Miscellaneous desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 15[edit]

Any clicks on "Chinese" in language return simplified Chinese . Why??[edit]

To Whom who really concern:

I am a traditional Chinese user.When I clicked "Chinese" in the Language column,the default setting of the content is simplified Chinese. This is the first thing I don't really agree with. This is my first question: why is the default setting simplified Chinese rather than Hong Kong traditional Chinese or Taiwanese Chinese.

I found the second thing disturbing. After I "told" that I am a traditional Chinese user, every following clicks on the traditional Chinese content return simplified Chinese, which means everytime I wanted to read traditional Chinese I have to do 2 more clicks to get rid of the default simplified Chinese. This is not reasonable.

I hope this could be sorted out as soon as possible.

Well I know that we can't demand so much on wikipedia but this is not fair and I really wanted to know the reason behind that.

Best, Eddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.23.60 (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eddy. Someone here might have an answer for you, but this is a research desk. For questions about how Wikipedia works and why, you might do better at the Wikipedia:Help desk or at the Wikipedia:Teahouse for new users. Try there if you don't get someone here who can help you. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was sure there was a user preference for this, but if there is, I can't find it; nor can I find anything in the Help system. Somebody asked a similar question (but the other way round) on stackexchange a couple of years ago: it is possible you will find the replies helpful: look here. --ColinFine (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puppets in TV shows[edit]

In a few weeks Glee will be doing a show with replicas of the live actors in puppet form. I know this was done in the Angel episode, Smile Time, and now I am wondering how far back these one off episodes go in TV shows. In case it is not clear I am not talking about shows like Sesame Street where the puppets are their own characters/main attraction. I am asking what other shows and how far back does this idea go where they make replicas of the live actors in puppet form for a one off story line. Thanks! 63.95.64.254 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this counts, but on Howdy Doody in the 1950s, the woman (Judy Tyler) who played an Indian maid character named Summer-Fall-Winter-Spring, or something like that, was killed in an automobile accident. They replaced her in marionette form. As young as I was, I wasn't aware of her death, and I just wondered how come she was a puppet now instead of a living human. (However, I was old enough to recognize that she was really cute, and a puppet just didn't do much for me.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about Judy Tyler.—Wavelength (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year or two ago, the show 30 Rock had an episode where regular characters (normally played by humans) were played by puppets. Not for the whole episode, it represented how one character saw the world. Example here [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

200 (Stargate SG-1) is a 2006 example. One scene parodied the pilot episode, using marionettes. Katie R (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes also has a short list here.--90.165.118.106 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Community episode Intro to Felt Surrogacy, although it's from season 4 which may be non-canonical...still, the characters are replaced by puppets for part of the show. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you just like puppets as such, you should check out Farscape, which has incredible effects. The episode DNA Mad Scientist is incredible. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy film did this very briefly as a one-off gag. (When the improbability drive was engaged.)

Another interesting almost-example is that many of the performers on The Muppet Show had puppets of themselves that they used occasionally. example here.

APL (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singular[edit]

Does the word "mores" (as in, social mores) have a singular form (eg: more)?? La Alquim ista 18:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to wiktionary,[2] it's only a plural. It's the plural of the Latin mor or mos, so those would be the singular form, theoretically. But social mores are typically treated as a collection, so there's not a lot of need for a singular. Also, te other day someone on TV pronounced it as if it were "more" with an "s" on the end, when actually it's supposed be a homophone of "morays", i.e. a bunch of eels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mores can be slippery, especially at the hands of some rather slimy individuals. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

He was probably thinking of a bad dining experience at a dodgy Japanese restaurant: O tempura! O morays!. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want less mores? Isn't that a contradiction, more or less? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting only one would suggest it's a countable noun, hence fewer mores rather than less. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

When societal rules/help us all keep our cool/that's a more... --Jayron32 04:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)"When a fang bites your heel and you see it's an eel, that's a moray!" Edison (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

How can that possibly be an edit conflict, coming as it did 22 hours (!) after the previous edit? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Edison agonized over whether to make the edit or not. After much soul searching, and a big pizza pie, the decision was clear. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Edison's like this mathematician, who agonised over whether something was obvious or not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

World Chess Championships[edit]

Why World Chess Championships are played at irregular time intervals (like 1993, 1996, 1998, 2008, 2010) and not every one or two years, for example?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a complicated story; originally it was an arrangement between the challenger and the challenged. The full details are in our World Chess Championships article. It does say that "FIDE has announced that... there will be a championship cycle every two years, beginning with the World Chess Championship 2012", so they should be at regular intervals in the future. Alansplodge (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]