Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 10

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< May 9 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 11 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.


May 10

edit

Cæcilia Knudsdatter

edit

What happen to the children of Cæcilia Knudsdatter? I just know her son Charles was duke of Halland but who gave him that title and did he or his brother Knud leave descendants?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not turning up much.
  • The Swedish Wikipedia article on her husband Jarl Erik mentions no sons, only a daughter Inga Eriksdotter, who died in 1157 and was married to Asser Skjalmsen. Apparently Inga and Asser had at least one child, Absalon Hvide, who became an archbishop. If that's the right Erik?
Can you find a translation of Saxo Grammaticus that includes books 10 to 16? According to the Swedish wikipedia, that's the source for Caecilia and her husband. I can only find books 1 to 9 in English, which is before he gets to the 11th century. Maybe you can try at the language desk? 184.147.137.171 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then who was the Charles Eriksen, Duke of Halland.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

update on assistance

edit

I'm trying to get through to Shakescene. This is in regards to creating an article about the Serpentine font style. I left a message in his talk page. Plus, I put some noted uses in his created article. He hasn't gotten back to me in well over a month. I wonder what's going on.142.255.103.121 (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He last edited 5 days ago. Other than that, there's not much we can do. Wikipedia is anonymous and volunteer, and those two facts mean that people can come and go as they please, and no one is obligated to do much of anything. However, if there's anything specific I (or perhaps someone else) can help you with, perhaps we can be useful? --Jayron32 02:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:User:Shakescene does have email enabled. Have you tried that? Click on the 'email this user' link at the bottom of the talk page.
Sorry, you need to be a registered user to do that Rojomoke (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your contributions are of the type: "would you please..." in diskussions. User Shakescene wanted to help you in March and prepared User:Shakescene/Serpentine for you. You already edited it. Become a registered user (it is free, say: User:Serpentine) and create the Serpentine font article yourself if you feel it is lacking. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Shakescene's response) I'm a bit slower now than I've been before because I recently moved both physically and back to dial-up Internet service from the much faster DSL (which also means I have to avoid being on-line when that interferes with normal voice-telephone service). And so many items crowd this Reference Desk every day that I don't see every individual item on my Watchlist; instead I review my watchlisted Ref Desk pages (Humanities, Misc., Language & Talk) once or twice a week for new posts. So this is the first I've seen this query, which is already being archived.
But I have seen the two messages on my Talk Page. One link didn't work, and the other is mainly a gallery of someone's work on many different type faces. (His variation on Serpentine looks quite different from the original that 142... first saw on screen.) Interesting but not much to build up the existing typographical stub.
Everyone's history on Wikipedia is a little bit different. I've spent hundreds of hours on The Project (i.e. Wikipedia) and have made closer to 10,000 edits than 5,000, collecting a few Barnstars and brickbats in the process while creating only a very small handful of original published articles (not counting redirects, etc.), including at least one article that's been deleted.
That's because I started as many editors (and non-editors) do, by correcting the odd date, spelling or statistic here and there, and then registering (the security & privacy dangers from not registering outweighing the understandable doubts anyone might have about the registration process), and then building up to filling out existing stub articles or significantly expanding or radically revising longer articles that others had already created.
I haven't yet tried posting what's at User:Shakescene/Serpentine as a revival of the Serpentine (font) stub that failed new-user review by a technology oriented editor unfamiliar with typography stubs. But five days after registering, 142... can do so himself or herself without risking a similar summary review, since registered editors' work can't be deleted before a much fairer, more transparent, more public consensus under Wikipedia:Articles for Discussion. In the meantime, User:Shakescene/Serpentine is on my Watchlist, so I can see any citations and details that 142... adds from his or her new material without fear of losing the whole article. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Geography

edit

Has anyone calculated the size of the different London fare zones? Something that says: Zone 1 is estimated to be 19 square miles, zone2+zone1 is 50 square miles, etc.

For those who are not familiar, I mean these: [1]

To preempt comment like "How do you define the border between 2 zones?", I'll say this: the border is exactly halfway between a zone x station and the nearest zone x+1 station, unless there is a boundary station (like Elephant and castle) in which case the border is exactly at the main entrance of the station. But if someone else has figures with another (reasonnably formal) definition, I'll take that instead.

And I don't mind these figures in square kilometers, obviously. --Lgriot (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very brief Google search didn't reveal anything. The original zones included London Bus operations too - there's a fixed fare now - so the zone boundaries will correspond to actual roads, rather than the vague representations on the Tube map. I'm fairly certain that the northern boundary between Zones 3 and 4 is the North Circular Road. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English weight in Medieval times

edit

How much in modern England weight (pounds) would a person weigh today if in the High Middle Ages he weighed 110 pounds in London then? LordGorval (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were several different weights known as "pounds" back then. Our Pound (mass) article says a "tower pound" (one kind of pound typically used in London in the period you are asking about) was about 350 grams in modern weight, so 110 of those pounds would be about 85 modern pounds. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I'm not sure if medieval man shared our obsession with weighing himself, or how easy it was to do it. However, if he used the Avoirdupois system (after about 1300), each pound was equal to 6992 grains. It was changed to 7,000 grains in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, which remained the same when Imperial units were introduced in 1824, the ones we still use today, if we don't use those funny foreign metric measures. The difference between a medieval pound and the later one is only 8 grains - there are 437.5 grains in an Imperial ounce (so not enough to worry about). There were however, several different types of pound weight in use in England in the middle ages - Pound (mass)#Historical use has the details.
Please note that British people invariably measure themselves today in stones, a stone being 14 pounds. So no Englishman today would say that he weighed 110 pounds, he would say that he was 7 stone and 12 pounds (very skinny for a modern bloke).[2][3] If you buy a set of scales in the UK, they are marked in stones and pounds (big numbers) and kilogrammes (little numbers). I don't know how far back that goes, but the stone was certainly a common measure in late medieval England. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, when babies are born today in the UK is their weight announced in kilograms or pounds? HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[or stones]? Shadowjams (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be a rather large baby to be even one stone. I'll admit I was being a little mischievous in highlighting that stones are unlikely to always be used for peoples' weight. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Babies are measured in pounds and ounces in the UK. We still haven't got used to that barbaric French metric system. Milk and beer are measured in pints, but spirits are metric. We still use miles, and most people still only understand Fahrenheit. We use stones for adults, and feet and inches for height. I built a table in Japan for my wife using only my own body measurements, and she was shocked to see me do it. Imperial measures are completely easy to understand and use. Unless you are bigger or smaller than me. :) 77.102.198.149 (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Babies in the UK are weighed in kilograms and grams for the health professionals' reference, but the weight is also converted into pounds and ounces because parents and grandparents still seem to like that. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that the table weighs the same as you? HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, using my body parts as measurements for length, as I am sure you are aware. It's an old Irish trick (that I made up when I was building the table). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People are able to estimate lengths using their own bodies, for example; finger tip to nose is about a yard (you can compensate for having short arms by turning your head away), finger tip to finger tip is a fathom as long as you're 6 feet tall - ask Vitruvius. Inches can be measured with your thumb, or span, and feet with your foot. Some folks know the length of their forearm, which used to be called a cubit. I regularly use fathoms to measure rope - 3.5 fathoms is perfect for a square lashing on 2" diameter spars (HiLo knows what I'm talking about). Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm certainly old enough to still be able to use the imperial measurements, even though Australia metricated properly back in the 1970s (unlike some other places). But I don't think I've ever used a fathom. I live in an area on the outskirts of Melbourne that had its roads laid out over 150 years ago. It's good to explain to younger folk that it's based on a one mile grid, with the main easements giving us nice wide three chain roads (very useful for droving sheep and cattle) and lesser roads having one chain easements. Those younger folk do look at me funny sometimes. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they play cricket, they'll know how far a chain is (the distance between the wickets). Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always found it amusing that the length from your elbow to your wrist is the same as the length of your foot, even though they look completely different lengths. Also, your belt perfectly matches the length of your elbow to hand, when wrapped on it like a belt. Fingers can be used to roughly measure centimetres (as I often do in tabletop wargaming). When I was in Hungary, we got a desk for my apartment, and in order to measure the size needed, I used my feet (size 10s). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the belt thing and it works for me, with the caveat that I'm a bit skinnier than the average. It wouldn't work for those who are fond of pies. Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I think it's actually because all belts are made the same size, and the adult forearm is generally uniform) :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I have to disagree, because I know from decades of experience buying belts that they come in various sizes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_May_10&oldid=1146486432"