Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 October 4

= October 4 =

Fan produced toys
I have a question. Another editor and I are having a heated conversation regarding things like notability regarding Transformers toys produced by unrelated companies founded and run by fans. I stated that such fan companies were not worth an honorable mention as they are basically bootlegs produced to cash in on the franchise. The apposing editor claims that they can be worth an entire article if reliable sources can be found. Yet I don't see how something that isn't even worth bringing up in a wiki/wikia is worth creating an article over, let alone a section or honorable mention. So who's right here? Sarujo (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The other editor is right in that if they can find enough reliable sources, then they are eligible for an article per WP:GNG and the companies that produce them may be notable per WP:CORP. Their legality isn't up to us.  See, for instance, Pink Floyd bootleg recordings for an example.  And finally, this question, since it deals with WP policy, would fit better at the Help Desk.  Dismas |(talk) 00:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You better be absolutely sure the information is notable and widely known. Wikipedia isn't in the business of assisting in crime. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Polo Players
Added a heading Rojomoke (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) why are polo players only right handed? 98.25.123.208 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because if a right-handed player and a left-handed player were galloping to whack the ball from opposite directions, their horses would collide head on? Deor (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Same applies in field hockey. Don't know enough about ice hockey to comment on that. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in ice hockey. Dismas |(talk) 05:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a rule that the mallet must be held in the right hand. A blacklisted site claims the rule was instituted in 1975 for "safety reasons" and that "3 players on the world circuit are left handed". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardest possible save
Today the San Francisco Giants won the National League West (woo hoo!), with Brian Wilson getting the save. It wasn't a very hard save; he came in with a three-run lead. If it hadn't been for a great defensive play in the bottom of the 8th, he wouldn't have been eligible for a save at all.

And it got me to thinking&mdash;what's the hardest possible save? I think if you come in in the fifth inning or earlier, you can't get a save; it would have to be a win. So the hardest possibility would seem to be if you come in with zero outs in the sixth inning, with a one-run lead and the bases loaded. Has anyone ever finished out a save in that situation? If not, who's gotten closest? --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A pitcher can get credit for a save coming into any inning, as long as he comes in with a lead and is not the pitcher of record. Joaquin Benoit got credit for a seven-inning save on September 3, 2002 - the longest in Major League history - when the Rangers' starting pitcher Aaron Myette was ejected one batter into the game, reliever Todd Van Poppel threw two scoreless innings during which the Rangers took the lead, and Benoit pitched the rest of the way with Texas never surrendering the lead. Van Poppel got the win in this case; he did not have to pitch five innings since he was a reliever, not the starter. That said, hardest save is a matter of judgment. The hardest would be for a pitcher to come in with a one-run lead, the bases loaded, and nobody out; the difficulty quotient becomes higher according to how early he is inserted into the game. I have no idea who has pitched the longest and earned a save after coming in in such a jam. --Xuxl (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there are basically two ways to get a save:
 * 1) Come in at any point with a lead of 3-or-less runs and be the last pitcher of the game
 * 2) Come in with any lead and pitch at least 3 innings, and be the last pitcher of the game
 * Most people know about the first one, but the second throws people for a loop. There have been times when someone picks up a save without even realizing it, for example I saw an interview with a long-time starter who had a single save in his career.  It was his first day back from the Disabled List, and his team was up by like 9 runs in the 6th, so his manager put him in as a reliever, just to give him some low-pressure throws in a game situation.  He finished out the game, and it wasn't until he saw the box score in the next days paper that he realized he had a save.  As far as answering the question, difficulty is of course subjective, but hypothetically, the hardest possible save would be to come in with a one-run lead in the bottom of the first with no outs, as the visiting team, and be the third pitcher of the game, pitch all nine innings and get a save.  Technically, according to the rules, the starter is not the pitcher of record unless he pitches 5 complete innings, if he does not by rule the second pitcher is automatically the pitcher of record.  So, it is then possible to come in as the third pitcher in the first inning, with no outs, and pitch the rest of the game, and earn a "save".  -- Jayron  32  15:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The second pitcher would need to record at least one out to be eligible for the win. Also, according to the rules, the official scorer has the discretion of not awarding the win to the second pitcher if, in his opinion, his presence was brief and/or ineffective (which would surely be the case if he exited after only one out in the 1st inning and the bases loaded); in this case, another pitcher is given credit for the win, i.e. the one who pitched effectively for the last 8 2/3 innings. So the second pitcher has to make a tangible positive contribution to the win, which is generally seen as either closing out an inning while maintaining the lead, or pitching one full inning. In Van Poppel's case, he pitched two full hitless and scoreless innings while coming into the game unprepared, which was considered good enough; a shorter or less effective stint would most likely have led to the official scorer granting the win to Benoit. In the official rules, the win is still considered the most important statistic, with the save being ancillary. All that to say is that it's very unlikely we'll ever see a save of more than 7 innings ! --Xuxl (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you still end up with a save if a game goes into extra innings? Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unless I'm missing something (as I evidently did above when I missed the third-pitcher thing), you can only pitch for one inning at most in that case. You'd have to be on the home team, your team takes the lead in the top of the 13th (or whatever) at a time when you have not been put into the lineup, then you take over in the bottom of the inning and close out the game.  --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Subversion name meaning
Good time of day. I need native speaker's view of Apache Subversion name meaning. The question itself is on the Subversion talk page (briefly: what is primary "version" or "subvert"). Thank you. --Grain (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (as 81.200.20.203)


 * As a native speaker, seeing the word "subversion" without context, I would normally read it as related to "subvert". Only if there was a specific context like "versions and subversions" would I read it as sub-version. --Anonymous, 06:50 UTC, October 4, 2010.
 * Yes, but once you know that Subversion is a versioning system, that changes things. --Trovatore (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's an example of sufficient context. I took the question to be asking about the word itself.  --Anon, 16:06 UTC, October 4, 2010.
 * I suppose this is not the place to bemoan the modern trend to omit the hyphen in sub-version.   D b f i r s   08:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that a real word? I thought it was just marketing, a way to make the most prosaic of tools, a revision control system, seem cool and edgy.  You know, like GitHub for lesbians. --Trovatore (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the original word, or the version control system name? I didn't realise there was ever a hyphen in either. The word comes from Latin (subvertere), via French. The product name I don't recall ever being hyphenated. As far back as 2003 the SVN mailing lists were calling it "Subversion". TFOWR 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not intimately familiar with versioning system software but the basic idea is that you use it to keep track of "versions," or specific snapshots of a project's code at a given point in time. Now the name "Subversion" no doubt refers to this but is almost probably a form of double entendre: "subversion" also means efforts to overthrow a political system. So it's a nice mix of technical terminology with "revolutionary" overtones, which makes a little bit more "sexy" something that would otherwise be deadly dull. This is my speculation, anyway, I don't have any real direct knowledge of why they chose the name, but it seems very unlikely to me that this double-meaning wasn't intentional, as it is very clear to a native English speaker. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. It's curious, but current editor of ru:Subversion forces an opposite opinion - he is sure, that "subver[t]-sion" - the only meaning of Subversion :). Dictionary has no sub-version article, so (he think) there is no such word. I'm trying to convince him that Subversion, is primarilly "version", then "subvert" ... but it's vainly :). 81.200.20.203 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is no such word as sub-version, or at least it is not a common word. Versions in-between major versions are minor versions, not sub-versions.  So the only common meaning is in fact the political one.  (Hence my response to Dbfirs, above).
 * Nevertheless, it is clearly a play on words, involving "versions". --Trovatore (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you for valuable note. 81.200.20.203 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mr 98. Its almost certainly supposed to be a pun. It literally refers to versions (Look how they've colored their logo.), but you're supposed to catch that it's also an english word and be amused.
 * The pun may have been more relevant when CVS was the de facto industry standard, and the Subversion project was specifically intended to replace it. APL (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. This is relevant. A discussion on "Subversion"'s pronunciation.  APL (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just a mockery. Unless you can hear the difference, I don't. 81.200.20.203 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a parody of a famous audio clip of Linus Torvalds, but it also shows the intended pronunciation. Pretty much they say it like the normal english word "subversion" and not "Sub-Version".
 * Still in this context, I always mentally emphasize the "version". APL (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see :) 81.200.20.203 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr.98 and APL give a good indication of how the name `subversion' feels to a native speaker in the target market. Now it is known as `Apache subversion'. I suspect that most of the user-base knew the name before, and also knew of the extant Apache products, so `Apache subversion' does NOT especially bring up the idea of subversive indigenous people :) -- SemanticMantis (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree that to someone who knows it, they would not associate Apache with the native group in this context. After awhile it just becomes another company name. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that it is known as Apache Subversion. The Apache foundation may be trying to bring that about, since they brought Subversion into their project; but I hve never yet heard anybody refer to it as such. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. People just call it "Subversion" or "SVN". APL (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cog shaped thing near Eiffel Tower
My desktop background is a birds-eye shot of the area surrounding base of the Eiffel Tower taken from the second level. I really like the picture but it is ruined somewhat by a strange cog-like shape somewhat near the base of the Western tower foot. It looks so fake and out-of-place that for a while I assumed it was a mouse pointer icon I'd somehow accidentally overlayed to the image while editing it. However, inspection of Google Maps shows the same shape in the same place, again looking quite luminous and incongruous (see here). I was basically wondering if anyone knew what it was. I can't find any information and it looks a bit like a statue or a well or something (though apparently not very tall) --82.2.9.21 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe a castellated air shaft or a French folly. I would judge it to be a lot taller then you.--Aspro (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You can see it in the bottom right hand corner of this picture. Air shaft seems likely. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly a pissoir? 87.82.229.195 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin Alders has taken a good photo of it. Chimney and Eifeltower(sic). Might even be a water tower.--Aspro (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The RER C line runs (roughly) under that area. It may very well be a ventilation chimney for that. One occasionally sees odd brick chimneys in parts of London, which serve to ventilate the underground. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I orgininaly wondered that but then looking at the map it would then suggest that RER C goes almost under the north west foundations Eiffel's tower. When the metro was built, they did not cut things that close. What we need is a Parisian to take some up close photos.--Aspro (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This website claims that it is the chimney of an engine room built under part of the tower. Warofdreams talk 22:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice find. Thanks everyone! --82.2.9.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For those who don't read French, the engine room powered the elevators before widespread electrification. Does anybody know whether the underground space has been preserved as well? Paris has a lot of abandoned underground spaces, mostly relics of quarries.  Acroterion  (talk)  12:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the RER line, I'm pretty sure it runs under the elongated white concrete structure that runs between the Quai Branly and the river, about 100 feet from the river. If you follow it southwest for about 2,000 feet, you can see the tracks running into it. --Anonymous, 08:35 UTC, October 5, 2010.