Miscellaneous desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

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.

January 16

Heartbeat (ITV police drama) episode 360 series 18 "The Middle Of Somewhere"

Hello, I watched Heartbeat latest episode from Finland television, and I have few questions about it:

Why did Rosie murdered? Why didn´t Polly murdered?
Who was the Rosie murderer?
Why Rosie´s murderer dead?
Why the murderer had messed Rosie´s passport?

thank you very much for answers --Olli (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you’re not the only one puzzled by this story. I found several questions on forums asking for an explanation of the plot. I haven’t seen it, but based on plot summaries on pages like this, and on our articles List of Heartbeat episodes (series 17-18) and List of Heartbeat characters, it appears that:

1 and 2. Polly, the missing blonde woman, is a clue that something bad is happening to young blonde women in the area of the roadhouse run by Mr. Meredith. In fact, Meredith’s son Des is a serial killer who has been capturing women and keeping them secretly in cages. Polly is his current victim, and the Aidensfield police rescue her from her cage in time. However, Rosie was one of Des’s earlier victims. She is already dead, her body has been disposed of and is not found.

3. When Mr. Meredith learns what terrible things his son has been doing, he kills him in anger.

4. The finding of Rosie’s passport proves that she was one of Des’s victims. The fact that it is torn and messy may be intended to show that Rosie was tortured before she died (but this is OR, based on suggestions from a number of commentators).

- Ka renjc 10:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really appreciate your effort, Karenjc! Your summary made the plot so much simpler to me. Thank you so much for writing that description! --Olli (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome :) Ka renjc 13:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol and 21-year-old rule in the US

I am curious, in an entirely hypothetical way, whether if you buy "medical" alcohol in a pharmacy, they are required to check your ID? I know I only bought it once in my life and I was already at that time significantly over 21, and I don't think I was asked for ID, so it's inconclusive. I don't imagine they'd ask for non-ethyl alcohols, since people in the US are not sufficiently crazy to drink it [please let me know if they do check!], but I am curious about "normal" pure ethyl alcohol, which I guess should be drinkable if diluted. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare(or completely unheard of) that pure ethanol is sold in pharmacies. If they did, it would be "denatured" with added methanol to make it undrinkable. Plus, I think your garden variety rubbing alcohol is tert-butanol, anyways.98.248.125.228 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an interesting question, though. Occasionally doctors will write prescriptions for normal alcoholic beverages in hospitals where alcoholic beverages are not otherwise allowed. Could they also write one for an 18 year old? Or ... to avoid being a legal question : "Is this ever done?"

And not to mention, back in the olden days, alcohol prescriptions were definitely written for adults back when alcohol was unconstitutional. APL (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well as with many things (even though I somewhat understand this is one of the cases when it may not have been obvious), a simple search for 'alcohol prescribed to under 21' comes up with a bunch of relevant stuff.

For example this sheriff office somewhere in Ohio [1] which says "what circumstances can a person under 21 years old drink alcoholic beverages in Ohio" one of them is "The alcohol is prescribed for medical treatment by a doctor".

This eHow (not the greatest of sources I know) /facts_7374404_federal-law-underage-alcohol-consumption_.html (eHow has been blacklisted for a longtime, probably because the way they work leads to writers spamming their content) says the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 allows (states to allow) it if "If alcohol is prescribed by a licensed medical professional, an underage person may legally possess it". This [2] edu source says basically the same thing (isn't working for me at the moment but you should be able to find a cache). Our article itself doesn't seem to mention this so people may want to address that.

So it appears at least one state does and there's no reason why they can't. BTW another allowed exemption is for an established religious service. (Also followed in Ohio.) How often this occurs and what pharmacies do I can't say. (But I would think they do whatever they do with other prescription medicines, I would hope they'd be more worried about giving someone Cyclophosphamide then they would be ethanol.)

Nil Einne (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought, perhaps what the OP was considering is what happens if you are picking up a prescription for someone else (which can't be that uncommon since sick people would usually prefer to stay home and a 18-21 year old may be helping a relative or spouse/partner)? My naïve non lawyer reading of the above (which probably aren't the precise wording of the law) is it will be fine since it's still prescribed by a licensed medical professional (it doesn't say it has to be prescribed for the under 21 year old). And as mentioned there are drugs which would seem to be of greater concern. Even from an abuse POV, morphine and some derivatives would likely be of greater risk (although such considerations may some times be ignored in drafting laws). [3] mentions photo ID is required in some states when picking up such controlled substances. (Not surprisingly also outside the US [4].) Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related is that the US's 18th Amendment, which forbade liquor until it was repealed, specifically only forbade it "for beverage purposes". A refreshing beverage differs from a medical prescription, so I'd speculate that the various state laws about requiring ID might only require it if you're getting alcohol "for beverage purposes". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the examples said it was valid for someone underage to "possess" it. That doesn't mean it's valid for them to buy it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some or all prescription drugs require a minimum age to purchase, although that would probably state-by-state. As regards Prohibition, the 18th Amendment didn't explicitly allow "alcohol for medicinal purposes", but it did leave a loophole by saying, "...the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors..." Also, the amendment by itself didn't do anything. The Volstead Act is what gave it teeth, and specifically defined what alcohol could be made and sold, and what couldn't. The repeal of the 18th and the consequent nullification of the Volstead Act didn't end Prohibition as such, it simply turned that decision over to individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how to create a facebook page that links to wikipedia?

like this for example http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-diving/112247948787873

i have noticed that the activity spearfishing beeds updating and am willing to do so, but i need to know to link it to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxulCRO (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is any way. As far as I know, Facebook decides somehow to create these community pages by copying wikipedia content. I don't know if they've revealed precisely how they decide which articles they copy or if there's any way to increase the chance of them creating such an article. See also [5]. Of course, if there isn't a wikipedia article on the subject then there's nothing to copy so if it is appropriate to create one then you're welcome to do so. Similarly I presume Facebook eventually updates their articles so if you see any errors you should update the wikipedia article (if necessary) and hope that Facebook eventually updates their page. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a guess but I think the way it works is that if enough (one?) people put a topic in their profiles, then FB links that interest/activity to the WP article. Dismas|^(talk) 02:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier Field, Chicago

When and why did they change the name of "Soldiers' Field" to "Soldier Field"? I just noticed the difference today when the football game was televised and at first I thought the TV station made a mistake. 76.108.108.13 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it always was Soldier Field. Indeed, Soldier Field#Origin of name and design model says "It officially opened on October 9, 1924, ... as Municipal Grant Park Stadium, changing its name to Soldier Field on November 11, 1925." Astronaut (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the 7th anniversary of Armistice Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was never "Soldiers' Field" officially, but it was often called that. Once the Bears moved there in 1971, there was more of an effort to stick with the stadium's correct name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a book published in 1948 by Ziff Davis, "Chicago" photographs by Arthur Hagg, in which it mentions "Soldiers' Field" three times. It is a second edition. I am wondering why they would not correct any mistakes for a second edition. I spent my first 33 years in Chicago, so I know it well. However, I relocated in about 1961, so maybe my memory is not so good for an old lady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.108.13 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's Arthur E. Haug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.108.13 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is good, for any age. :) I think it was more often called "Soldiers' Field" in those days, even though that was supposedly incorrect. I looked in Google Images, and there are 1930s-40s era postcards that have it both as "Soldiers' Field" and "Soldier Field". I have the 1959 edition of The Encyclopedia of Football which calls it "Soldier's Field" (the Chicago Cardinals played their final season there before moving to St. Louis). What's needed, probably, are contemporary news accounts and/or photos of the south end (where the name was displayed) at the time of its name change in 1925. Complicating matters is that Harvard Stadium was built on land called "Soldiers Field", and I think the stadium was called that for awhile. Harvard also has a modern soccer facility called "Soldiers Field". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Soldiers Field Road, in Boston (Allston/Brighton extension of Storrow Drive). What is needed to resolve the issue with the Chicago facility is a picture of, say, the entrance to or facade of the stadium showing the name. Its quite possible it has always officially been Soldier Field, and people just always mistakenly call it Soldier(')(s)(') field. Another thing which may help is pictures of other official documents released by the stadium, such as letterhead, or maybe game programs from back in the day, probably from the Cardinals. I'm doing some googling, I'll see what I can find. --Jayron32 16:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is 1926 for an early reference: Some memoriabilia from the 1926 Army-Navy Game, which was played in Chicago, clearly calls it "Soldier Field" with no "s". See [6]. This was the game where the name of the field was formally dedicated. I think we can take this as authoritative that the name "Soldier Field" has always been the official spelling then. --Jayron32 16:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all the research. Incidentally, I was looking at the dust cover of the book I have and the blurb on the back cover mentions "Soldier's Field," so the editors of the book and of the dust cover didn't even agree with each other. I wonder if they even noticed? ...and it was the second printing. Well, now I know it is Soldier Field. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.108.13 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, when I was young I thought it had an 's' on the end. It was after the Bears moved in, I think, that they started correcting people who attached the 's'. It does seem more logical to make it plural. But that's not how they did it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identify Hoover Vacuum Cleaner

Hi,

can anyone identify the model of the vacuum cleaner in this ad?

http://melbourne.gumtree.com.au/c-ViewAd?AdId=253853914&MessageId=MSG.VIEW_AD.EDIT_AD_SUCCESSFULMXAdIdMZ253853914MXGuidMZ12d81bf6-5a70-a20b-2785-c52fffffff96#

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.218.171 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking on Hoover's website? This page shows pictures of some likely looking vacuums, though I'm not sure if those particular models are available in Australia. Then again, it is only $20, so it wouldn't be much of a loss if you bought it and found it (didn't) suck :-) Astronaut (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]