Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 August 14

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

August 14

Did any real fighting shields look like US highway shields?

Sorry, this is an interstate rather than a highway shield. Please ignore.

Not the Interstates, the previous system. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To facilitate responses from individuals knowledgeable about historical arms and armour but unfamiliar with US road furniture, could you link to a picture of a "US highway shield"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.122 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Done (see right). Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an interstate shield. A U.S. Highway shield looks like the one on the below: --Jayron32 15:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

A typical US Highways shield

U.S._Route_shield says: “on April 20, 1925, (Bureau of Public Roads) board member Lou A. Boulay of Ohio was credited with suggesting the use of a shield, inspired by that on the Great Seal of the United States”. That heraldic shield was in turn based on real shields, yes, see this discussed in Escutcheon_(heraldry) and Heater shield. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Inspired by but doesn't particularly look like the Great Seal or the heater shields in the article or the clothes irons that heater shields are anachronistically named for (unless you were talking about the Interstate shield who's photo was posted first which does resemble a heater shield) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks more like the original proposal, shown below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

carrots→ 18:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know the draft looked like that. And the middle is symbols of Irish, French, Germans, Englishmen and so on right? Yep, file page says so. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

   

The wavy top edge of the route shield (left) also bears some similarity to that of the 1825 design of the Treaty Seal (right), but the similarity of the latter with the Interstate shield is far more striking. Another question to consider: have any US highway shields been used as real fighting shields?  --Lambiam 18:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a way to be sure it's yes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

When and where? Sabres or swords? Shall we let the seconds work out the details?  --Lambiam 11:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A dime for each Israeli killed by antisemites, welded into a rod. Wait that'd be almost a hundred feet long, never mind then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The Great Seal of the United States has throughout history used a wide variety of escutcheon shapes; this is in line with the way heraldry works. The blazon only lists standard symbols and tinctures and does not indicate a particular expression of those things; thus there is often significant variation in how a particular specific example of a heraldic element will be represented, and there is no one "correct" way. As you can see here the most common shape is "french style" (see the above linked escutcheon article) you also see the "heater" style (two engrailed top) that you see in Interstate highway shields, and other examples that more closely resemble the U.S. Highway Shield, such as the original 1782 sketch which shows a similar (but not identical) shape to that of the U.S. Highway shield. I can't find any, right now, identical to the current U.S. Highway Shield design, but that doesn't mean that 1) the designer wasn't working from a version of the U.S. Seal that had that specific shape or 2) that they used a similar, but not identical shape and made some changes to it. Furthermore, you can see that exact shape in other heraldic symbols, such as the Coat of arms and flag of New Jersey, and many others at Historical armorial of U.S. states from 1876 show similar shield shapes, it may have been in style for the time as a LOT of arms from the late 19th and early 20th century showed that shape. --Jayron32 18:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Good points. I wonder if the curves were originally to redirect swords in diverse ways or something. Since your actions can only be reacted to (if not telegraphed) but you can know them many centiseconds in advance maybe you could hope he tries to hack around the shield and try to make it glance off in a funky direction with proper wrist/elbow etc. rotation and attack while he's occupied with that. But I have no martial arts experience so what do I know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Some tournament shields were ribbed for strength, giving an engrailed surface, and my unfounded guess is that the engrailed top edge seen here is a relic of portrayals of such shields. —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Jousting shields often had a notch for the lance, though these were asymmetrical. See a 15th-century example here [1]. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

In illustration, i think, the lance-notch more often cuts in from the side only, rather than from the top. [2] —Tamfang (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Chess clock increments

I believe most proper chess tournaments use the increment timing method, which our own article on Chess clock explains this way:

"[a] specified amount of time is added to the players main time each move, unless the player's main time ran out before they completed their move. For example, if the time control is G/90;inc30 (ninety minutes of main time per player with a thirty-second increment each move), each player gets an additional thirty seconds added to their main time for each move, unless the player's main time ran out first."

I understand how it is applied but I can't make my head understand the practicalities. Neither player can ever have played more than one move more than the other, so don't both players have more or less the same amount of increment time? If one player plays tends to play faster, doesn't the method benefit the slower player?

Hayttom (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Average games are ~40 moves above a certain very low skill level, anyone who plays competitively will have games multiple times longer every so often though so increment is better. Speed chess is shitty chess (he who analyzes blitz is stupid - famous quote) and a single good-looking rushed move can lose a won game, for standard time controls brutal clock warfare isn't the point. The increment isn't as long as the players would like though to keep games under about 6 or 7 hours, as some people get exhausted from playing marathons dropping their quality of play (especially if they play often like the Karpov world championship which had many, many, many games from the 10 wins win by 2 or something format and a young attacky Kasparov tried to outexhaust an old defensive genius in a game that perfect players would draw) Long games are also bad for increasing fanbase and thus prize money and sometimes start times would make some players sleep later than they'd like if games could last 8 hours. They'll never just adjourn every 5 or 6 hours till done again cause smartphones can help anyone cheat now, computers even more. In the past world championships were adjourned and players would analyze for ages with teams, even after they slept (during the Cold War at least, don't know about other times), sometimes to the point that less analysis would've helped. This was allowed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally 20/0 or 15/15 is enough for me and 10/0 or 7.5/7.5 is rushed but I'm just an amateur, this would be considered rapid (not the same thing as blitz) to a professional. And yes increment does benefit the slower player more than the rough equivalent in no increment which is about how much time a 60 move increment game would get. There are ample opportunities for fast strong players to flex and even a world championship for 5/3 or 5/5 that Magnus probably crushes lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You and your opponent get the same amount of total thinking time (i.e. both can think through the whole duration of the game) but the time is much more useful when it's your move and you know the board position, than when it's your opponent's move and you don't know what move they will make. Increment is good because it gets rid of the ridiculous time scrambles that we used to see because the player wasn't that great at clock management (that is a skill in its own right) and/or underestimated how many moves the game would take if it's a game without adjournments. Adjournments are basically history now. In the old days, in principle you were supposed to do any adjournment analysis by yourself, but nobody actually did that. At the high levels you would typically bring a second (basically an assistant who is also a strong player) to help you prepare and generally look after you. In case of an adjournment, you'd spend a lot of time analyzing with the second and (in a team event) possibly other players on your team, before resuming the game. I don't know how that is really different from analyzing with computers, but in any case, as SMW says, adjournments went away at around the time computer analysis became widespread. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Do Cadet Nurses qualify?

I saw these four videos [3], [4], [5] and [6] on YouTube. They're about a young woman and her quest to honor the women who served on the American home front during WWII. Here's some more information [7] about the memorial. Do women who served in the Cadet Nurse Corps qualify?142.255.72.126 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Qualify for what? It’s unclear what you are asking. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume OP is asking whether Cadet Nurses are included in this foundation's proposal to create a memorial. The correct response is that OP needs to contact that foundation to start a dialog with them. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If the question is, "did the women who served in the Cadet Nurse Corps contribute to keeping the home front running in support of the World War II effort?", the answer is undoubtedly yes. See the last sentence of the intro section of our Cadet Nurse Corps: "The American Hospital Association credited the cadet student nurses with helping to prevent the collapse of civilian nursing in the U.S. during the war." If the question is, "is the foundation planning to acknowledge the contribution of the Cadet Nurse Corps explicitly?", the best way to find out is indeed to contact them.  --Lambiam 21:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Their website currently includes the story of one cadet nurse [8] although I imagine they accept most submissions which seem genuine and fulfill the basics of what the memorial is about (US women working in jobs outside home during WW2) [9] Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 16:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to jump back in here. My apologies if this is late. But is there a national memorial to the Cadet Nurse Corps?142.255.72.126 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This YouTube video discusses plans for such a memorial, and this news item reports that such a memorial was dedicated in La Crosse, Wisconsin, in 2018. This page mentions the Women's Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, stating that U.S. Cadet Nurses may register at the Women's Memorial, without mentioning the La Crosse memorial.  --Lambiam 20:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Women on the Home Front Medal 1941-1945

While researching the above, I came across the US Women on the Home Front Medal 1941-1945. On the reverse is the inscription: "A Grateful Nation Remembers / 1941-1945 / World War II / 1991-1995". Anyone know anything about this? Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The hits from casually googling "WW2 commemorations 1941" suggests that some of the USA's 50th-anniversary commemorations explicitly mirrored the 1941-45 period that the USA was involved, something perhaps not immediately obvious to we Brits whose country became embroiled in 1939. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.61.94 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)