August 19

recently i have noticed reporters and politicians using the word "animous" instead of animousity. is this something new? i've only ever heard this word in the past few months, maybe a year. any comments?71.74.29.123 (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Animous" isn't a word, however both animus and animose is. Animus is the word that is a rough synonum of animosity. --Jayron32 03:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "synonum" the long-lost synonym for "synonym"?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

To answer your question about whether animus is a new word, the answer is no. Animus and animosity are roughly synonymous, but I think animus is in a slightly higher register or has slightly more prestige than animosity. As such, animus has tended to be used more by more highly educated people than animosity, which in turn is in more common use. It may be that there is a new trend among politicians and journalists in favor of animus, but the word itself has been around for a very long time. In fact, it is a Latin word. Marco polo (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, animous means "like or pertaining to an animé," such as, "Cartman appears particularly animous in the Trapper Keeper episode." μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wiktionary:animus, Wiktionary:animosity (no entry exists for "animous"). The Wiktionary:Tea room is perfect for "is this a real word?"-type questions. You may also want to try WP:Reference desk/Language. -- œ^™ 16:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember seeing a very old add for photocopiers claiming that they are "so simple even a woman can use them". Does anyone have any idea what company this was and if it's possible to find a copy of the ad? --CGPGrey (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're thinking of the famous Delmonte ad for easy-open bottles. [1] "You mean a woman can open it?", clearly meant to be funny even then, a reference to the supposed need for women to have men open jars and bottles for them. It featured as the cover (and name) of a collection of old, sexist adverts in postcard form, so it's become fairly widespread and well-known. [2] 86.163.214.39 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a crucial difference between the two: Using a photocopier requires most of all that you understand how to use it; opening a bottle or a jar often requires physical strength. So it's easy to see the reasoning behind the Delmonte ad, but not all that clear why a xerox machine would be advertised as "so simple even a woman can use them". 67.169.177.176 (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of old copier ads showing women using them here, here and here, but not with that tagline. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One possible less sexist interpretation is that women prefer products which are intuitive to use, versus those which require a training course and an operating manual to master. Of course, I would think men would prefer that, too, but perhaps "rows of shiny buttons" is more important to men, making them willing to read a manual to figure out what all those buttons do. A microwave oven is a classic example of this, as all it really needs is a dial for the time, and maybe another for the power level. However, we often get digital control panels which require a thick manual to explain. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone yet used a photocopier that was simple enough for men or women? I think we are all fed up with staring at paper jam messages that refuse to clear no matter how many casings we open and slam shut again. Sexist advertising and untrue to boot. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's not really less sexist. 2) It doesn't fit a tagline expressing surprise that women are capable of using it, not just prefer using it. 3) This is the culture that produced the car ad aimed at men with the panicky woman driving at night, reassuring men that the car was simple to use in this unfortunate circumstance. I really don't see the point of trying to propose imaginary, less-sexist interpretations of adverts that intentionally played up how miraculous it was that even women could get them to work. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) It certainly is less sexist to imply that women have different preferences than to imply a lack of intelligence. StuRat (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does George Lucas hold the copyright for Star Wars, or is it his company, Lucas Arts?

When will the first Star Wars movie enter the public domain?

--CGPGrey (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the second question, the answer is "95 years after publication date". See this page, and note that it was published in 1977 with a copyright notice. So that's 2072, assuming that the mouse doesn't extend it again. (The later movies are "70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first"). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that LucasFilm owns the copyright, but does it? I've found various news articles attributing it to both him (which would be life + 70 years) and LucasArts (95 years) --CGPGrey (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Read the link I gave. The law changed in 1977, and this comes out before the change. The law before 1977 doesn't have longer clause, just the 95 years. See the entry that reads "1964 through 1977 - Published With Notice". --Mr.98 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I had read the link and re-edited my answer, but apparently forgot to save it. --CGPGrey (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to believe that Congress won't retroactively extend all copyrights by 20 years every 20 years. It's already happened once since Star Wars came out. Until the courts or the people put a stop to it, no copyright will ever expire. -- BenRG (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, there are a bunch of Star Wars entries in the US copyright catalog. Every song has its own copyright, for example. The main copyrights on the concepts of Star Wars seem to all be registered to "Star Wars Corporation, employer for hire of George Lucas."

The Star Wars Corporation is apparently now Lucasarts, which manages licensing. So that probably means Lucasarts is the copyright owner, if you want to say there is just one. Movies are a big, complicated mess in terms of copyright, because individual performances are also technically copyrighted, and there are usually miles of contracts that negotiate exact ownership, licensing, etc. It usually takes an army of lawyers to sort out these sorts of things. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not asking for a prediction or speculation. Is HP saying that it is definitely going to spin off its PC business or is it thinking about it? --Melab±1 ☎ 20:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beeb says "Hewlett Packard has confirmed plans to stop making PCs, tablets and phones" [3]. That sounds like definitely. IIRC, IBM did this in 2005, selling out to Lenovo. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google news will help. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a map containing most of the Andean civilizations circa 1438 (when Pachacuti came to power in Cuzco). My area of focus was the territory which later came under control of the Inca Empire. The problem is that I have little idea of how to reliably cite such a monumental work (I'm calling it monumental since it has about 68 different civilizations, one including the Inca). I don't have much experience citing created maps at all.

I gathered the information from a variety of sources, mainly maps and location descriptions. The problem with the maps is that they mostly came from personal blogs or unreliable websites. I'm 100% sure that the maps are legitimate and accurate, but it just so happens that people published them on their webs (Hence, I don't know the real author of the maps; and using "www.blogspot.randomperson" as a source lacks professionalism). I took other parts of the map from descriptions in books (they related the civilization with a present-day location), but I am unsure if their descriptions are really enough or if I need an actual physical map.

I really would hate to see this work go to waste. So could anyone please provide help? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view, fwiw: The map is an image. On the image page, list the sources and the locations you found those sources. Arguably when an historic map is reprinted on a blog, it is the map and not the blog that you are citing. The reader, if she is so inclined, can accept or reject the veracity of the information; you'll have done your best by proving as much info as you can. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this apply as well if I first publish the map outside of Wikipedia? The map is part of a research project I am currently conducting. I would like to contribute it to Wikipedia after first publishing it in the research project.

Here is an example of one of the websites I found the maps at: [4]. The one most useful to me in that page was the one on the

Aymaras.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia's RS rules don't apply to images, thank God -- if they did, it would be virtually impossible to find any images at all for articles. Just make sure that you describe as accurately and comprehensively as possible how you constructed the map, and you should be okay. (Until somebody disagrees with it, that is.) Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with that pragmatic answer, too. Neither does it matter what you do with the map before donating it to wikipedia. Print it on tea-towels and t-shirts, if you wish ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to come in a bit late, I think

WP:RS should apply to maps as well, but it should only come up if your map is contested; i.e. if someone comes along with more reliable sources which contradict your map. --Jayron32 23:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I also think maps ought to cite sources. Here is an example of a map based on many sources that is well referenced: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG --the sources are listed and described at great length, as are a variety of points about the way the map was made, on its talk page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG --this is an extreme example, in part because the map was challenged, both on the English and Spanish wikipedias, but it is a useful example of how one might go about referencing a map in extreme detail. Pfly (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I will probably have to do the long-list of sources since I will first publish the map outside of Wikipedia. I'll simply re-use the same long list of sources for the Wikipedia description page when I get to post it in here. All I can say so far about the Inca Empire map I have developed is that it really is quite different to the ones currently in the

The map of the Aymara to which you link is labelled "Source: Adapted from Rowe 1946, p. 185". Are you able to identify or confirm that source? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the source is from John Howland Rowe ([5]), an archaeologist of Andean civilizations, but I have no idea what book it may be found in. What I have done so far is look, in google books, for the names of the individual civilization and see if something pops up which provides their relative location. So far it has worked. I will attribute "approximate areas of influence" to the difference civilizations to avoid any issues with the commitee which will evaluate the map.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the source (Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest by John H. Rowe. I can't find the map on page 185, but it seems that whoever made the map did it based on Rowe's description (hence the term "adapted from"). The map in page 205 is fantastic. I will probably update it in SVG or PNG format and cite Rowe.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]