Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 January 26

= January 26 =

American preference for off-white versus British preference for bright pastel interior painting
My observations may be totally nuts, in which case please tell me. But it seems to me that most American homes I have seen in person, and homes depicted in TV shows that I have seen, have off-white colored walls; while British shows, like Keeping Up Appearances and As Time Goes By have more saturated pastel colors. Is this an accurate perception about which there exists notable commentary? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not accurate. Most houses here are largely off white as well, apart from perhaps one feature wall. The colours you describe would be considered quite old fashioned. Fgf10 (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree with . Bland off white schemes are certainly prevalent in rented properties, but many owner-occupiers prefer bolder colours.  It's difficult to find sources that aren't based on personal opinion or sales pitches, but this article at least attempts to give an overview: "According to George Home, 95% of Brits ‘take risks’ with their interior design schemes, and sales of coloured emulsion paints are up 495% from last year*. These impressive figures show that Britain is certainly ready to make a big, bold statement when it comes to their interiors.  This surge in colour and ‘risk taking’ shows, in my opinion, that we’re ready to have more fun with our homes. It also means that bold colour doesn’t always have to be bright — darker, moody tones are fashionable too.  Interior stylist Sally Cullen suggests that this rise in popularity ‘can be attributed to a rejection of the “blank canvas” look that has been popular in recent years and a move towards a new trend of customising homes in more colourful ways that truly reflect individual tastes, lifestyles and attitudes....".  Without any direct comparisons of paint sales, though, it's difficult to be objective.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bold colours and pastel colours are quite different things in my mind. Maye this where the disagreement comes from. I assumed the OP (given the references) meant the classic lilacs and light greens etc. I still say those would be considered old fashioned, and these days you would be much more likely to see either (off) white or full on colours. Fgf10 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have said saturated. I simply meant boldly unwhite, such as lilac or sea-green, although I think Elizabeth & Emmet's main room is brick red, IIRC. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your observation of British homes is based on 2 programmes that are both quite old, both of which featured characters that are fuddy-duddy. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am older and fuddy-duddier than those shows, FYI. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, fashions in interior design tend to change. Did American houses fifty years ago use saturated pastel colors?   D b f i r s   15:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the 1960s-1970s, many interiors were some combination of avocado green, mustard yellow, and burnt orange. You can see those colors dominate in these images here.  -- Jayron 32 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those pics. I recognise the yellow and orange flowered wallpaper, but can't remember whose wall in the UK I saw it on. ( Not sure that I want to! )   D b f i r s   22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's funny, Jayron, I forgot that the house my parents bought in the early seventies had wax-dripped wallpaper painted avocado green and had orange rugs. But they were very quickly corrected to off-white.  (This may also have to do with the preference for colonials in the Northeast.  There was a lawsuit involved when a neighbour a few blocks away painted his house violet.) My impression of British decorating schemes was not limited to the two shows I mentioned, they were only examples.  But as I said, judging a foreign country by its TV shows may simply be nuts. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Britain's leading paint manufacturer, Dulux, are currently leading on their website a makeover from grey to erm, grey (sorry, "warm pewter" actually). That said, most people's houses here tend to be a bit more colourful than "off-white" unless you're trying to rent your property to somebody else, in which case, magnolia is almost universal. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And a reference for the magnolia obsession is Colour Psychology: Using Magnolia in Interiors. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And finally, if you think that we Britons are fond of bright colours, try a trip to Ireland, but take your sunglasses (also here and here). Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not just Ireland, Alan. In Brighton these are known as "Ewart Street colours" after a particularly jolly street. In interior decoration bright colours, often thought of as "Mexican", particularly purple and orange, were popularised by the 1990s TV makeover show Changing Rooms. Then fashions changed and property gurus like Sarah Beeney strongly advised would-be amateur property developers to stick to the neutrals. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Typical lifespan among the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned from 1230 and 1162 to 1504
What was the typical lifespan among the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned from 1230 and 1162, respectively, to 1504? What was the most common age the majority among them (combined) died at? Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles on every monarch of both of those countries. See List of Castilian monarchs and List of Aragonese monarchs.  If you then click on the name of each monarch, it will take you to their biography, each of which lists the birth and death dates, where known.  See, for example, the first ruler listed at the Kings of Castile, Ferdinand I of León.  If you look in the infobox on the right side, near the bottom, it lists his birth date, his death date, and the age at which he died.  You can research each monarch that way, and then compile the information to answer your question.  I hope that helps!  -- Jayron 32 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I was actually hoping the Wikipedia's reference desk could answer my question. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If someone were to come by to do so, they would have to do exactly what you would need to do. The information is all in each article, someone just has to compile it.  I suppose, someone might get bored and eventually compile it for you, but the likelihood of that happening is low, as (so far) you are the person who is most interested in the information, you are thus the most likely to be willing to put in the effort to compile it from readily available sources.  Thus, it would be faster, and take less time and energy, for you to do it yourself.  It's right there.  The work you're avoiding doing would be what someone else would have to do anyways.  Of course, this is not to prevent anyone from doing it.  Someone might.  If you need the information yourself, however, no one here will prevent you from doing it. -- Jayron 32 00:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you wait for someone else to do it, you're taking the risk that they'll do as good a job of it as you'd like them to. I'm a sloppy worker, easily bored and atrocious at maths. Would you like me to do it? --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Eh, it took five minutes, no big deal:
 * Castile:
 * Alfonso VII 52
 * Sancho III 24
 * Alfonso VIII 58
 * Henry I 13
 * Berengaria 66
 * Ferdinand III 50
 * Alfonso X 62
 * Sancho IV 36
 * Ferdinand IV 26
 * Alfonso XI 38
 * Peter 34
 * Henry II 45
 * John I 32
 * Henry III 27
 * John II 49
 * Henry IV 49
 * Isabella I 53


 * Aragon:
 * Alfonso II 39
 * Peter II 35
 * James I 68
 * Peter III 46
 * Alfonso III 26
 * James II 60
 * Alfonso IV 36
 * Peter IV 67
 * John I 45
 * Martin 53
 * Ferdinand I 35
 * Alfonso V 62
 * John II 81
 * Ferdinand II 63


 * So I guess the "most common age" is roughly "in their 30s" since that's when 8 of them died. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The median is 46, though. —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why I'm an historian, not a mathematician :) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! Now for posterity, we know the lifespan distribution of the monarchs of Castile and the monarchs of Aragon combined who reigned from 1230 and 1162 to 1504, thanks all. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The mode is 49. But I'll refer you back to my earlier disclaimer. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What number of characters becomes "too big" for a novel or TV show?
I was going to post this on the "Entertainment" Help Desk, since my question relates to TV shows and movies. But, it also relates to Literature and books, novels, etc. So I will post it here. Sometimes, a work of art (a TV show, film, novel, etc.) will have a lot of characters, and sometimes only a few characters. When there are a lot of characters (that is, "too many" characters), it is hard for the audience to keep track of things. And it is also harder for the writer to devote time/attention and character development to each character. So, are there any types of studies -- or is there any industry "standard" -- as to what constitutes a good number of characters versus having "too many" (or even "too few", I guess) characters? The conversation came up with regard to the old TV show Head of the Class, where there were about eleven (!) or more "main characters". And also the TV show Eight Is Enough, which had eight kids, plus the other adult characters. These both seem like "too much", and clearly each of the eleven (or eight) characters cannot be developed to any satisfactory degree. Any insights? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It depends on how much of a character's background is relevant for the story. I actually thought 12 Angry Men did a pretty good job in less than 100 minutes depicting 12 distinct characters. - Lindert (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Good example. I haven't seen the film in a long time.  Weren't there really only three or four jurors who were main characters?  And the other seven or eight were much less significant?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Depends on how you define "main". There really was only one main character; The Henry Fonda character.  The rest probably got equal screen time and contributions to the script.  I haven't done a word count, but I don't know that any of the 11 jurors NOT Henry Fonda had any dominant contributions.  But the film does do a good job of developing each of those 11 so they all stand as fairly distinctive.  I can picture each one and his key monologue (each has one) in the film, that's the point of the film: each on had some key personal history that made them misjudge the case; as each becomes convinced to change their mind, you find out that personal history.  -- Jayron 32 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Insofar as one of them has to be the antagonist, I would say it was #3 (Lee J Cobb). But I agree that it wouldn't really work without (at least) #4, #5, #7, #9 and #10.  See Ensemble cast for the relevant article. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends. More characters may be OK, as long as they act in groups.  For example, on The Brady Bunch, plots frequently worked out to "the boys" against "the girls", or "the parents" against "the kids" (with Alice as a bystander or joining one of the sides).  In that case, the viewer didn't need to keep all 9 characters' opinions on an issue straight.  Other episodes focused on a single character or two, so again you didn't need to much worry about the rest.  In a movie you can have more characters, especially if they are separated in space or time.  That is, extra people from a character's childhood, like now dead grandparents, don't cause much confusion.  Another example of a film series with multiple characters is Ocean's 11 and all the remakes/sequels.  What really gets confusing is if they try to cast a "tall woman with curly red hair", and can't decide who to hire for the role, so hire a dozen of them, and create roles for each.  (If you're going to have lots of characters, at least make sure they don't all look alike.) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Various 19th-century (and later) epic novels recognise the issue of "too many characters for the reader to keep track of", by including a sort of "who's who" list at the front, showing their connections one to another. War and Peace is the perfect example.  It's been a long time since I tried, and failed, to read Les Misérables, but I think a remember the same list there.  And anything involving the Roman Empire.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you mean non-fiction (or maybe "inspired by real life"), then yes, real life has too many characters to keep track of in a work of fiction. Sometimes this is handled by combining the features of similar people into one.  Even when going from a book to a movie, this step is sometimes needed to simplify things.  For example, the Wizard of Oz film combined the good witches of the North and South.  (They didn't combine the wicked witches of the East and West, but since one was killed right off, there was no need to get to know her.) StuRat (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No hard numbers, but here is a guide to deciding if a work may have too many characters, based on primary/secondary status, how important they are, etc. You could apply this scheme to some of the examples here and see if they pass this "test". Here is someone else's opinion on how to assess if a work has too many (or too few) characters . Here's TVtropes' on "Loads and Loads of Characters" . SemanticMantis (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the OP's premise as far as TV goes. Over the course of a season or multiple seasons, there's plenty of time to flesh out the characters. I'm sure fans of Lost didn't get lost (at least not for that reason), nor did viewers of Taxi, Twin Peaks, Battlestar Galactica etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, in a series you have enough time to flesh out more characters, but at the risk of confusing people who miss episodes. This may have been solved by view on  demand (no link ?), though, so now you don't have to miss any. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You should demand a refund from da Man. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The OPs number's seem off but still there are IMO limits. As I understand it, Game of Thrones (the TV series) has fewer characters than A Song of Ice and Fire (the book series), some are combined or missing entirely. One of the reasons is surely due to the shorter format. (Other factors like not wanting that many actors would also be at play.) However there have definitely been more than 11 with somewhat significant roles. And given that the TV series is still as willing to kill of characters as in the books there will be more. A TV series can definitely fit significantly more than a movie partly why movies from books tend to have even more drastic cuts. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am the OP. Your comment got me confused.  What numbers are "off", in my posting?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you only gave one set of numbers.
 * "The conversation came up with regard to the old TV show Head of the Class, where there were about eleven (!) or more "main characters". And also the TV show Eight Is Enough, which had eight kids, plus the other adult characters. These both seem like "too much", and clearly each of the eleven (or eight) characters cannot be developed to any satisfactory degree."


 * As I me and several others have mentioned, the idea you can't develop eight or eleven characters to a satisfactory degree or is too many doesn't seem to be supported by many TV shows where this does happen and is fine with the audience. So whatever the limit is, it isn't eight or eleven for a TV series. Admitedly Head of the Class is a 22-24 mins show which makes things more difficult so perhaps 11 was really starting to get to be too many. But it lasted 5 seasons and you didn't really mention short TV shows vs long ones.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, now I see what you mean. I thought you meant that my number of eleven incorrectly described Head of the Class and that my number of eight incorrectly described Eight Is Enough.  That is why I got confused.  You were saying that my "estimate" of 8 or 11 is "off" as the cut-off point for what might be considered "too many".  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a satire of the sitcom phenomena called Too Many Cooks. Not a "real" family show, but does a good job of mirroring them. Aside from the gory part, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a real stretch. But due to the shred of relevancy and the importance of the work in question, I'll let it stand :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For my money, too many cooks these days garnish their dishes with finely-shredded irrelevancy. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Soap was an earlier comedic take on a soap opera, also with a large cast. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've read plenty of books with a list of dramatis personae where the list really wasn't needed. Larry Niven did this with many of his books, such as The Mote in God's Eye, where it certainly wasn't needed.  Tolkien did not do this with The Lord of the Rings, although he had his indices.  Merry and Pippin are indistibuishable, except that one swears fealty to Theoden of Rohan, the other Denethor of Gondor.  My mother has long complained that she has tried to read War and Peace but that the characters all have Russian names!  The needs of the story should be the driving factor, and the clarity of characterization depends on the author's skill. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)