Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 December 13

= December 13 =

My School has been deleted so many times, we are very frustrated

 * What is the name of the school, and I (and others) will be happy to look into it. It sounds like there's some controversy, otherwise you can request new article creation at WP:Request.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  00:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the list of contributions for this IP there's an actual deleted revision of a post apparently asking about this topic. There could be legitimate reasons for that (say, a severe BLP violation) but it doesn't look very transparent.  Let's at least find out what's going on. --Trovatore (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. Curious. But since our friend here didn't even tell us the name of the school I don't know how we'd figure anything out.  We can only hope he comes back here to participate in this conversation. APL (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Google is our friend.  There's a previous plea on the help desk here : .  The School in question is Linda Christas College. APL (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the original AfD : Articles_for_deletion/Linda_christas, and here is another a few months later Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Christas_International_School, there are a number of speedy deletes in between and since. APL (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, those are some nasty examples of sockpuppetry both on and off Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First : What sort of school are we talking about here? WP:SCL seems to imply that a degree-awarding tertiary school is very easy to establish notability for.
 * Second : There's no elitist cabal controlling WP. There really isn't. Sign up for an account, wait the number of days until the system auto-confirms you (Five days?), and start a new article. At that point you're just as much an "Editor" as the rest of us. Really. Your article must immediately establish notability, by including referenced descriptions of how the school impacts its community, referenced descriptions of research done there, referenced descriptions of notable people who have attended or taught there, or referenced descriptions of anything else news-worthy that has ever happened there.   For real colleges and universities this shouldn't be hard.  For sleazy diploma mills this would be harder but still not impossible.    I want to stress that the article has to mention these things the moment you put it up. You cannot put up a "placeholder" page and hope that it will stick around. It might, but it probably won't.
 * Wikipedia is not a phone-book, if an article doesn't have useful information, and a description of why a thing is notable, the article will be deleted. Seriously, that's the one criteria.  If the Barak Obama article just said "Mr Obama is a a very nice gentleman." the article would be deleted for not being notable enough.
 * Best of luck.
 * APL (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason that the article was deleted is that the "school" appears to be a scam -- see this account. If we could find properly sourced independent information about it, it might actually be good to have an article, as a way of informing people. The deleted article was pure spam, though. Looie496 (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To our Friend Jeff : Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If there was an article about your school, you would not be able to control what it says. The article you post would only be a 'first draft'. If your school is a well known scam, you could expect the article to say so, in no uncertain terms, about 24 hours after the article went up.  If not sooner.
 * With that in mind, consider why you so badly want an article on Wikipedia. APL (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might also want to look at our page WP:Your first article, which gives a lot of good advice about how to get an article started, including that you "consider creating the article first in your user space," for example at: User:65.78.135.42/My College though you should probably get your own user account. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  02:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any policy that says that IP users cannot maintain or use userspace sandboxes. However, they technically cannot create them, as page creation is limited to registerred accounts.  See WP:WHY for more details. -- Jayron  32  02:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The accreditation organization listed on the school's website (the International Association of Schools and Colleges) seems to keep a very low profile: . There are about a half-dozen Google hits, most of which are on the school's web site; none appear on any other educational institution's site, nor does the organization appear to have a web presence.  It might be helpful if you could provide some links to independent information about the IASC.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The emblem at that website seems to show a hand bell and the inscription "In hoc signo vinces". Bizarre.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  19:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cold War overflights
During the Cold War, the US performed aerial reconnaissance of the Soviet Union using "overflights" with aircraft (e.g. the U-2). Did the Soviet Union ever perform the reverse, that is, use aircraft to fly over United States airspace for the purpose of reconnaissance? -- 174.24.216.113 (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Surveillance aircraft indicates that the Tupolev Tu-95 may have been used for this purpose. It should be noted that during the cold war, the USSR was much shorter on resources than the US military so it seems likely that there were some areas where the USA clearly had the advantage; this may have been one of them.  The advent of space travel (which the USSR beat the USA in most early developments except walking on the moon) and of ICBMs pretty much made spy planes obsolete.  I am pretty sure that given there more limited resources, the USSR put more effort into these technologies than into aircraft in general.  -- Jayron  32  04:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Aircraft like the Tu-95 were more likely used for radio/radar surveys from international airspace, as they would have been easy targets if detected. Bear in mind too that the US had bases right up to the Soviet/Warsaw Pact Border, whereas the USSR had none that close. The era of U-2 type reconnaissance was quite short-lived in any case, with the advent of spy satellites. The Soviets probably had less need for spy planes anyway, as the location of US strategic targets could be found by less covert means. There is a little historical info in the Treaty on Open Skies article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) One presumes they must have, but I've never actually heard of it before. Apparently, they built the Myasishchev M-55 "similar in both its mission and design" to the U-2 – but only used it to chase US balloons!  They may also have used satellites.  It's a very interesting question, I'm surprised there's not more on it.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  04:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Soviets experimented with a manned spy satellite, but unmanned spy satellites soon made that approach obsolete. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Andy alluded to one of the big things: the US could launch and land planes in Pakistan, Turkey, Germany, Norway, etc. (and Japan, for spying in the Far East).  If we look at the 1960 U-2 incident, the plane took off from Pakistan, and was supposed to land in Norway, letting it fly over all sorts of good stuff in the Soviet Heartland.  The Russians maybe could have based a plane out of Cuba, but they wouldn't be able to see all the really juicy missile silos in South Dakota, and such.  What seems incredible to me is that the U2 is still being used, despite satellite capabilities, and even outlasting its supposed successor, the SR-71. Buddy431 (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The USSR lacked the ability to project air power over the United States until very late in the Cold War (e.g. the 1980s), by which point satellite technology had become the more dominant way of technically snooping. The US's forward bases in Europe and Asia gave it a tremendous advantage in this respect over the USSR. This is also incidentally why the USSR was so keen on developing ICBMs and cruise missiles very early on — to extend the reach of their nuclear deterrent, which otherwise was very dodgy when it came to actual use against the USA. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Meta-question (about Russian Wikipedia Ref desk)
How could this question be linked to or asked at the Russian Wikipedia Reference Desk? Do they even have a Reference Desk there? Wiki Dao &#9775;  (talk)  04:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Da. See . It doesn't seem to be divided into broad subjects the way ours is.  All the other language versions of the Ref Desk are shown at Reference desk.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   05:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Спасибо, Jack. I knew there must be a list like that somewhere, but couldn't find it.  I wonder if they know anything more about this over there...?  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  17:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Не за что. Ничего.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tire in engine compartment of a Corvair
Question about the pic to the right: was it really normal to keep the spare tire of a Corvair in the engine compartment? I would have thought that the temperatures therein would be a problem in placing a rubber tire next to an engine; why not place it in the front storage space (i know, the Corvair was a rear-engine car, so the storage area was under the hood)? I am aware that older cars had larger engine compartments; I had a friend who has a 1950's era Ford F-100 which includes a complete toolkit inside of the engine compartment for servicing the vehicle; said compartment is so large that someone could almost fit inside of it with the engine while fixing it. However, I would think that storing a tire in the compartment would be contraindicated? Any carnuts out there care to elaborate? -- Jayron  32  06:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My 1990 Subaru Leone Wagon had the spare tyre in the engine compartment. Never had a problem with it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea what effects, if any, it has on the tire but I've seen it before. And not just once.  Can't recall where though... Dismas |(talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So the question is, is this spare tire in the right place? It seriously doesn't look like it is secured in any way, nor does it looks like the space it is in was designed to hold it.  It looks like someone just wedged it in there.  -- Jayron  32  07:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The bracket in my aforementioned Subaru was a quite small, screw-in device and held the tire through its centre hole. It would have been out of sight in that pic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From our article on the Chevrolet Corvair: "To increase luggage capacity in the front the spare tire was relocated to the engine compartment in cars not ordered with All Weather air conditioning..." Dismas |(talk) 07:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * D'oh. Never mind.  I suppose I could have actually read the article I cited.  Carry on.  -- Jayron  32  07:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind a little salt in your wound... :-) A Google search for "spare tire engine" brings up our spare tire article first.  In that is the line "Some vehicles stored the spare tire in the engine bay, such as the Renault 14 and older Subaru vehicles, such as the Subaru Leone."  Dismas |(talk) 07:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugly Russian aircraft
The Cold War fly-over question made me think about this. Especially when I saw pics of the Tupolev Tu-95. I've always thought that Russian aircraft were rather ugly. As if they'd been put together by a committee of blind people. Other examples include:


 * The Ilyushin Il-76 which looks like a cat who is about to vomit (back raised, head held low)
 * The Antonov An-22 which looks as though it has rolls of fat that are bursting from its seams
 * The Ilyushin Il-102 which reminds me of a flying short bus

Has anyone else a bit more notable than the average John Doe (i.e. me) ever commented on this? Dismas |(talk) 16:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Russians do seem to have a 1950s idea of style, as seen in the paint jobs. Perhaps the Russians still design things on drawing boards, and the West uses computer-aided design, and this shows. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, planes are built more to fly good then to look good (Of course the Russian ones don't always fly well).  Googlemeister (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally find the Tupolev Tu-95 to be beautiful. As far as not flying well: the Tu-95 is expected to see service to about 2040; it is the fastest propeller driven plane in history; its maximum unrefueled range of 9,400 miles (15,000 km) is second to none (that's more than 1/3 the circumference of the globe on one tank of gas). And that 1950's style? Well, the TU-95 was built in the 1950's, so you got that. In the 1980's we'd see these Russian "Bears" cruising all over the Pacific Ocean. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The key here is what Googlemeister said. I don't think aesthetics plays much of a part in aircraft design.  Besides the Soviets made some really cool looking planes in their day.
 * The MiG-25 has a sort of brutal angular beauty.
 * The Su-27 is as intense and purposeful looking as you are going to get.
 * The Su-34 perhaps a bit ugly, but it is definitely unique looking.
 * The Su-47 not Soviet, but in my mind just about the coolest looking airplane.
 * I did read a book by humorist Bruce McCall that talked about a Soviet transport plane with a massively drooping nose. The story was that during the design process the plans were crinkled and since the punishment for damaging state property was death, no one wanted to point it out, so it went into production. --Leivick (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugliness is of course a matter of opinion, though I think this is partly down to a different aesthetic sense, and partly down to a more 'functional' approach that could possibly be to the requirements of military aircraft not being overseen by politicians that had to keep an electorate happy with 'good looking' military hardware - this is speculation of course. It is notable that Soviet military aircraft cockpits have long indicated a preference for pastel colours, which I've always thought rather pleasing, in contrast to the 'paint everything black' approach favoured in the west: see here for what I mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, transport aircraft aren't famed for their beauty, and neither are ground-attack aircraft - the Il-102 is to my mind more elegant (look at the linked gallery, since the picture in the article is unflattering) than the A-10 Warthog. I find the A-10 really pleasing to look at, but not pretty. Also, check out the Stipa-Caproni, a flying dustbin of Italian design. 213.122.59.17 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see unsurpassed ugliness in aircraft design, I'd suggest that this reached it's peak in between-the-wars Britain, which produced such unparalleled examples as the Beardmore Inflexible (photos here). We also had ubique skills in chosing ugly names for aircraft, even relatively elegant ones (though see the Vickers Vildebeest for a prime example of combined ugliness in design and naming). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. My vote goes to the Boulton Paul Overstrand. Alansplodge (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Russian planes seem to have lots of different curves on one plane - maybe thought acceptable due to the unconcious influence of those curvy onion-shaped rooves in or near Red Square and in Russian churches in general. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aesthetic theory says we like complexity that encodes easily to simplicity. We like the Western planes which with few curves encode easily, but the Ruskie planes with many different curves do not encode down much. 92.24.189.207 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This theory is mentioned at Aesthetics. 81.131.66.11 (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And interestingly, the roof of the Kazan Cathedral seems to be the same colour as the inside of the MiG cockpit I linked to above. Whether the roof was painted in surplus cockpit paint, or vice versa, I'll not speculate... ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The green rooves may be due to them being made of copper, which tarnishes to that colour, unlike the gold-leaf ones. See Copper, verdigris, and patina. Its the same colour as the scowling Statue Of Liberty and the rooves of Minneapolis City Hall. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In the mid-1980s, I flew in a Bulgarian Tupolev Tu-154 airliner. Safety features included a knotted rope to climb down instead of an inflatable evacuation chute and the emergency oxygen supply, rather than dropping down from overhead, was to be provided by a stewardess with a bottle tucked under her arm. The fact that I am able to write this shows that they weren't needed, although I did get food poisoning from the in-flight meal of salami and cucumber. Alansplodge (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I never said that beauty wasn't in the eye of the beholder. And I agree that, especially with military aircraft, function is more important than form.  But looking at American aircraft, for instance, you'll hardly find a minger in the lot.  Russian, however, are bulgy and unsightly.  Dismas |(talk) 11:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the beauty aspects, but it is no doubt relevant that the US and USSR means of designing aircraft were very different at an organizational and funding level. The US featured competitions for bids by numerous companies, all of which were pushing their work as the "state of the art." The Soviet system contained a number of state-created design bureaus which were more focused on the engineering than the bids. (It's too bad we don't have a better article on the Design bureaus as a general thing, rather than just a list of the specific ones, like Tupolev.) Anyway, the results were that certain aspects were certainly favored over others comparatively. US flight systems tended to have better ratings but higher cost and more difficult upkeep. Soviet ratings were not always as cutting edge, but they featured more interchangeable systems and were cheaper to produce and repair. Now I don't know if this had an effect on the aesthetic aspects, but I suspect it did. It would be an interesting thing to research. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you're comparing like for like? There might be a slight trend toward being lumpen in Russian aircraft, but look at the Dreamlifter as an example of a US minger (assuming we're using bulginess as a fairly objective measure of ugliness). That article also mentions the phenomenally distorted Airbus Beluga and Aero Spacelines Super Guppy. 213.122.35.203 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

White Christmas
When was the last time New York City had a White Christmas67.86.181.138 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They had one last year. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

part for a heater
im trying to find information on a blower motor b19 that comes in a heater made by martin industries ihave a model v6970 heater and my blower went i need a model b19 can u help me please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.124.126 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like the company went bust.--Aspro (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a forum post that says Martin was bought out by [Monessen Hearth Systems], so your best bet would be to try to contact them. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball logo
COULD YOU PLEASE HELP ME WITH THE IDENITY OF A BASEBALL LOGO? I HAVE A "THUNDER" BASEBALL JACKET AND THE LOGO THEY NOW SHOW IS DEFERENT THAN MINE. MINE IS LIKE AN "EAGEL OR VOULTGER ( SOMEKIND OF BIRD WITH OUTREACHED CLAWS AND LIGHTNING BOLTS COMING OUT BOTH SIDES OF IT'S HEAD ( WITH ANOTHER HEAD INBACK OF THE MAIN ONE)??? HOPE YOU CAN HELP ME OUT. THANK YOU.....MIKE ALBANO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.59.194 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Typing in all caps doesn't get your question a better answer, it just makes it look like you are SHOUTING, which is kinda sorta rude. As far as the question goes: Do you have any more information about this "Thunder" baseball team?  There are hundreds of minor-league franchises and high school and college baseball teams.  Could you narrow it down for us a bit?  What city or state is the team from?  -- Jayron  32  20:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure you have something from the Trenton Thunder. If you do a Google image search for "Trenton Thunder" one of the logos that comes up appears to be what you're describing. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another link that supports Trenton Thunder as your team. Logos do change over time, and the Thunder has been around since about 1980. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I'm curious, just what is that bird ? It's obvious from the talons it's a bird of prey, but I'm not away of any with blue feathers, a yellow beak, 4 claws (3 forward and one backward) and a crest on the head.  Did they just invent the bird ? (Obviously no normal bird has two heads, so I won't include that part in the description.) StuRat (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe intended as a thunderbird? Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See Double-headed eagle. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, looks like some type of thunderbird, and as if both heads are vomiting thunderbolts. The current logo, the angry looking thundercloud wielding a bolt of lightning as a bat, is much niftier. It appears to have been adopted for the 2008 season. The double-headed bird was a couple of logos ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OP describes "WITH ANOTHER HEAD INBACK OF THE MAIN ONE)???", so I thought he or she was probably talking about the two-headed bird-emblem at one of the links above, undated but in the vicinity of the early 2000's? Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  19:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the Baseball America's Directory annuals, the Thunder first appeared in 1994 (having moved from another Eastern League city, as noted in the wikipedia article), at which time the logo was the thunderbird. It switches to an image of Thor in the 2004 edition, and to the current thundercloud in the 2008 edition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Does your source mention the two-headed eagle design shown at this link given by Quartermaster above, which may be what the OP is asking about? Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that site shows the first two logos: the thunderbird, and Thor. That site says 2002 for Thor, which is possible. No guarantees that the BAD's logos would have been up to date for any given year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's a two-headed thunderbird. Okay.  I wonder why the two heads if it is just meant to be a "thunderbird" though.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this team press release dated Jan 16, 2002, the original logo was a "Thunderbird" and the then-new logo was "Thor", although they planned to continue wearing the "Thunderbird" logo as a sleeve patch. The current logo was annnounced on Aug 23, 2007. The mascot, which remains a (one-headed) Thunderbird, is called "Boomer". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So there's no real explanation for why the emblem shown at that one link and asked about by the OP is two-headed. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  21:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm seeing, unless they're trying to indicate his head moving back and forth to show two lightning bolts. Maybe he's a switch-spitter. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)