Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 October 28

= October 28 =

What is the name for art composed with fixed width fonts?
What is the name for art composed with fixed width fonts? I know this must be an easy one, but I have no idea and have not found it through google. I cannot but assume we have an article on the subject.

Example (a Balrog): _                          _   /    \         V^vvV       /    \ /     \ ___/v^ /v___/      \ / /  /         /<;;>\        \  \  \     ,-~-~-~               / /    /    \     \ \           /        ////    ^^      v^   \\\\---~-~-~ vv^ Vvv v^^VV^ ^ v V                M^   )   ^M                    (

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ASCII art seems to the the most common name for it these days. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Copy/paste the example into google and click on a result, what do you call that? Example result. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ASCII art is what I was looking for.  I would be surprised if the balrog showed up at google, given I composed it as encouragement for a young reader of LotR. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Balrogs do not have wings. You shouldn't be warping the minds of youth. Deor (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a matter of opinion - Balrog. Mikenorton (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nudity
Why do (most) humans feel inhibited by being publicly nude. Although I would feel embarrassed by the world seeing my gentials and any potential associated inadequacy, I can't elaborate where this sentiment originates from. It seems utterly illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess "habit". Traditionally most folk are clothed and are told that being unclothed is some form of abnormal. Folk get accustomed to that. I have no objection to folk seeing (say) my ankle, but some cultures do/did consider that improper. Other cultures are happy with nudity. IMO it all comes back to culture/habit/conditioning. -- SGBailey (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We have lots of WP coverage of this: nudity, history of nudity, taboo, social stigma, norm_(social). Search in the nudity article for "norm" and "taboo" to skip to the relevant parts and refs. Also note that your premise is only correct for many modern cultures, the history of nudity articles gives several examples of cultures where nudity was much more common and accepted, starting with Ancient Egypt.SemanticMantis (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know the exact terms used in psychology, but I know it is a process that starts (occurs) around four years old when we are still a child but we become conscious. The sense of feeling nude in public starts with the sense of taking oneself in charge as an autonomous person. I am the owner of my body. My body doesn't anymore just belong to anyone I'd blindly trust. From now on, I am a Person with a Mind and from now on, I am the one in charge of an own independant Personality. Professional psychologists would be able to put this in technically appropriate words, but I hope you see what I'm pointing. Akseli9 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's the way it works for many e.g. North Americans. But that's just Enculturation you're talking about, and we don't want to imply that this is universal. If many/post people were walking around naked when you were 4, you'd probably think it was normal, and might even skip clothing yourself some days. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You were talking about the enculturation side, and thank you for the link, then I was extending with the psychological side. Obviously the OP is from a culture where humans feel inhibited by being publicly nude. My answer was adapted for such culture. I don't know what they do in other cultures, and you're undoubtly right that there is an equivalent in any other culture. Akseli9 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OP, if you're embarrassed about your "gentials" [sic], try covering them with Gentiana if ivy leaves are not available, or painting them with crystal violet (otherwise known as Gentian Violet). :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

How long would Test cricket last if the weather cooperated and
1) There were no artificial restrictions on length? That is, innings or Tests never ended early, they didn't slack off even if the result was already realistically or mathematically certain, and they only ended the day when it was unsafely dark to continue. And no one wasted time or felt rushed.

or

2) All of the above plus only 1 offensive player's on the pitch not 2 therefore he has to run around the line between stumps once per run and all out was really all out (11), catching is only the means to the end of getting the ball to the stumps to limit runs (or getting him out if he "overplays his hand"), all balls are full tosses, all fielders wear baseball-like gloves, chucking's allowed but chucking at someone is not (and hitting the batsman is penalized severely enough to make chucking safe). That's what I thought cricket was most of my life before I learned the rules. (I didn't remember the few seconds of cricket I saw at age 4 well enough to realize that's not how it's played). It turns out I was a little right because you used to be able to score runs forever while the fielders fetched a ladder to get the ball out of a tree.

3) Out of curiosity how would the game in 2) play like? Would it be way harder to get someone out or score or both or neither? What would the scores be like? (even if it was the same difficulty to score and get outs the average runs per score might be different) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For 1, see Timeless Test. The longest game recorded was 10 days (9 days of play and one lost to rain), South Africa v England, Durban, 1939.  2 is basically French cricket, although I don't think there are any official statistics for that form of the game. Tevildo (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't know how long English_cricket_team_in_South_Africa_in_1938–39 would have lasted if it could have continued. Sadly, it had to be abandoned as a draw because England needed to catch their boat home, although from the state of play in the match, it would probably not have lasted much longer anyway, as England were a paltry (in the context of that match) 42 runs from their victory target. Mind you, contemporary reports show there was a chance of rain slowing things up further. Pieter van der Bijl was probably rather relieved not to lose after the c.700 minutes he spent batting in that match. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, so it took 6 hours to get 1 batsman out? A baseball game in the world's top league once got 51 men out in 51 minutes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for an opening batsman to come to the wicket at the start of the match and still be there at the end. 217.41.38.76 (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's ultimately the fundamental difference between cricket and baseball. In cricket, scoring runs is easy (the average score in Twenty20, which like baseball lasts about 3 hours, is 155 for the first team at bat), and getting the batsman out is hard (you don't have to run very far, the bat is wide and almost completely covers the stumps, and there's no real equivalent of strikeout). In baseball, getting runs is harder (an average of 8.3 per game!), but getting the batter out is much easier (there are several bases to run around, the bat is narrow, and the rules about getting out are much less forgiving). Smurrayinchester 08:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)