Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 October 17

= October 17 =

Is there something rude about "Yandrisovitz"?
Just noticed somebody corrected a typo in Brian Knobbs' real name and got tagged for possible vandalism or BLP problems. Thought it might just be because someone changed a name, but that doesn't usually happen. I get how "Knobbs" could sound a bit bad to a robot, but is there a Slavic homophone or something I'm missing here? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't know, but "knob" is a bit rude on this side of the Atlantic. Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Like that on this side, too. Here's a Canadian calling Knobbs a knob. If there's a dick term out there in the English world, it'll find its way to American TV. Not so much with the other wordplay.


 * I think it may have been because an IP did it, if there's no better reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * According to our special page on Tags, that message means it was tagged by abuse filters 39, 189, or 339. I don't read or write code and cannot say which of the three caught this particular change. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't help me understand much, either, but it seems like we're getting somewhere. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A note in 39 says "Marking hidden, as vandals don't need to know which words we're filtering on --ABCD". Maybe this mystery word is one of the hidden ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Or wait, no. "made filter public again - these edits are generally made by really unsophisticated editors who barely know how to edit a page." InedibleHulk (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect it was filter 364, "Changing the name in a BLP infobox", though I can't see it because it's private. Weirdly, I can't find any way to search for all the filters (even only public ones) that apply a particular tag. The lists at Special:Tags appear to be manually maintained. -- BenRG (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, 364 - basically changing a name in a BLP by a new or unregistered editor. I should think this filter should be public. You may want to ask the creator Od Mishehu or get some opinion at WT:EF if you want it changed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Don't want it changed, just curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Without giving away any information that would help vandals get around this filter, I can say that the title is self-explanitory, and the diff definitely fits it; and that many, but not all cases which it this filter are probably BLP vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye. I was just curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Russian srat´ "to sh t", sri! "(you sg.) sh t!", a Common Slavic word.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Plural Posessive of phrases of compound nouns with head first?
In the following phrase please tell me if the phrase in bold is correct. All of the Governors and Attorneys General went to meetings in September. The Governors' meeting was in Miami. The Attorneys General's meeting was in Chicago. Thank You Naraht (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This site and this site agree with your usage. -- Jayron  32  17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Naraht (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This point might be worth adding to Post-positive adjective and English possessive. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Very Complicated Family
I am sorry to kep asking these questions. It's just that my family is very complicated, and we are trying to make as much of a family tree as we can muster. Now, here is the question. My cousin's neice, who is not a blood relative (came into the family as her sister's new husband's 'saved game', so to speak) would be what relation to me? What is the legal term, if any? KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 20:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Are any of these terms "legal"? Given that we don't give legal advice, it's an important question. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * KageTora -- There's no customary or usual term in English for that relationship. AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hold on. Your cousin's sister is also your cousin.  Her child, whether the fruit of her own personal loins or by step-acquisition from her husband's former amatory activities (I assume that's what "saved game" refers to), is your cousin once removed. Or at least step-cousin once removed. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, if we understand KT correctly. I suppose we could also call her "a cousin, once step-removed" as well. Interesting aside, the cousin relation is not a transitive relation, so your cousin's cousin is not necessarily your cousin... Think of your cousin, A, by paternal grandparents, and her cousin, B, by maternal grandparents. Then you and B are not cousins, (unless you want to go back to e.g. mitochondrial eve). SemanticMantis (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:JackofOz is correct. Assuming the two of you have a common ancestor, and X and Y are the number of generations each of you counts back to the common ancestor, then you are ( minimum maximum(X, Y) - 1 ) cousins, (difference of X and Y) removed.  In this case, second cousins, once removed. Peter Grey (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC) corrected formula Peter Grey (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, first cousins, once removed, I think. We're talking about the child of KT's first cousin, not the child of his second cousin.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to explain that she has not been adopted into the family. My original post was ambiguous, sorry. She still bears her father's surname (as does my cousin, now, as they are married). This is what makes it complicated. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 01:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the surname she has, she is still the daughter of your cousin's husband. If there's been no adoption, that means she's your cousin's step-daughter, and therefore your step-cousin once removed; or cousin once step-removed if you prefer Semantic Mantis's phraseology.  If she were to be formally adopted by your cousin, then just remove the word "step". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that my example terminology was capricious (though still valid). "Step-cousin once removed" is the standard phrase, and will probably cause less confusion. If we want to specify that this is a first cousin, then "first step-cousin once removed" or "step first cousin once removed" are both available, though I cannot comment on which may be more common or intelligible. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I am sure I will be back with more questions on this topic, as my mother is trying to make a family tree, and we are trying to work out a relationship to each family member so she can give it to them all (but of course the family just keeps growing, so it's a never-ending job, with divorces and re-marriages to people who already have kids, and those kids also have kids, adoptions after fostering, some of the kids from a re-marriage are not adopted, but then they have kids, and so on. Really complicated.). Adopted or not, I am currently working on what their relationship is specifically to me. Then comes the arduous task of working out what their relationships are to eachother. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ask away! It can be a complicated subject, and there are several of us here that can help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)