Miscellaneous desk
< February 2	<< Jan | February | Mar >>	February 4 >

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.

In the Amazing Race articles on each season, there would be a map showing the places where the race will be set in, e.g. here. I looked up the blank map and got the image file. So how can I edit (and what do I use) to edit the image to look something like this (e.g. arrows pointing to different places on the world map with a dot showing the exact location and a blue background on the country of which the dot is placed on)? Thanks Koopatrev (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That rather looks like it was done with Microsoft Paint, using the fill tool to set the color of selected nations to blue, the curve tool to draw the connections, etc. Note that this is a rather crude way to do it, as the routes should properly be great circle routes projected onto the plane of the map. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making things like diagrams (for Wikipedia) using a paint program is a really bad idea. It would be better to use a vector art program such as Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator which produce resolution-independent pictures that are much easier for other people to improve, re-use and add to. Is there an SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics) version of that map someplace? Wikicommons has all sorts of maps in SVG format to use as a starting point. SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through card games on Wikipedia and tried searching for this game but found nothing. I also searched the web and only found a few questions about it and someone describing how to play it. I would like if someone could help add this card game to Wikipedia. I could not find any sources for it. I did not make this game - someone taught it to me, and someone had taught it to them. Not sure if this game has any other names.

Found an explanation of the game here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090705133126AAj9b4k

Here is their explanation of it:

Tic is really fun! Any number of people can play, just add another deck of cards as needed. It does get kinda slow with huge amounts though. Generally you use 2 decks for 3-6 players. Leave the jokers in the deck. You play in rounds, the first round everyone gets 3 cards. The dealer turns over the top card. The person to the left of the dealer can either pick up that card or draw a different one, then discard one, always keeping 3 cards in their hand. The object of the game is to get the cards in your hand into sets, either triples of the same card, or a suited run of three cards. This is the fun part: 3s are wild, and jokers are wild. After someone gets a set of 3, they lay down their set and call "tic". THEN everyone else gets one last chance to play, either taking a card off the top of the discard or from the deck and then discarding. If they get a set of cards, those cards DO NOT count against them. If you have cards in your hand not in a set after your turn, you add up all the points of the cards. Number cards are the same points as on the card, face cards are all worth 10 points, Aces are worth 15, and wilds are 25. So if you can't use your wild get rid of it! When everyone has discarded and added up their points, the round is over. The next round begins with 4 cards in your hands, and 4s and jokers are wild. You play the same way.. except you have to all your cards in sets of AT LEAST 3, so for this round and for round 5 you will have sets of 4 and 5. Again, everyone gets a chance to discard one last time after someone gets tic. Sometimes it is better to get rid of high cards (like aces) on your last turn than to go for a set. If you have a set of at least 3, it will not count against you. So if someone calls tic in round 4 and you have a set of 3 anything, and an ace, get rid of the ace. You want the lowest score possible! So a hand full of low cards is better than a set and extra high cards. When you get to the round with 6 cards, 6s are wild, and now you can have 2 sets of 3 to get tic (or 1 set of 6). The round with 7 cards, 7 are wild, and so on.. sets of at least 3 never count against you, add up all the cards not in sets. There will be 15 ROUNDS! Every round, the number of cards goes up and the wild card goes up. The second to last round aces are wild, the very last round, 2s are wild! After 15 rounds whoever has the lowest score wins! At round 15 you can have 5 sets of 3 to get tic. Awesome. Really fun game, enjoy! Coty9090 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find sources, then the game fails WP:GNG and is not suitable for Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know about The Candle Lamp Company, Peekskill, NY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulie12 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the company you mean? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how SodaStream was able to create the banned commercial featuring both Coke and Pepsi -- isn't it impermissible to feature another's product, especially in a mocking or scandalous fashion? Or is it merely a play on our expectations, in that we just think it's so clearly presenting Coke and Pepsi, and really, the logos are partially obscured and the drivers are really just wearing red and blue? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very broad question. There may be legislative jurisdictions where it is illegal to mention another company's product in your own advertising, but as a general rule of thumb I don't think there's any such prohibition.

But you're right that it's unusual, if only because to mention the other guy at all in your own advertising is to give a free plug to them, and smart marketers know this. That's what "suggestion" really means. It's usually taken to mean more like "recommendation", but to mention something at all is to put into the minds of the listener/reader something that may not have been there before. To mention Pepsi in a Coke ad, even if done to disparage Pepsi, is to suggest Pepsi.

This, for example, is why it's really dumb to say "Don't forget to ...". The listener may never have had any intention to forget whatever it was, but now that the concept has been raised, forgetting might well become exactly what they'll do. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about that last statement, Jack. I trust it's not necessary to prove that people frequently forget things that they have no intention of forgetting (spouse's birthday, buying milk, etc.) even when they haven't been issued a "Don't forget to..." suggestion. Is such a reminder, phrased in that way, really worse than no reminder at all? Have any studies been done which demonstrate an increased propensity for forgetting following such a suggestion? I'm quite curious to see such research. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the same category as the First Lady not saying to the President in the morning, "See you for dinner, honey. Don't press the nuclear button and blow up North Korea or anything". Or a parent who's watching their child ride a bike unaided for the very first time, does not say "Don't fall off and smash your teeth and break your bones". Here are some hits I found - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] - the latter don't qualify as research per se. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting, but only one (this page) happens to mention an instruction to not forget something, and as you say, it's far from any sort of real research. It also discusses it in the context of advertising, where the intent is presumably to influence the reader to do something they they didn't previously plan to do, or to make them aware of an event or product of which they were previously unaware. The nub of the problem is whether or not forgetting, in the circumstance you originally discussed, is a 'positive' act that can be consciously or subconsciously influenced by the mention of forgetting. The essence of some of those articles that you linked to is that the brain tends to get sloppy when given negatively phrased instructions— "Don't do this" gets initially parsed as "Do this". But what happens with the double negative of the 'don't forget' formulation? Does the brain hear "Don't forget to buy milk!" as "Don't Forget to buy milk!" or as "Don't forget to Buy milk!"

Getting back to mentioning competitors in ads, I doubt that you'll find Pepsi running ad copy reading either "Forget Coca-Cola!" or "Don't forget Coca-Cola!" — either way, I'm coming away from the page thinking about Coke. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many lines do the actors have in an average coke commercial? :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword you're looking for is comparative advertising. (Unfortunately, our article needs some work.) The laws regarding the use of other company's brand names, trademarks, symbols, etc. in advertising vary quite a bit by jurisdiction. In the United States, it is permissible to directly and openly compare one's own product to those of one's competitors (c.f. Pepsi Challenge). However, the claims in such advertising (and in all advertising) are governed by the rules and regulations of the Federal Trade Commission; misleading or dishonest comparisons are barred. Other countries and cultures will have different rules and/or attitudes regarding comparative advertising. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the commercial you're referring to, but FYI Coke and Pepsi have crossed over in the past. There was a Pepsi commercial featuring a Coca-Cola delivery driver stopping to sate himself with some forbidden Pepsi (IIRC, it may have been vice versa; this was more than a decade ago). Matt Deres (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi did this with the Pepsi Challenge adverts years ago. Also, the "I'm a Mac" adverts did the same. Linux came up with the novel idea of using that advert itself to promote its own product, having three characters on the stage. It's not illegal. It's probably illegal to actually show the rival's product's logo or packaging, but certainly not illegal to mention them in some way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please not engage in off-the-cuff speculation about what is legal and what is not? The article on comparative advertising which I linked to yesterday touches on the legality of using other companies' trademarks in advertising. This varies by jurisdiction, but the use of other companies' trademarks is legal (with unsurprising caveats on uncertain, misleading, deceptive, or untruthful claims) in advertising in the U.S. and the U.K. and probably many other places. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks! I have been searching for references and any known knowledge on a set of colletible plates that I have recently came across. They date back to the early 1920's and were put out once yearly up to and including 1986. They may possibly still be put out to this day I am not sure. On most of them it says: Lake Shore Pioneer Chapter NY Central Veterans around the lip of the plate then on the bottom it says Cedar Point and the year such as 1955 then a few are commemorative of such things as End of the Line 1908-1979 with the same around the lip of the plate. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooster914 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few for sale on ebay - a guess something produced for employees/enthusiasts of the railway line? Lake_Shore_Limited New York Central ---- _nonsense ferret 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched on the Internet to see if I could clarify this doubt of mine but I have found different opinions. Some say black, others red, some gray, others green... Hopefully you can provide me with a definite answer to this question. Thanks in advance. --190.19.95.159 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colour of paint? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Color of crayon? Light? Ink? Ketchup? M&M? Money? Dismas|^(talk) 21:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly obviously, the natural color of whatever material we're talking about here! SteveBaker (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my question was not clear enough. I am not talking about any particular material, but rather about all of the colors that can be produced using any means. --190.19.95.159 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is most certainly not clear enough - even with this clarification! Are you talking about paint colors? Dye colors? Light source colors? The answer is dramatically different depending on what you're asking about. We can probably tell you whether white paint is cheaper than red paint (although the answer might be complicated by whether you need a very precise shade of red - or whether it has to be glossy or flat) - but if you're talking about coloring cloth, then bleaching it white might be cheaper than dying it red. Making white plastic might be more expensive than red plastic...but that's not related to whether red is cheaper or more expensive than white in a paint or a dye. The material that's being colored (and how, and why) is a critical part of the answer. We really need a clearer question here! SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, historically, red paint was cheapest, which explains why it was used on things like barns, which needed a lot of paint to protect the wood, but which weren't exactly fashion statements, so the farmers used the cheapest paint they could find. Don't know if it's still the cheapest color, though.

Another issue is coverage. When painting with white paint over a bright background, some would likely show through, unless you used multiple coats or primer. Darker colors, on the other hand, could be used with fewer coats. This would affect total cost. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black, because soot is free? Dbfirs 07:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rust is also "free" - and Iron Oxide is what was used to paint those red barns. SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ochre is also free.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But red dye for clothes was expensive. According to Cochineal it was used for dyeing the clothes of kings, nobles and the clergy. So I don't think that there's a general answer to the OP's question. Sjö (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By amount of colour I'd say - Blue for the sky and the sea. Yellow for the sun. Black for space. Just to go up in increasing sizes of areas covered. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green. Just leave whatever you want to color green in a damp spot in the woods and wait until mold and moss have covered it. Cost=zero. Sjö (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But waiting involves time, and time = money. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. Einstein proved it.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically speaking, the most expensive colors were blue and purple, because the dyes used to create them were expensive to manufacture. In ancient times, purple dyes in the Mediterranean region typically originated from Phoenecia, where shells of the Murex sea snail were processed by the hundreds into small quantities of Tyrian purple. This is why people in the West sometimes associate the color purple with royalty: it was a costly color to use, and only the aristocracy could afford it. Blue has a similar history: blue pigment is not common in nature, and certain hues became symbols of status in and of themselves in the ancient world. Perhaps most notably, ancient Egyptians often used blue pigment created from Lapis lazuli stones for decoration, though the import was so costly and the color so important to their culture that they eventually developed a synthetic replacement.

However, in modern times, pigments are generally industrially produced and are often synthetic, so the price between different colors doesn't vary much. In addition, colors that were pricey in Europe at any given time were more available elsewhere and vice versa, so economic globalization brings us a much wider range of colors at a lower cost, unlike the ancient Greeks, who had to pay big money for a little tint. —Rutebega (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The royal houses of Europe must have been seriously miffed when a clever German boffin worked out how to make purple dye from coal. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most people these days associate the color purple only with Hollywood royalty, not real royalty. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]