplified by two factors: firstly, the dire economic situation the UK finds itself in: however can we afford to spend billions of pounds on a railway when we can't even afford to feed cancer patients? Secondly, the proposed route for HS2 goes through many Tory-held constituencies, whose residents feel betrayed by the government they helped elect. There aren't as many constituencies in Kent, which is a single county. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Back when it was called the Channel Tunnel Rail Link there were quite a few objections from people living in East London over the tunnelling needed to get from Kent to St Pancras - partly because of noise, partly because of subsidence problems. Smurrayinchester 20:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

'The United Kingdom, Principality and Province'?

With the upcoming possibility of Scottish Independence, has there been any discussion on potential effects on the the rump of the United Kingdom? For example, off the top of my head:

• Northern Ireland would seem to be more isolated from its union brothers on Great Britain than ever before (and arguably, culturally, is Northern Ireland closer in some ways to Scotland than England and Wales anyway?).

• The name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland seems a bit odd if it only has one kingdom left in it and half of Great Britain.

• There, presumably, would be some effect on finances, whether positively through less Calman Commission payments and other payments, or, more likely, negatively with the loss of tax revenue and presumably a portion of North Sea Oil (though I can't imagine Westminster just voluntarily ceding the entirity of it).

• The potential reduction of the sterling zone and increasing encirclement of the euro, should, as some sources have speculated, Westminster refuse to let Scotland keep the pound.

• Royal issues - seeing as the SNP want to keep the monarchy - such as the Queen's new role as Queen of Scotland taking her, presumably, out of the UK more often, and her succession.

I'm just looking for discussion of this by respectable publications but they all seem to focus on the effects of independence on Scotland itself. Thanks! --iamajpeg (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that it's mostly written from Scotland's perspective; I guess that you can kinda infer the rump UK's perspective by subtraction (discounting synergy: see later). Regarding the disposition of oil, It's Scotland's oil#Recent evidence talks about the disposition of a likely settlement of seafloor and concomitant oil reserves, from decades ago, which was in Scotland's favour (and thus to the rump UK's disadvantage, had there been independence then). Right now that's less important, as North Sea oil revenues aren't what they were. There's currently exploration off Shetland and north of Scotland - who knows what contribution that would make to the UKs, or Scotland's, exchequer. A lot of the answer to your question depends on synergy: on whether an independent Scotland would be a member of institutions like EFTA, the EU, the Euro, the CTA, Schengen, and NATO. This story says UK government lawyers say Scotland wouldn't automatically become an EU member on independence day (but MRDA); apparently the Scottish government commissioned advice in the same regard, but I don't think it has published that (ref). It's hard to get a straight answer as to what Scotland's budget would look like (from which you can infer the net effect on the rump UK's) - The Telegraph says Scotland would be £142B in the hole here (hmm, MRDA too) but the Daily Record says £4B here (bah, from now on just imagine MRDA after every sentence) John Kay, an adviser to the SNP, notes in The Scotsman that "In the modern world, economic sovereignty for small nations is inescapably limited, and political sovereignty is largely symbolic." -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My TL;DR for that is "clearly no-one has a real clue what the effect would be on Scotland; that can't but mean no-one has a clue what the effect would be on the UK either". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the OP's second point: the United Kingdom only has one kingdom in it currently. The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist upon the Union and later the Kingdom of Ireland also became part of the same one kingdom. (Obviously his point that with a separate Scotland the whole of Great Britain would not be part of the kingdom - and its name would therefore be odd - is correct). Valiantis (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to get sidetracked, but the one reason I wasn't sure if that was true was the Channel Islands, which I always heard were part of the English Crown and not any British one; indeed looking at the Monarchy's website still says the Channel Islands are 'dependent territories of the English Crown' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamajpeg (talk • contribs) 00:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

[Fixed the indent] Good question about the Channel Islands (to continue being sidetracked). However, I put little faith in the legal accuracy of the Monarchy's website!. WP's Channel Island's article states that since Henry III of England relinquished his claim to the Duchy of Normandy, whilst retaining the Channel Islands which had been part of the Duchy, they "have been governed as possessions of the Crown separate from the Kingdom of England and its successor kingdoms of Great Britain and the United Kingdom." As the Crown exists separately in each nation state, federal state, or other quasi-independent territory which has the monarch as its head - the Crown in right of the United Kingdom, the Crown in right of Jersey, the Crown in right of Ontario etc. - I'm not sure there can be an English Crown anymore as there is no English state. In addition, the Crown is not synonymous with a kingdom; there is no Kingdom of Jersey or of Ontario, so even if there is a "Crown in right of England", it doesn't follow that there is still a Kingdom of England. Valiantis (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth reigns in the Channel Islands as the Duke of Normandy. It is a completely distinct and independent title from the United Kingdom titles, and also is seperate from her various Commonwealth titles (i.e. Queen of Canada, etc.) The Channel Islands, for example, do not come under the Statute of Westminster 1931. Ostensibly, the 16 Commonwealth Parliaments of whom she is Monarch could simultaneously abolish the monarchy; she'd still be Duke of Normandy (note: not Duchess of Normandy) --Jayron32 02:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, but the issue the OP raised is not about the Channel Islands being in the UK (it's not), but that the royal.gov.uk website refers to "the English Crown" (as it happens in reference to the Channel Islands but that is not the salient point). The question is "is there still an English Crown and if so is there still, in some sense, a Kingdom of England?". I'm saying there is no Kingdom of England and even if there is an "English Crown" this doesn't mean there must be a Kingdom of England. However, I happen to think that the reference on royal.gov.uk to "the English Crown" is in any case just sloppiness (although I would be interested if anyone knows differently). Apologies if my ramblings in the previous post were unclear! Valiantis (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So, how about the Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland? Or even the Kingdom of the English, Welsh and Northern Irelanders, or KEWNI for short (cf. Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think people overestimate the consequences. Royalty: simple, the Queen will be queen of Scotland with the same succession rules. She is already queen of 16 countries in the world, that will simply be the 17th. Membership to the EU: I really see no problem there, it can be done within a year. It isn't like if Ukraine was applying they are already in it! Currency: they can keep the pound, Westminster cannot prevent them from doing so. That is the point of being independant. They have been printing their own Scottish pounds for ages, it will be messy, but easier than switching to the Euro, all they have to do is pass a law in parliament that says that the Scotish pound is pegged 1:1 to the British pound and also that the British has legal tender in Scotland. Finances: yes, there will be some negociation with Westminster, and some settlement. Like for anything else between different coutries who have common interests... Again, all this can be sorted with discussions. Northen Ireland will be in a strange situation, I guess they will also consider more independance, possibly start a plan to achieve full independance. --Lgriot (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Scottish notes are issued by Scottish banks, and not by the Bank of England, and are not "legal tender" in England. IIRC, when the pound coin was issued, the Scottish banknotes were removed from circulation? The main point, though, is that they were US-sized money, and not the huge notes from the BoE. NI banks also issue notes. Guernsey, Jersey and Man issue government notes if Wikipedia is trustable on this. Collect (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Scottish bank notes are not legal tender in Scotland either: "These are the recognised currency in Scotland, but are not legal tender". Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the currency issue is quite so straightforward - instead of a unilateral adoption of the pound, Scotland and the rump UK could form an official Currency union. It is also conceivable that the UK could object to a unilateral adoption of the pound, harming relations and potentially leading to sanctions. As I understand it, though, under current EU treaties, any new members must join the Euro as soon as they are eligible. Of course, there is no reason why EU members couldn't agree to an exception in this case (though, presumably that would require renegotiation of treaties). 130.88.99.231 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the currency issue is very important and not straightforward. Legal tender laws are economically meaningless. What counts is what states accept as payments to themselves, and what they can issue. An independent Scotland could not make Britain accept Scottish currency. Scotland most certainly could NOT just keep the British pound and issue it themselves - that would be counterfeiting. On the other hand, a peg to the British pound would make Scotland dependent on acquiring British pounds - so it's something Scots might reasonably object to, not Britain. The Eurocracy is plunging the Eurozone into a completely unnecessary crises. The UK wisely kept out of the Euro suicide pact, but prefers to engage in its own home-grown, only a little less virulently suicidal economics, rather than having suicide forced on them from abroad. Scots like Alex Salmond seem to not want to suffer under either brand of suicidal austerity "economics". So independence, leading to a Scotland with its own currency, would allow immediate rapid economic growth in Scotland, which would have positive effects on the rump UK. But if leaving the UK meant adoption of the Euro, it would be a catastrophe for Scotland, which would have far less independence, less power to reverse course, to determine its own destiny, than it has now. And the negative effects would then be felt in the rump UK. Of course how existing real assets & financial liabilities are apportioned is very important, particularly if Scotland keeps the British pound in some way, but the future currency system is also crucial. These "details" are important enough to affect any rational informed voter's decision from "Hell, Yes!" to "Hell, No!", so the voters must be given this information in order to make an informed choice, which might not then be too hard, nor would be the prediction of effects on the rump. John Kay's article makes many good points, but the statement on the limitations of sovereignty, the idea that "The reality is that Scotland would gain little by full independence" is necessarily true, repeats a Big Lie, particularly preposterous now. The whole economic point of independence is that Scotland could make its own decisions, not suffer the ones of bigger central monetary & fiscal institutions, whose current destructive innumeracy has few, if any historical equals.

Probably the same OP, but here is another discussion on this question.John Z (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not me, but thanks for the link! Thanks to the other posters too, especially Finlay McWalter and Valantis; well, whatever happens, looks like it's a pretty momentous time! Looks like Northern Ireland and Wales are piping up too, I'm sure more news will come soon. Personally I hope the Union continues but if not good luck to the Scots whatever happens :) --iamajpeg (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

atheletics world records

Can an athelete break more than one distance record in the same race. eg is it possible to break the 1500m record in a one mile race — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.51.121 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides what the rules have to say about the issue, one technical problem is that the athlete's time to 1500m is not timed to the required level of precision during a mile race. Roger (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It can be done in swimming relay races. The first lap is the freestyle, and the participant in the relay team swimming the freestyle leg can be credited with a world record in the 100 meter freestyle. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The only race where this is possible is a relay race, because there is a standing start for the first leg it is possible to set a record time on that leg. I'm not sure whether such records get ratified though. I'll do a bit more digging. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC) It appears from our List of world records in athletics, that Patrick Musyoki set two fastest times (non-IAAF standard race) in the same race: the Berlin Marathon in September 2011. Antalas Grigaliunas also did the same on 12 May 1990 in a walk. Marion Jones is listed as setting best times in the 50m and 60m indoors at the 1999 World Championships, and I presume they were the same race. Lilya Shobukova is listed as repeating Patrick Musyoki's feat at the 2011 Chicago Marathon. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In the old days, US track and field authorities kept records for both meter and yard measurements. At a college track meet in 1935, Jesse Owens ran 220 yards in 20.3 seconds. Not only was that faster than anyone had ever run 220 yards, it was faster than anyone had ever run 200 meters, which is equal to 219 yards. So Owens got credit for 2 records at the same time. Twenty-six minutes later, he did the same in the 220-yard hurdles. Having already tied the world record in the 100-yard dash and set a new long jump record, Owens wound up setting or tying 6 records in four events in little over an hour. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If we think of athlete in the broad sense, this is possible in swimming races. From Kieren Perkins: At the 1994 Commonwealth Games Perkins broke the 400 m, 800 m, and 1500 m freestyle world records. The 800 m record was broken while swimming the 1500 m event. The 400 m record stood until it was broken by fellow Australian Ian Thorpe in 1999, and the 800 m and 1500 m records until 2001 when broken by Thorpe and Grant Hackett respectively. His performances in that year earned him the Male World Swimmer of the Year award from the Swimming World magazine. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

C Registration

Sorry about the vagueness of the question, but here goes: I was watching Keeping Up Appearances a few nights ago on cable. Hyacinth mentions to Richard that one of the neighbours could do *something* (presumably with his car) even though he only had a "C Registration". This caused the audience (laugh track?) to laugh. What is a C Registration? I presume from the context of the conversation it has to do with a car. I'm in Australia not Britain so forgive me if that's common knowledge...I googled it but couldn't find it. 121.44.12.113 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.12.113 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly an age-of-car related joke. See Vehicle_registration_plates_of_the_United_Kingdom#Year_identifiers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

UK editors feel free to correct me, but when the series was shot the prefix letter on vehicle registrations changed each year. A "C" tag would have been issued in 1986, making it and the car old in the early 1990s when the series was shot, and therefore unsatisfactory by Hyacinth's exacting standards. See Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom#1983 to 2001. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No that's pretty much the joke. Bad times in your life if you're watching that...easily the worst 'comedy' show I was subjected to as a young lad (obviously you may enjoy it though so ignore me if so!!). ny156uk (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks all for the quick response. 121.44.12.113 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Very vaguely related, go to about the 8 minute mark of this item,[7] and watch it to the end. If you don't get the joke, report back here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumably something to do with petrol [sic] rationing, but the details elude this Brit. On another note, I bet that one hasn't been re-aired much in the last, oooh, 124 months. {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.53 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, gas rationing. A-cards were very limiting. C-cards were more generous. You can bet that the audiences roared when the cartoon made its debut (much more so, apparently, than would an audience for Keeping Up Appearances). As to whether that cartoon has aired often or at all since 9/11/01, I couldn't say. But it was included on the "Golden Collection" DVD's. Of much greater concern with cartoons has been the rampant ethnic stereotyping that was so common in the old days and is seen as ranging from quaint to offensive to modern eyes. Note also the psychology of the A-card. The A is normally a good thing, and most American cars would have had A-cards, while those mediocre C-cards were really the good ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, if this was to do with petrol rationing and C cards were generous why was it surprising that something could be done even if the person only had a C registration? Are you saying it's part of the comedy in that it sounds to your typical middle clas British person that A is what they want whereas it's actually C? Or is C better then A but still a bit too crap and you wanted F or something? Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is about two unrelated things. The OP's question related to UK vehicle registration plates where Hyacinth is critical of the age of the neighbour's car (the license plate indicates the age of the vehicle). Bugs introduced the Bugs Bunny cartoon and the subsequent discussion about fuel rationing during WWII, probably due to the similar terminology ("C plate"). Astronaut (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)