Miscellaneous desk
< July 19	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 21 >

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.

July 20[edit]

Article with the longest name[edit]

When I came across The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences I started wondering what the article with the longest name was. I found Acetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminyl and Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu, but neither is quite as long. — Daniel 02:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is asked periodically, and I believe the answer is Dante And Randal And Jay And Silent Bob And A Bunch Of New Characters And Lando, Take Part In A Whole Bunch Of Movie Parodies Including But Not Exclusive To, The Bad News Bears, The Last Starfighter, IN Jones And The Temple Of Doom, Plus A High Scho which (as you can tell if you clicked on it) redirects to Clerks: The Animated Series episode five. Carom 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about one that doesn't redirect? — Daniel 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last time, the two longest ones found were "United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection" (165) and "How Hedley Hopkins Did a Dare, robbed a grave, made a new friend who might not have really been there at all, and while he was at it committed a terrible sin which everyone was doing even though he didn't know it" (212). Of course, if we were allowed arbitrarily long titles, the record would probably go to either "When the Pawn...", "Wolfe+585, Senior" or "Titin". Laïka 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or 0.999... ? :) Capuchin 13:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a software limit of 256 characters per title - and a bug that actually limits you to (depending on whom you talk to) either 254 or 255 in practice. SteveBaker 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! I didn't know that. (But it's clearly 255.)

Based on the database dump from April 2 (the most recent one I've downloaded), the ten longest titles are:

But it appears that none of these is a plain, no-redirected article. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog defense[edit]

What should one do to defend oneself against an attacking dog (german shephard or doberman). Assume one is alone with the dog and has no weapons. I also heard that dogs can smell fear; is this true? Acceptable 03:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A utility company, whose employees had to enter private property to read meters. had a training video with helpful sugestions like "Always leave the gate open for easy exiting." "Always have the owner lock up the dog, even if 'he never bites.'" "Always carry something like a bagor briefcase that you can place between you and the dog's jaws." "If confronted by an aggressive dog, try saying "Who's a good dog? Where's your ball? Wanna go for a ride?" I imagine a mean dog rolling his eyes at the absurdity of any of these before tearing out a piece of your flesh. Still, it might work with some. Per TV documentaries about police dogs, yes, when you are frightened your body sprays out hormones which tell a dog, even German shepherds with their limited scent capabilities, that you are the "bad guy." Police dog handlers can say "Find the bad guy" and their dogs track down the frightened person who is hiding in the bushes. Edison 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV documentaries about police dogs are not the most scientifically rigorous of sources. "Smelling fear" is a term often used, but there is limited experimental proof of it. If fear hormones were being "sprayed", it would be an example of a kairomone, which have yet to be definitively determined in mammals. Nevertheless, considering that dogs have a sense of smell much more sophisticated than us humans, it is not unreasonable to imagine that they could differentiate between the small of stress-perspiration from heat-perspiration (they are chemically different), and associate the former with "fear". Rockpocket 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at some length before. See Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 September 2, under "vicious dogs".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had read somewhere that it's possible to kill a dog quickly by taking its two forelegs and pulling them apart with some force. I have no idea if it's really true - and luckily have not been faced with the situation. I do know, however, that if a dog has you in its jaws (an arm perhaps) then you need to insert a finger into the dog's mouth. At the back of their jaw, there's a space with no teeth. Get a finger in there and keep pushing deeper and the dog will open its mouth. (Well, it works when my dog won't release the ball its just fetched!). Also - and this is another apparently - if you block a dog's nostrils with your fingers - ie one in each hole - the dog will have to release whatever is in its mouth so it can breathe. 83.104.131.135 08:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a small dog this may be difficult as they can still breath a little through the small slits to either side of the nostrils when the nostrils are too small to stick your fingers up and therefore harder to cover effeciently. With some dogs it may be as simple as reaching over them and grabbing them by the tail or hind quarters and / or lifting them by the tail. They will often respond to the 'attack' from a different direction by releasing you, giving you time to escape / restrain the dog. Breathing may also be resticted by inserting your hand or a number of fingers under the dogs collar, tightening it. Lanfear's Bane

It's different whether the dog is truly attacking, for instance if it has plans to eat you, or if the dog is merely defending/being territorial. or even just "mock attack"ing. In the latter cases, it's not too hard to get the dog into a standoff, where you're both agreed to to just stare at each other and growl and not attack first. But if a large dog is really intent on killing you, it's pretty much like a strong human of similar size, armed with a big knife; you can inflict quite a few blows, even serious ones, without changing his/her mind, since the pain doesn't really set in until after the adrenaline goes down. So mostly, you're on the defensive; concentrate first on keeping the sharp parts away from vulnerable areas, secondly on getting him/her entangled or off balance or something so that you can get away, and only thirdly on trying to "win". Going after the vision works with either species; you don't have to actually poke the eyes out, but if you can get a copiously bleeding cut above the eyes, that makes it harder to see. If you're lucky, you can get your hand clamped around his/her muzzle; it's easier to keep it from opening then keeping it from shutting on you. PS if you expect to get bitten/cut in a non-life-threatening place, then if/when you do, you are less likely to panic and completely lose the ability for further rational defensive action.Gzuckier 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have broken up many dog fights over the years, and found the most effective non-damaging method is to pull the tail, as someone else suggested. I've always thought that this vulnerability is why guard dogs often have their tails docked, but that article doesn't mention it. --TotoBaggins 17:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me: pepper spray, which I presume is what mailmen carry for dog defense, doesn't work. You can ask my substitute mailman, me, or my (late) dog. This was the typical territorial thing, so didn't go any further, but if a faceful of pepper spray wouldn't discourage a dog who's being defensive, it sure isn't going to discourage a determined dog. On the other hand, as my regular mailman, or me, or my (late) dog can tell you, handing him a milkbone will do wonders to change a territorial dog's opinion of you, although he will still glare suspiciously and woof from time to time to let you know you haven't got a free pass. I doubt it would do anything to distract the determined attack, though. In addition, serious guard/attack dogs are trained to refuse any food offered them by anyone other than their handler, or found anywhere. For obvious reasons. Gzuckier 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs can tell if a human is frightened, happy, scared, etc. because of the scent that we give off under those circumstances. --PolarWolf 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? --TotoBaggins 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in a source for that too. Though dogs can tell if a human is suffering from bladder cancer from the smell of our urine. [1]

It might not necessarily be the smell. My dog can regularly tell when I am upset about something, and I'm willing to bet it's my body language and not a smell that's giving it away. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Olfaction "Bloodhounds, who have the keenest sense of smell of any dogs, have noses ten to a hundred million times more sensitive than a human's." A dog's sense of smell is orders of magnitude more acute than a humans, and there are differences between species of dogs, such that scenthounds have a better sense of smell than say German shepherds. Dogs can accurately detect the chemical given off by humans with lung cancer. It sems very plausible they would be able to distinguish stress related hormones in the sweat or the breath of a frightened person. Edison 04:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting, though that stress-hormones are non-volatile and therefore unable to be detected by smelling through the main olfactory epithelium of a dog. They may be able to be detected by their vomeronasal organ, though that is purely speculative, since there is no known examples of cross-species VNO activation in mammals. Rockpocket 06:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs are really good at interpreting body language too. Between and ungodly sense of smell and picking up body posture variations we aren't even aware we're making, it's like they are telepathic! There was an experiment that was widely publicised [2] where they tried to have humans track by scent alone and they were surprised to find that we could actually do it - very slowly and not easily - but we can do it. So it must be just ridiculously easy for a dog. The other thing that the study discovered was that having two nostrils gives you the ability to smell "in stereo". With the dog's amazing sensitivity, picking up directional smells must also be incredibly easy for them. SteveBaker 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, humans and canines are both social hunters which hunt in packs, and therefore need to communicate very well. We have language, dogs don't, but they still have to be able to communicate efficiently enough to bring down big prey that could kill them individually, but by nonverbal means. To us it looks like magic. Gzuckier 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments:

1) Perhaps we should say dogs can "detect" fear, as opposed to smelling it, since other senses may be involved. This hardly seems psychic to me, though, as humans can tell if another human is scared, too.

2) People are rarely without any weapons, if you consider impromptu weapons like car keys used to gouge at eyes and shoes used to kick the dog where it will do the most damage. StuRat 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try saying "Cookiee?" in a very cute and excited voice. Another one I heard of and have actually tried was using something to block the dog's sightlines. Like putting a binder in front of its face. Best just to avoid the mad dogs. 142.33.70.60 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something like this happen one time, with a large dog (I think mastiff-related) and a small man. Pulling on the dog's legs did not kill him, but it broke the dog's front legs -- apparently they are vulnerable to being twisted outward, away from the dog's chest. There was still plenty of fight in the dog, and the guy did get bitten, but he managed to get away, and with the broken front legs, the dog could not chase him.Deltopia 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet problems[edit]

I would have gone to something else like Yahoo Answers, but your quicker. My internets screwed up, it lets me onto everything, Youtube, your guys, Runescape, anything I want, but just a while ago, I was on Bebo, and I click on Profile, then guess wat happens, "The page cannot be displayed". Anything involved with Bebo can't be displayd according to the internet, I can enter anything else, but Bebo. I know it's not construction on the site, the site would have told us, and it would be said in the 'Cannot find server' page. any ideas about whats happening, and how to stop it so I can get back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.170.7 (talk • contribs)

How long ago did this happen? Have you tried again? All websites occasionally have this sort of problem, especially Wikipedia. Just wait a few hours and it will probably come back.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear your internet history, cache, cookies etc. It could be something to do with that. Also as noted sites do ocassionally drop (though most are kind enough to have a 'oops' style page. ny156uk 16:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks §→70.130.170.7 18:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had this problem with the Linksys unit. Googled "Linksys", got commentary such as "Linksys is shit", "Linksys is crap", worse. Are you on a Linksys unit ? Bebo may be just as shitty. Troll ? Hell no. Just had some bad experiences with a Internet ISP. 205.240.146.58 03:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yea, you get what you paid for. Linksys is a budget brand of routers. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional movie effect[edit]

How do professional Hollywood film-studios give their movies that "movie-effect"? For example, it's very easy to distinguish a home video from a feature film, so what done to the feature film to look professional? Another example, if you were to watch the "Behind the scenes" material on a DVD movie, you can tell the "atmosphere" of the clip is different from that of the movie. The movie seems darker, and more movie-ish. So what effect is given to the movies to look like they do? Acceptable 05:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you mean. The basic difference is that the feature film is filmed on film itself (i.e. celluloid), whereas the home video and the behind-the-scenes clips are shot on video (usually digital these days). Video tends to look brighter and sharper, and as you say, celluloid looks darker and more atmospheric. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have noticed TV shows tend to look different from films, soap operas from America look different to those from the UK or from Australia. There's lots of different film you can use and filters and things I guess although I'd be interested to know more myself? Has anyone from the UK noticed Casualty/Holby City (I don't know which) has started using different style film, it looks more fuzzy somehow? Cyta 08:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a show/movie has segments filmed on tape and on film both, and when they switch from one to the other it really jumps out at you. Gzuckier 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it has to do with professional lighting. That was one of the things that distinguished the look of the amateur-produced Star Trek episode on the web a few years back from the original series. It certainly wasn't the acting or special effects. 76.80.21.81 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of film used, lighting, processing (they will put more work into cleaning up/perfecting the film than the extra features). Also home-movies are often filmed with worse camera-technique so they'll feel jerky instead of smooth, wobble instead of stable and focussing may be softer instead of sharp. Lighting will be the biggest difference though. Much like in photography good lighting makes a good shot great. ny156uk 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardj, do they still use celluloid for Hollywood movies? and what is "video"? Thanks. Acceptable 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine a lot of it is also post-production work and/or processing. Ergo the "deleted-scenes" bits that look nothing like the original. But actually, I got to watch a movie getting filmed once, and it was amazing how different "real life" looked compared to the monitor right next to it, which looked like a "movie". Things really looked differently on camera than they did in person, without any post-processing, due to the filters on the lens, the settings, etc. (In this case they were shooting digital video for possible feature release. It was a small production.) --24.147.86.187 21:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The celluloid makes a lot of difference - the colour range of film is quite different from TV and also the frame rate is much lower on movie film than on TV. This produces a subliminal difference that's quite noticable, although it's often hard to say why. This is going to change though - more and more movies are shot on digital movie cameras because it's easier to do the special effects - and it's cheaper, faster (you don't have to develop it) and safer (you're less likely to accidentally expose a day of work!) - and of course movies are making less and less at the box office and more and more on TV and DVD - and digital movie theatres are popping up all over the place. Celluloid film is going the way of 35mm still photography. SteveBaker 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't still use celluloid film, or more precisely cellulose nitrate. The stuff was a major fire hazard. According to film base and film stock, cellulose acetate stock replaced it in the 1950s, and since the 1990s tougher polyester stock has been used for release prints. --Anonymous, July 21, 2007, 03:05 (UTC).

I've always been amazed at how cheesy it looks when a news camera crew videos the filming of a scene from an action movie. Fight scenes on stage usually look fake and crappy, and so do action scenes in movies when filmed by a professional film crew not part of the movie shoot, like a documentary crew or a TV news crew. It usually looks like a second rate student film effort, even if it it "Lord of the Rings." I suppose part of it is the framing: the news camera is not at the same place as the movie camera, so the action is framed differently, and the movie background is replaced by stage hands and film crew standing around. A second difference is (Foley) sound effects. In a fight, sword sounds, thuds and cracks of hitting, etc. are added post production, along with music. A third difference is editing: a quality movie will have numerous quick cuts of closeup, reaction shot, long shot, two shot, etc. to enhance the drama, done smoothly enough we are unaware of them. Edison 04:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observations, Edison, (hope you don't mind I added a few links to your post ... readers may also wish to consult Category:Film_techniques). One side-issue that you reminded me of: film crews that deliberately use seemingly "low-budget" filming techniques to increase the appearance of "spontaneity" or "authenticity" in the recorded material. There's some compelling cultural criticism lurking around in there somewhere. dr.ef.tymac 15:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent question, and one I've wondered about. I don't know the answer(s), either, but one thing I'm pretty sure of is: if it were easy to describe the "professional" techniques and easy to do them, there wouldn't be such a huge difference between the look of amateur versus professional films. But of course there is.

If you've ever been near the set of a "real" movie, you know that they can spend a whole day, with lots of well-paid people standing around doing mostly nothing, and end up as their day's work with just a minute or two of usable film, or less. It takes that much time and effort, in part, because they're fussing around getting everything "just right".

(I'm sure that a certain amount of the fussing is unnecessary, but is being done "because that's the way we do it" or because of union make-work requirements. But most of the rest of it surely matters.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of an anecdote. A writer was visiting Michael Caine on a movie set and, as is the way of these things, although Caine was required to be available (so they could start shooting the moment everything was ready), for hours there was nothing for him to do. The writer expressed surprised at how calmly the star took this situation. And Caine replied, "That's what they pay me for. I'd act for nothing." --Anonymous, July 22, 03:31 (UTC).

Inserted in the archived copy: I've found a copy of the posting where I originally heard this. It wasn't "a writer" he was talking to; it was another member of the cast, Valerie Perrine. If the story is true, then the movie must have been either the 1985 comedy Water or the 1999 comedy Curtain Call. --Anon, 22:03 UTC, December 9, 2007.

My understanding is the difference in the look of TV and movies originally derived from the difference between using film stock and airing something live or off videotape. I talked to a guy in the industry not too long ago, and he said that with digital cameras, they can make it look either like film or like TV, depending on what the producer wants. Even though there's no physical film involved, producers of certain types of programs will demand a film look to the work. For instance, the use of film rather than videotape has long been something that's distinguished NFL Films highlights from those you see on SportsCenter or local news. The videotape image may be sharper than the film broadcast (on a TV screen), but using film makes it look cinematic. So NFL Films producers may edit digitally captured footage to look like film. -- Mwalcoff 02:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably changed in these days of digital everything, but it used to be quite common for TV shows to be shot on film, just like movies. However, the lighting techniques were different because they were intended to be seen on a CRT screen in a lit room at home, rather than projected from film in a darkened cinema. --Anon, July 22, 03:31 (UTC).

Runescape[edit]

What is Runescape?Is it a game or a software application that tests our patience?

It's a game. You could play it to learn more Here or read more about it Here. Runescape is one of the biggest MMORPG's in the world, patience is important when playing it, but it's not a test of your patience. If you want to know how to sign up, just ask at my page. §→Nikro 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campfire game[edit]

The article on games with unspecified rules reminded me of one that I could never figure out. It may have just been an elaborate ruse, but it seems to have some method to it. It might have been called magic stick, but it's not the same as the one in this article.

Basically someone took the stick and tapped complex rhythms while uttering cryptic phrases. Then people would try to guess which movie (etc.) was being referred to. Does this sound familiar to anyone? iames 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. But of course, your question could be some sort of double bluff elaborate ruse. I'm sure it's not, though. --Tagishsimon (talk)

A double bluff elaborate ruse! My head is spinning at the thought. I may never know if it was a code of misdirection (as Daniel's comment below) or something more like a no soap radio prank. iames 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do something like taking the first letter of every word and making it spell out the movie. You could also take the last letter, a certain letter in the most stressed syllable of every word ect. — Daniel 16:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Board Elections[edit]

What exactly is "The Board" that these people get elected onto? What do they do? Leave answers on my talk page please - Wardhog 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All is revealed here Rockpocket 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mood Ring Color Chart[edit]

To; All Wikipedians-

Someone seriously tampered with the Mood Ring Color Chart again, so I did make some corrections this time with a few minor edits. I believe that the color "Brown" on the Mood Chart would more appropriately be placed in between Grey & Amber, but decided to leave the order of the Colors in the Color Chart as is to avoid anymore confusion. I am going to think about it for now, but may consider transposing those 2 Colors- where Grey would follow right after Black, and then Brown right after Grey.

Hope this helps as I did my best to edit correctly.Dawnofrabbits 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is this? --JDitto 03:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mood ring is the article OP has been editing. Seems to be a list rather than a chart though. By the way, serious tampering is encouraged. Suggest you discuss this on the article's talk page.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge MSN font[edit]

In Microsoft Windows Live Messenger, I remember there was a letter you could put into a convo (alt+####) and it would make whatever you typed really BIG. It made the font huge. Does anyone know what the alt+#### is? It looked kind of like an apostrophe. Acceptable 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between a scone and an english muffin[edit]

I'm based in the US; I showed a picture of jelly on an english muffin to a friend in the UK and she said "oh, Jam on a scone-like thing". Wikipedia is helping me translate various foods so she can understand me and vice versa (this all started because she said she was going to "eat a jelly", and I thought of the jam condiment where she thought of the gelatin dessert); however, I've had scones before and I've had english muffins and they seemed rather different to me; then again, my scones were baked by my stepmother in the US, and I've never been to the UK. Anyway, the foods apparently strike her as similar and me as very different; are they, in fact, similar? Kuronue 19:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most English "scones" would be called "biscuits" in the States. An English muffin is closest to what the English call a "crumpet". That's my understanding, anyway -- there could certainly be variations or nuances that I'm missing. --Trovatore 21:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English muffins are in fact seldom eaten in the UK, although I think I did see some for sale once. There are lots of confusing differences like biscuit, cracker, chips, crisps, and so on. 80.2.202.130 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little table:

UK	US
Crumpet	English muffin
Scone	Biscuit
Biscuit	Cookie
? Unknown ?	Scone
Jam	Jelly or jam (jam contains pulp; jelly doesn't)
Jelly	Jell-O (or "gelatine dessert" to be generic)

--Trovatore 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A crumpet in Britain is a disk-shaped piece of bread-like thing that on the top surface has a large number of very large open pores, so it's honeycombed and is nearly as much air as 'bread'. It is designed to be put in a toaster and the pores soak up the melted butter. Its not designed to be eaten cold, but if you do it is of a rather rubbery consistency. 80.2.222.188 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An English muffin in the States is also designed to be put in a toaster, and has pores to soak up the melted butter. It's true that it's usually breadier and less rubbery than a crumpet. But I still think UK "crumpet" is the best translation of US "English muffin", mainly because of the holes. --Trovatore 22:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2 kinds of muffin in Britain, a cake-like thing (often involving blueberries) which is a comparitively recent import from the USA, and a bread-like thing, which is split in two, toasted, and spread with butter, jam, etc. we also have crumpets, which are porous in texture, also toasted and served with butter, jam, honey etc. A scone is something else, somewhere between a cake and shortbread in texture. It is baked, and split in two and served with buttr, jam, cream etc. Without actually baking some for you, it is amazingly hard to describe the differences! DuncanHill 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"and a bread-like thing, which is split in two, toasted, and spread with butter, jam, etc." I would call that a bap that someone decided to toast. I'm unfamiliar with either "muffins" or "english muffins". In the 60s to 90s in the south-east UK my elderly mother would often prepare a tea for me, and we never ever mentioned the word "muffin". I expect there is a different dialectical use in other parts of Britain. 80.2.222.188 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles help Scone (bread) for scones, Crumpet for crumpets, English muffin for muffins, and muffin for American muffins DuncanHill 21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like 'scone' as a UK English translation for 'biscuit'. They aren't even close to being the same thing. Biscuits (here in Texas at least) look just like scones - but that's where the similarity ends. They aren't anywhere near as sweet as scones and scones are generally much harder in consistancy. US-style biscuits are served with savory food - and here in Texas, often with "Gravy" which is a peppery white sauce - and frequently for breakfast. Scones are eaten with either butter or clotted cream and would most likely be eaten with tea at teatime.

I'm also not entirely happy with the translation of the UK word "Biscuit" to the US word "Cookie" - whilst there are things (like Oreo's for example) that an American would call a 'cookie' and a brit would call a 'biscuit', if you think of something like those huge chocolate chip cookies that are baked deliberately soft - you wouldn't call that a biscuit in the UK. We don't really have those and if we did, we'd recognise them as an American import and call it a 'cookie' because we're generally pretty well informed about US English. Similarly, we Brits have an alarmingly large and diverse repertoir of 'biscuits' that no US store can come within 1% of. No Jaffa Cakes (which are biscuits, not cakes), no digestive biscuits (chocolate or otherwise), no HobNobs for chrissakes! Not even the boring plain ones! I mean - FIVE YEARS without a HobNob...oh the humanity! You think it's bad not having sausages (and no - I'm not talking about those small burger-like things) - and having to eat bacon with no discernable meat content - or baked beans that don't taste right and are mysteriously labelled "Pork and Beans" even though the pork content is ALWAYS one 1/4" x 1/4" cube of gross undercooked fat, and having to call chips 'fries' and crisps 'chips' and no Marmite, no Bovril, no Daddies sauce, no HP sauce - and you have to check 12 supermarkets just to find one jar of Branston pickle and it costs like $5 and is the smallest jar of the stuff I've ever seen!...Look I just need one, lousey stinking HobNob - is that too much to ask of a nation of 300 million chronic over-eaters? Can someone PLEASE send me a care package?! I promise I'll spell 'colour' and 'tyre' properly and use the word 'rubber' only in the context of things you do with a pencil.

(For some reason, food and cars collect more linguistic differences between UK and US english than any other subject!) SteveBaker 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrghh its obvious to us Brits: A scone has fruit in it , a muffin has none!

Fruit scones have fruit in, plain scones don't..... DuncanHill 00:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it aint got fruit, it ain't a scone. I would take it back to the counter if it didn't have some raisins in it--SpectrumAnalyser 00:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need something like a definative picture-dictionary of photos of various bread items photographed in the UK and labelled as to what they are called here (with any regional variations), similarly for the US. This is complicated by the recent trend for American products, for example "blueberry muffins", being sold under American names in the UK rather than their normal british names. I've also noticed that in Asda supermarket in the UK, which was recently taken over by Walmart, that they are now selling things called "scones" which correspond to the description of American scones, and are not the british scones as photographed for example in the cream tea article. And "English muffins" seem to me to be rather like a teacake without the sultanas. As you can see in the teacake article, and the comments above and on the discussion pages on various bread items, there is a lot of regional variation even just in England as to what these various things are called. Presumebly because they are often made by small local bakers rather than being a uniform national product. 80.0.133.53 09:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, Tsk. Nobody mentioned an English Pikelet which used to be delivered to the door by a man on a bike with a big basket in front. And what of the Scottish Tattie Scone which is served with breakfast fry-ups, or the sweetie shop version which looks like a real tattie scone but is in fact a confectionery product. And what of Clootie Dumpling which looks like rich dark fruit cake and is fried as a component of a Scottish Fried Breakfast. Mmmmm.

And crumpet doesn't always just refer to the things you eat ;) Lemon martini 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our own articles, there are 2 types of muffins- american and UK- which correspond Duncanhill's reply earlier: the second kind of muffin, the kind that isn't fluffy and filled with blueberries or what have ye, but is meant to be split in half and toasted with butter and jam, is apparently an "english muffin" here, because it's what the english call muffin. I'm still confused as to what a Scone is. Perhaps there should be pictures in the artcile about differences between US and UK english? Kuronue 23:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The top two pics (one with honey, one with jam and cream) in the article Scone (bread) look like what I would call scones, further down the article is a picture of a variety of scones, including the tattie scone referred to above. Would it be helpful to anyone if a receipt or two were included here? DuncanHill 23:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are scones sweetened with? A full recipe isn't needed, I can guess flour, milk/buttermilk, eggs, what have ye, but how sweet are we talking? Cookie-sweet (cream the butter with white sugar)? Sweetened with honey for a more biscuity-sweet flavor?The pictures seem like biscuits like I'd get at KFC (quite exactly) but the text indicates sweet rather than savory. Kuronue 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had both English muffins and crumpets. A crumpet is kind of like an inside-out English muffin, with the nooks and crannies visible on the outside. I'm kind of surprised they don't have soft chocolate-chip cookies in the UK. By the way, Steve may be interested in knowing they have HP sauce and digestive cookies and even Marmite in Canada, so a trip across the border might be worthwhile for you. It's just as tough being an American in Europe -- no root beer, no unsweetened Cheerios, no selection of 10 salad dressings at restaurants... -- Mwalcoff 02:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are soft US-style cookies in the UK, but they tend to be the sort of thing you have to buy specially from the instore bakery, rather than getting in a mass-produced pack, and are about the size of saucers, and you can get the smaller (but much crunchier) Maryland Cookies in pretty much any supermarket or grocery store. Scones are usually sweetened by adding fruit to them; a plain scone is incredibly buttery, but not very sweet. Laïka 19:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scones can be sweetened by adding sugar to the dough mix, this has the added benefit of making the top crisp up better source: Marguerite Patten - Perfect Cooking, London, 1972. DuncanHill 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like our table is now:

UK	US
Crumpet	???
Muffin	English Muffin
American Muffin	Muffin
Scone	???
Biscuit	Cookie
???	Scone
???	Biscuit
Jam	Jelly or jam (jam contains pulp; jelly doesn't)
Jelly	Gelatine dessert

Also, my friend mentioned my image of jello cubes looked like "a jelly before it's melted". Do you... drink Jello in the UK? Kuronue 03:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they might very well "have jelly for tea". StuRat 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you melt the cubes before mixing with water to make the jelly (as I imagine you do in America as well), and that would be what they were refering to. Skittle 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't in America. Jello comes in either cups of pre-made jello for easy addition to lunches, or powder that is mixed with first hot, then cold water (hot to dissolve the powder better, cold to cool it back down) and refrigerated, after which it is often cut into cubes for serving. In addition, you can add juice instead of the cold water, makes it more fruity. The end product is firm, though it tends to jiggle when poked and tear easily, as well as melt. Kuronue 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have jelly cubes? You can get powder over here, but it tends to only be sugar-free jelly. Usually I'd buy jelly cubes, seperate them, then melt them. The way you used to have to do it was by adding enough boiling water to melt/dissolve them, then topping up with cold water (or fruit juice, or whatever), but it's quicker and easier to melt them in a tiny amount of water in the microwave, then add the cold water. Jelly cubes can also be eaten 'raw', which parents usually don't allow! Skittle 13:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly cubes are also a convenient and tasty snack for hikers (we used to eat a lot of them when I was a Scout hiking on Dartmoor). DuncanHill 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC) There is a picture of a packet of jelly at Gelatin dessert DuncanHill 13:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the muffin-English muffin line. It appears that an English "muffin" does not have the little bubbles that, when you cut them in half, make craters to hold the melted butter. That's almost the defining feature of an American "English muffin". That's why I translated "English muffin" to "crumpet". --Trovatore 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had English Muffins in America, and they were pretty much like muffins in Oxfordshire. A crumpet is really quite different to a muffin, but eaten in the same setting. A muffin has a soft, bready centre and a slightly crust-like outer covered in flour, which becomes crustier on toasting. Muffins can be toasted before or after splitting, meaning people give slightly different reports on how they 'behave' with butter, etc. A crumpet is less bready than a muffin, because it's made from something closer to a batter than a dough. It has a more rubbery texture, and is not split. It is riddled with round holes, because bubbles form as it cooks. Maybe you've been served a regional variation? Skittle 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An English muffin (UK: muffin) is a round, yeast-leavened form of bread." from english muffin. Versus, from Crumpet, "They differ from the English Muffin, which is cooked on both sides, in that the dough is usually more moist to start with, so that a muffin ring may be required to hold the batter's shape." Kuronue 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"More moist"? What's wrong with "moister"? Corvus cornix 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those charts include Preserves or Fruit Spread. :^) Corvus cornix 20:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or marmalade. StuRat 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to go through the trouble of adding pictures to List of words having different meanings in British and American English? - Banyan Tree 09:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins[edit]

Why is (or was) there concern about dolphins being killed during tuna fishing? Do dolphins do something crucial for the ecosystem?

No but they are cute and intelligent, so people feel guilty about eating them. Adam Bishop 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Adam said it's as much about people's perception of the animal as anything else. Of course ideally we don't want to harm other animals whilst gathering our own food so dolphin-friendly netting is better if we can still catch our tuna and not harm the dolphins. ny156uk 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they need to be useful before humans would want to stop killing them indiscriminately? Corvus cornix 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references for you. The depletion of any member of an ecosystem has a habit of messing up the rest of the habitat. A cynical way of putting this is that it might mess up the fishing industry if we killed all the other predators in the sea.

--S.dedalus 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences from our Dolphin article help explain why people want to protect dolphins: "Dolphins are considered to be amongst the most intelligent of animals and their often friendly appearance and seemingly playful attitude have made them popular in human culture." and "Dolphins have also been known to protect swimmers from sharks by swimming circles around them." In other words, they are cute, friendly, playful and protective of humans. They are among the most intelligent of creatures and willingly accept and protect humans as our pets would, but without us domesticating them first. Knowing that has a powerful affect on the human psyche. Many people naturally feel protective of them in return. 152.16.188.107 09:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the thing about dolphins being the only other animal who has sex for fun have anything to do with it at all. Yes, I know they're no longer known as the only other animals who do, but back when I learned it, the fact books said they're the only other animals. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on charismatic megafauna may shed some light on this. - Banyan Tree 09:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar issue resulted from a question on how to save a moth's life. I would think most people would agree that a dolphin is worth saving but a moth is not, for many of the reasons listed above. Of course, your perception of the value of each may depend on if you've seen the The Mothman Prophecies or the Simpsons' episode where evil dolphins conquer the world. StuRat 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question answered>[edit]

Boredom in travel, for example, often lends itself to a portable game or a repetitive song such as 99 Bottles of Beer. It is not clear why repetitive singing would be a response to tedium, but it may be a form of mockery. Similarly a number of repetitive gestures or games may be considered imitations of the tediousness of waiting, or of the moving hands of a clock.

Driving superfluously, especially very fast, is

The question was why the repetitious act. The answer is that we chant when we can't. Also a reference to music or muse sick. It is very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.67.183 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 July 2007

Huh? There is some information at 99 Bottles of Beer. Per "The crystal ball: 99 bottles of beer on the wall--and other countdowns" by "Anonymous" in Telecommuting Review. Monmouth Junction: Jan 1999. Vol.16, Iss. 1; pg. 1, 10 pgs, the song may date back to college drinking songs, where the goal was to keep up with the tally by drinking. We at Wikipedia do not encourage irresponsible drinking games. You might also consult "Circular Jingles" by Roger Abrahams, Western Folklore, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Jul., 1962), pp. 192-195, which discusses this and other songs such as "My name is Yon Yonson" and "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt" which were noted back in the 1940's. There are also the classic timekillers of counting telephone poles, spotting license plates from as many states as possible, asking every 5 minutes "Are we there yet? How much further is it?" and fighting with your sibling in the back seat until Dad threatens to "Turn this car around and go back home."Edison 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chants and songs for physically demanding or extremely repetitive work may have evolved to get the participants into a beta trance which would allow the work to progress without much active thought or resisitance. If I am focussed on a piece of writing or a painting, I will often hum the same phrase or chorus mindlessly, over and over and over again, driving everyone within hearing range to distraction. Perhaps these songs are the "group version" of the hum. Bielle 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of those songs is that they are LONG and you don't forget the words. I just timed myself - it took 8 seconds to sing one round of 99 bottles - so it takes over 13 minutes to sing it all the way through - there aren't many songs that last that long. Interestingly, there is a UK English song that's very similar to 99 bottles of beer: "10 green bottles, standing on the wall, 10 green bottles standing on the wall - and if one green bottle should accidentally fall, there'll be 9 green bottles standing on the wall." - Then there is "Old MacDonald had a farm" where every time around someone adds an animal and the noises that you have to make get more and more contentious and silly "An Ardvaark does NOT go either "aaard" or "vaaark"...and so on. SteveBaker 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]