Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miscellaneous desk
< February 10 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 12 >
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.


February 11[edit]

Cake recipe for a bread machine[edit]

Can anyone supply a recipe for something cake-like that can be made in a bread machine using the program normally used for bread? Thanks. 89.243.177.67 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one. I just googled with your question title and found a lot, some not quite relevant, but there's a lot out there. --LarryMac | Talk 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I forgot to add that the reason I've got a bread machine is to make salt/sodium-free bread, so I'd prefer to avoid using baking powder as it has a lot of sodium in it. 89.243.177.67 (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy sodium-free baking powder, at healthfood stores or online[1]. Since baking soda, baking powder, and self-rising/raising flour all normally contain sodium compounds, you'll have little alternative if you want light cakes without sodium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normansmithy (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually true as you can use yeast, which must have been used even in cakes before baking powder and SRF were invented. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a Dundee cake? They are made with plain flour and no baking powder. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or a lardy cake, though you can't leave the dough to rise in the machine as you have to work the lard, sugar and raisins into it after it has risen. The combination of sugar and lard makes it proper healthy stuff, just right for cold weather like we're having at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try throwing some sultanas and mixed spice into the bread mixture, and buy some non-sodium baking powder. I'm also trying to avoid saturated fat. 92.29.136.128 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death on two legs... with springs![edit]

A nice simple question, which my google-fu is insufficient to answer:

Have people managed to get themselves dead while powerbocking -- that is, while using power stilts/kangaraoo stilts/jumping stilts?

Links to details would be appreciated.

--Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A blogger here located in Wales posted "believe it or not there is a warning on the stilts saying that the stilts can cause death but theres been no inncidents(sic) this seriously so far". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that two things conspire to reduce the number of deaths. First, there are not many users of Powerbocks out there. Second it's probably harder to kill yourself with them than it looks. To kill yourself you would have to be moving fast/jumping high which takes quite a bit of skill to achieve. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIEEE Architecture Exam[edit]

I will giving the architecture exam of AIEEE in May. I want to know whether, if I get a good rank and try to take admission in a college as an architecture student, I'd have to produce a NATA certificate. Is my AIEEE ranking enough to guarantee an admission, or is the NATA certificate mandatory? I couldn't get an answer by googling or anything.Please help! 117.194.228.199 (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably get a better answer by asking a few colleges this question. If you really think this reference desk is the right place to ask, more information would be useful. Remember ref desk volunteers are from all over the world so: which country are you in? which colleges are you considering? and what are AIEEE and NATA in the context of your qualifications? Astronaut (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this site [2], NATA is the National Aptitude Test in Architecture. Under FAQs the site states that this test is cumpulsory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When examinees open the exam, do they take one look and go "AIEEE!" ?? Edison (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Indian. I've been hearing rumours that the NATA certificate is compulsory for all exams other than AIEEE (very funny Edison... AIEEE stands for the All India Engineering Entrance Exams). I can't decide whether to take a risk and not sit for NATA, or whether to take it after all... 117.194.233.180 (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S:

and what are AIEEE and NATA in the context of your qualifications?

I'm afraid I don't understand you. All those aspiring to be engineers in India are supposed to give AIEEE after they complete schooling (i.e, after class XII).117.194.233.180 (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say in your original question that you were in India and I had never heard of AIEEE or NATA, so I was unsure if the wiki-links I provided were to the right articles.
Why not get a NATA certificate? I can't see it doing any harm to your prospects as an architecture student. However, if you think there might be some truth in the rumours you are hearing and you really want to avoid doing NATA for some reason, it is probably best to ask the admissions people at the colleges you are considering applying. Astronaut (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Your Voice[edit]

What happens when you lose your voice and then try and laugh? Is there any sound produced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.227 (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Losing one's voice (as I once did) is most commonly caused by some kind of inflammation that prevents the vocal cords from closing (adducting) enough to make the larynx vibrate: this reduces speech to a hoarse whisper, so presumably laughter in such a state (I don't remember doing so) would similarly have the usual breath pattern minus most or all of the voice (similar to that of Muttley). However, there can be other causes of losing the voice (apparently we have no separate article on this), including psychological disturbances, where this might not extend to the pre-speech expression of laughter (I say 'pre-speech' because laughter is also exhibited by non-human animals). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muttley laughs and laughs (Videos). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams is a relatively high-profile individual who lost his voice for awhile and could make an interesting case study to read about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work while kids at school[edit]

Apart from working in a school herself, are there any other types of white-collar job my mum could do part-time in the middle of the day, while my baby sister is at school? My mum is a graduate, speaks two foreign languages, and has worked as a primary teacher (decades ago) and a librarian (more recently). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.4.33 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many charity shops seem to be only open in school hours, but that is unpaid. Become a bookkeeper perhaps? 89.243.182.24 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine gets translation jobs via this website. Your mother can put her resume on there and apply for any jobs that get posted. She'll be emailed whenever a new job becomes available. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could try for a bank job. Some of those people only seem to work from 10-2 with a 2 hour lunch break. Googlemeister (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She could do private tutoring, usually an hour a week per pupil, but generally people want to do that in the evening or at the weekend. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about returning to teaching? The education system in the UK is in need of more teachers, the hours and holidays can be almost the same as the kids, and schools often offer part-time positions (a morning or afternoon). Alternatively, how about something like a classroom assistant - something my mother did for a long time when I was a kid. Astronaut (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Didn't notice you said "Apart from working in a school ..." How about some kind of part-time secretarial/office admin work? The kind of hours your mum could work might depend how young your baby sister is - is she just younger than you or a lot younger and only just started school? Could you or an older relative (eg. an aunt or a grandparent) look after your sister for a short while after school? Astronaut (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacy[edit]

Hey im in school and some people in here do not know what a fallacy is? This is college! Is this incredible or what? 199.8.158.109 (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):That's a fallacy because what you say is sadly credible. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do they know what a "Reference Desk" is? APL (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO! 199.8.158.109 (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently you do not know what sarcasm is. This is a Reference Desk for posting queries, not messages or requests for opinions. Unless you were genuinely unsure whether people in your school not knowing what a fallacy was is actually incredible or not, your 'message' as I shall call it is not appropriate here. Thank you for understanding. Everyone seems to think your message is great and worth chatting about, so I'll just keep quiet. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 16:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite of keeping quiet is to make your post striking. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember being taught the word "fallacy" in high school. It surely came from reading. Lots of people don't read a lot, you know. Have them take "Introduction to Logic". It's worth 4 credits. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No this is college not high school. 199.8.158.149 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you said that; but you may be a freshman, in which case 99% of the education you have received was pre-college (i.e. high school and lower). Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a sophomore. 199.8.158.111 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CT's point still stands. I bet he wasn't taught what a logical fallacy was in freshman year either. —Akrabbimtalk 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the US (I can't speak for the rest of the world) formal logic is not taught to high school students, and is generally an elective in college (often upper division, at that). I suspect that the vast majority of college graduates have never officially learned the four primary fallacies, though I suspect most college students are introduced to the term, and the basic gist of the concept. sad, really.. --Ludwigs2 05:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, formal logic classes tend to focus on teaching First-order logic with minimal attention to what it popularly called 'logical fallacies'. Being able to derive Q from a set of premises using deductively valid rules of inference is of little direct use when analyzing anything of moderate complexity (many actual arguments contain much more complicated logical systems like modal logic or are based on inductive logic). Even when the teachers do spend time on argument reconstruction, they have to carefully choose an argument so that the students can accurately represent the argument with their basic notation and skills.
If you're worried about students being able to understand and make good arguments, then formal logic probably isn't the most productive use of your time. An informal logic class which does explicitly focus on logical fallacies and reconstructing what actual arguments claim is much more useful.
To respond to the OP about how outrageous it is that many of your fellow students do not know what a 'fallacy' is, are you saying that they cannot rattle off the names of the logical fallacies or that they do not notice the error in reasoning that the fallacies describe? My mother, who has a high school education, would not say "hey, that's an ad hominem when dealing with such an argument, but she intuitively knows that attacking the person isn't the same as attacking the argument. Are your fellow students like this because there is a huge difference between not noticing errors in reasoning and not knowing the standardized names of the logical fallacies. Being explicitly taught the fallacies probably will help with structuring critical thought about arguments, but it isn't necessary.--droptone (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People in school are supposed to not know some things and that's why schools are there. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's IP geolocates to Calumet College of St. Joseph. Never heard about it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, because some people there do not know what a Ref. Desk or a fallacy is. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Names & Last Names[edit]

Are there more last names than first names? In the United States? In the world? My intuition says that there'd be more first names but my experience seems to tell me that there exists a wider variety of last names. Yakeyglee (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, you can name your kid whatever you want, so it would be tough to figure out how many unique names there are, but in the world there are some countries which have an "approved" name list, so you can not name your kid A"pma(upf! which would make it easier to check in those countries. I presume though that they would not make an immigrant change their name if it was not found on that list? Googlemeister (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's tough, because of the U.S. Census. I don't have time this week to use the Census to search for the number of first and last names, sorry, but the data is there. Our given name article talks about the power-law distribution of frequency of first names. I don't see that we have an article on the interesting phenomenon whereby in recent times, many African American children, particularly, I think, girls, are given unique names. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I read this correctly, there were apparently more first names in the 1950s than at any other time in history. Woogee (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did the following. I took the IMDB raw data files for actor and actress credits and stripped them down to just the names. The IMDB stores these in a form like "Grant, Cary" or "Ford, Harrison (II)" where "(II)" is their suffix to distinguish different people with the same name. I deleted all names that did not have the comma (some were people going by a single name; many others were things like names of bands). This left entries for 1,782,618 different people. I stripped nicknames (enclosed in '...') and the "(II)" types suffixes, as well as suffixes like "II" and "Jr." and "fils" that people use as part of their names to distinguish themselves from family mambers.

I then extracted the surnames and deleted those that did not contain a lower-case letter, i.e. people known by names like "Mr. T.". The result was 459,629 distinct surnames. I also tried collapsing the list by removing variations in accents (i.e. I transliterated from 8859-1 to ASCII) and capitalization. Then there were 448,725 distinct surnames.

For given names, I took the list of given names for each person -- that is, everything after the comma -- and deleted entries where none of the names contained a lower-case letter. It was impossible to distinguish whether a name like "Mary Ann" was a two-word name or two names, so I didn't try. I just took the first word of each name (i.e. after the comma) and assumed it was a complete given name. There were 120,807 different given names, or 117,465 after stripping accents and capitals. I also tried assuming that every word of the given names was a distinct given name. In this mode there were 128,797 different given names, or 125,243 after stripping accents and capitals.

So in this data set, distinct surnames are indeed more numerous than distinct given names, and considerably so. Of course, there are several significant caveats. First, the list shows stage names, not real names ("Grant, Cary", not "Leach, Archie"). Second, there should be a strong bias toward names from countries where a lot of movies are made, such as the US and India. Third, the IMDB uses the ISO 8859-1 character set, so the rendering of names in languages like Japanese or Hindu may be inconsistent; as well, the treatment of surnames vs. given names may be inconsistent. And finally, I may have done something wrong.

For those who may be interested, in the 459,629 surnames and 128,797 given names, the 30 most common among the 1,782,618 people were: 

    1.  6,099 Smith         19,523 John
    2.  4,376 Williams      17,072 Michael
    3.  4,329 Lee           17,060 David
    4.  4,273 Jones         11,578 Robert
    5.  4,216 Johnson       10,254 Paul
    6.  3,971 Brown          9,780 James
    7.  2,989 Miller         9,492 Peter
    8.  2,962 Davis          8,225 Mark
    9.  2,844 Taylor         8,009 Richard
   10.  2,651 Wilson         7,235 Chris
   11.  2,617 Martin         6,647 Mike
   12.  2,566 Thomas         6,328 Daniel
   13.  2,387 Anderson       6,290 Maria
   14.  2,243 Moore          6,018 Steve
   15.  2,162 White          5,978 Tom
   16.  2,129 Scott          5,966 William
   17.  2,016 Harris         5,633 Joe
   18.  1,948 Jackson        5,416 Brian
   19.  1,936 Thompson       5,337 George
   20.  1,893 Lewis          5,060 Eric
   21.  1,842 Young          5,036 Frank
   22.  1,810 King           5,034 Thomas
   23.  1,769 Allen          4,886 José
   24.  1,725 Clark          4,837 Charles
   25.  1,701 Hall           4,831 Bill
   26.  1,667 James          4,826 Scott
   27.  1,659 Kim            4,803 Andrew
   28.  1,658 Roberts        4,716 Tony
   29.  1,639 Walker         4,700 Mary
   30.  1,624 Robinson       4,668 Jim

There were 307,438 surnames that occurred only once in the list, but only 164,049 given names. Just for fun, here are 30 surnames and 30 given names chosen randomly from each of those categories (undertand, the surnames and given names shown here do not go together with each other). 

              Allekotte            Abdeltif
              Bamoudrou            Abderzak
              Birkman              Adrzej
              Bobzin               Appollinaire
              Bouhy                Athmane
              Chorus               Aurelice
              Easily               Aznah
              Film                 Cherazade
              Garavet              Elyeshia
              Goraus               Fuminao
              Jeans                Görgen
              Koch                 Invan
              Kärrylä              Jaylyn
              Labonne              Kiste
              Lashof               Koduru
              Massoglia            LeShai
              Melville-James       Lyubitza
              Nairnes              Madrona
              Numao                Naotoshi
              Roleff               Oladejo
              Schwast              Paridon
              Slunécková           Quereshini
              Terreny              Raido
              Valutsky             Scarltt
              Vasco                Singella
              Verra                Tjard
              Wekesa               Tressana
              Welchel              Tyresha
              Wingård              Vdovic
              Zevola               Yaminah

(Yes, there really is a person listed in the IMDB with surname "Film". Walter Film, with one acting credit and no other details.)

--Anonymous, 20:28 UTC, February 11, 2010.

Fascinating stuff. Any theories as to why the given names are so heavily skewed toward masculine names? John M Baker (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are more roles for men than women in movies and TV -- something else I should have mentioned as a source of bias, I guess. How often do you see a movie or TV episode where a majority of the characters are female? But a majority of males, that's common.
I still have the files from before, but I combined the men and women before I did the cleanups described above, and I'm not going to repeat them on the two sexes individually. However, based on the un-cleaned-up data, the actors (male) list includes 1,157,156 names with a total of 8,215,483 credits, while the actresses list has only 676,765 names and 4,783,479 total credits.
After a quick attempt at a cleanup (so the numbers may not exactly match those above), here are the top 20 given names for each sex:
    1. 19,508 John              6,002 Maria
    2. 17,050 David             4,659 Mary
    3. 17,038 Michael           4,623 Anna
    4. 11,570 Robert            4,056 Jennifer
    5. 10,245 Paul              3,879 Sarah
    6.  9,753 James             3,816 Laura
    7.  9,488 Peter             3,747 Lisa
    8.  8,223 Mark              3,164 Anne
    9.  8,005 Richard           3,159 Barbara
   10.  6,979 Chris             3,128 Marie
   11.  6,647 Mike              3,026 Elizabeth
   12.  6,321 Daniel            2,978 Susan
   13.  6,017 Steve             2,944 Ann
   14.  5,969 Tom               2,905 Michelle
   15.  5,954 William           2,778 Jessica
   16.  5,610 Joe               2,625 María
   17.  5,413 Brian             2,615 Linda
   18.  5,317 George            2,440 Julie
   19.  5,059 Eric              2,430 Nicole
   20.  5,026 Frank             2,415 Karen
--Anonymous, 06:26 UTC, February 12, 2010.
For the "around the world" bit - in Asian countries, such as Japan, Korea and China, there is a limited set of surnames but almost infinite variety of combinations for given names. Some given names are more popular than others, but there are plenty of people with unique combinations of names. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those IMDB ones might be typos. "Abdeltif" is probably "Abdelatif". And when transliterating into Latin letters there is a large variety of spellings for the same name. Sticking with Abdelatif, it could be Abd al-Latif, Abd el-Latif, Abd ul-Latif, Abdalatif, Abdulatif. There is a discussion on the language desk about how to transliterate Chiang Kai-Shek. Are these different names or not? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous, can you quickly calculate out the variance on that file? I recently did wonder which name showed more variability and would love to have some actual data on it. If it's too much trouble then don't worry about it (or post a link to a file of the frequency counts and I will do it myself). Thanks for any help!--droptone (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the files online any more, and I don't understand exactly what you mean here by "variance". --Anonymous, 00:13 UTC, February 13, 2010.

Prince Phillip's Gaffes[edit]

Does he realise he comes across as very racist and arrogant or does he do this in humor? Like asking an African Lady - " You are a woman arent you?" and asking a backpacker in Papua New Guinea " So you managed not to get eaten" And asking a woman in the Nigerian Presidents entourage, who was draped in her national dress " You look like you are ready to go to bed" And while talking to some British staff based in China " If you dont leave this place soon enough, you might end up getting slit eyed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.123.12 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots more at his article at Wikiquote, if you scroll down to "Other". Wow, he's awesome. Good thing he has no powers or authority or can get impeached. My favorite is, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." I'm thinking that all 3 of your speculations must be correct. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a father of four speaking, remember. I don't even know if his utterences count as foot in mouth. They just keep coming. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the predictable result of inbreeding? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's trying to be funny, he just doesn't understand that these things might be funnier in private. But for such a public figure maybe it is hard to distinguish public and private. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Greeks have a tradition of that kind of humour. They have a tradition of disrespectful funny novels apparantly. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, it must be a cultural thing, because he doesn't seem to have an ounce of Greek blood. Waltham, The Duke of 22:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the second entry on that list? George I of Greece? 131.111.248.99 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that his father was Prince Andrew of Greece? 89.243.182.24 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that he was born in Greece? For 'normal' people, that would mean that he is Greek. 92.29.55.65 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that his real name is Prince Phillipos of Greece? 92.29.55.65 (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George I was a Danish prince who was elected king of Greece - the family wasn't Greek. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Prince Philip is not Greek despite having been born there, because his great-grandparents were Danish, then by the same reasoning the royal family is not British, but German! Unmasked at last! 92.29.55.65 (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were imported because monarchies were popular in nineteenth-century Europe, to put it this way, and the previous imported king was ousted; Greece has had no home-grown royals pretty much since the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Waltham, The Duke of 06:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His real name, the one he was born with before he changed it, is Prince Philippos of Greece. (I wonder why he fought on the British side in WW2 despite going to school in Germany and having two brothers in law who fought on the German side?) 92.29.136.128 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation, but I suspect that his closeness to his uncle Louis Mountbatten, a naturalised British citizen, had a lot to do with it. It seems that when the Jewish founder of the German school fled to found Gordonstoun, it was Mountbatten's decision to move Philip to the Scottish school, and that would have made fighting on the British side in WWII pretty much essential. Warofdreams talk 17:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! So Mountbatten's real name was "His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg"! Another German! The article about him does not say what country he was born in, but you say he was only "a naturalised British citizen". It's rather sinister and manipulative how our (German) rulers change their names and their nationalities so readily, to sucker us in as their loyal syncophants. 92.29.82.48 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few points. The Duke of Edinburgh was born Prince Phillipos of Greece and Denmark. People always seem to forget that, despite being born in Greek territory, he is actually more Danish than Greek (as were the entire Greek monarchy). But "Prince Phillipos of Greece and Denmark" has not been "his real name" for over 60 years. It was his birth name, that's all. Louis Mountbatten was most definitely not a naturalised British citizen. His father Prince Louis of Battenberg "joined the Royal Navy on 3 October 1868 and thus became a naturalised British subject, at the age of fourteen". By the time of Louis jr.'s birth, at Frogmore House (see the infobox), his father was a very senior British naval officer, so there's no way he could have fathered a child who was not also British. Unless the birth took place in a foreign country (but it didn't) and the mother was not British (but she was). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found the style "serene" a little quaint. It gives off a certain impression of supreme detachment and perhaps arrogance: "our monarchy will last forever, so we can afford to be very complacent", or something to that effect. (And it's not just monarchs; the Republic of Venice called itself "Most Serene". Perhaps it had to do with the view.)
In any case, I tend to be rather annoyed when I hear people calling the current royal family "Germans". Ignoring the fact that all royal houses are multi-national (princesses were often brought from abroad to ensure good royal blood for the heirs), and that much of Europe's royalty was German for the simple reason that Germany was occupied by dozens of states (each ruled by its own monarch), the Queen Mother's ancestry alone ought to dilute George VI's remaining German blood by half. I suppose the "modern" habits of not necessarily marrying royals will have a rapid effect upon the monarch's genetic nationality, to put it this way; William's heir will very likely be essentially British in this respect.
(It's certainly interesting how much progress has been made on the marriage front in the last century. Elizabeth was the last one to marry a royal, and between royals it seems that one could not go very far below Philip.) Waltham, The Duke of 09:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...WP:BLP anyone? 71.57.126.233 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do explain what you mean by pointing a link at that page? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means that even now, the Royal attorneys are preparing their case against wikipedia for stooping to quoting the Prince accurately. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does suggest, however, that he's unlikely to ever get that long-desired promotion from Prince to King, a job which has a much better dental plan. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Albert couldn't get it... And the next reign will have its own complications: Queen or not Queen? Waltham, The Duke of 22:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's in any way relevant to the topic ... but since you raised the issue, Camilla will most definitely be a Queen Consort; but whether she get's called Queen Camilla is another question. As of now, she won't be called that; but by the time it happens, who knows what might have changed. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, but one enjoys the discussion. :-)
And yes, I suppose that is what was wondering aloud about: will she ever become popular enough to be called "Queen"? One can only guess, but I have my reservations. After all, one cannot expect Charles' reign to be nearly as long as his mother's.
Back to Philip... I wonder to what extent the Queen has tried to control him. I cannot imagine she approves of all this... Unless she secretly enjoys his spicing things up once in a while. Mind you, some of the things he says aren't really that outrageous. For example, I partly agree with his statement on overpopulation, and people like David Attenborough seem to share at least the sentiment. Waltham, The Duke of 06:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain that the DoE's sense of humour evolved in the Wardroom. He was mentioned in dispatches at the Battle of Cape Matapan and was with the British Pacific Fleet. Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that HRH never actually said half of the things he's supposed to have said... but you have to realise that he grew up in an age and society that no longer exists, and what was acceptable then is no longer acceptable in the UK today. Many older people come out with stuff us young uns would consider to be racist, but which to them is normal. "The past is another country: they do things differently there". --TammyMoet (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, he's been hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons for at least 50 years to my knowledge. Not bad for a man who is often described as a moderniser of the monarchy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll miss him when he's gone (or I will anyway). We shall not look upon his like again. Alansplodge (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Imperial Cup"[edit]

In the Cup (volume), it is claimed that some countries use an unofficial "Imperial cup". Which countries are these? I'm rather sceptical that an "imperial cup" exists after metrication. Please note that I am not talking about the "cup" used in the United States. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I think the metric conversion was patchy in places, so I wouldn't be surprised. Here in the UK, I'd measure my height in feet and inches, my weight in stone, buy a kilo of flour but a pound of sugar. I'd say the nearest service station was 5 miles away, but that she was standing just metres away from me. I buy a 500ml bottle of Coke, but 2 pints of milk. And so on... 131.111.248.99 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the imperial cup is used in the same countries as always: cookbooks didn't magically change their print just because the country went metric. --Carnildo (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada there are lots of people old enough to have grown up when metric was only used in science classes, if that; based on conversations with family members I guess the age cutoff would be around 35-40. Anyone of that age who deals with recipes or knows the units used in recipes would know very well that a cup is 8 fluid ounces, and those would be imperial fluid ounces, of course. (Not that the difference between US and imperial is significant for culinary purposes when dealing with cups or fluid ounces. Pints and up, that's another matter.) --Anonymous, 06:35 UTC, February 12, 2010.
I'm an Australian young enough to have always used metric, but I have a set of imperial measuring spoons and cups which I use when cooking from older cookbooks. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One sees cups used in American and Australian cookbooks, but not in British ones, even from before metrication. DuncanHill (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that cups are now rare in British recipe books, though they were used in the past. I've just found "breakfastcupful" in 700 Cookery and Household Recipes published about sixty years ago, and cup as a measure in a local recipe book published in 1949. (These were just the first two old recipe books that I found in a drawer. Perhaps they were influenced by American wartime presence?) A breakfast cup was usually about half a pint (284ml), and a standard cup about a third of a pint (190ml), but modern usage in the UK varies.[3] There is no mention of cups in my great aunt's confectioner's recipe books, hand-written in 1903. Dbfirs 10:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I do recall having seen quantities such as "a teacupful" or "a small coffeecupful" in some old (1940's) recipe books compiled from farmer's wives' traditional recipes, but they are the sort of recipes that also have "enough cream of tartar to cover a penny, but not too heaped up", or "a good handful of chives, cut up small", so I doubt the cups were any particular standard, just what the cook in question had in her kitchen and found handy. DuncanHill (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but a teacup holds much less than the half-pint quoted. I would call a half-pint cup "a mug". Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So to re-ask the original question, what countries use an "imperial cup" in 2010? I suspect that none do. (And I'm doubtful that an "imperial cup" existed even before metrication.) 92.29.136.128 (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told you above, the cup is still a familiar unit in Canada among those familiar with pre-metric measure. The pound of butter in my fridge has markings on it for those who want to cut it into cups. (Those are approximate, of course; they actually assume 1 lb. butter = 2 cups = 500 ml.) --Anonymous, 00:17 UTC, February 13, 2010.
I tried searching for "imperial cup" in some anglophone commonwealth Google variants, and filtering out irrelevant (mostly sports) results. It doesn't seem particularly common in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the UK or Canada. Though there are some results (NZ e.g.) even some of the results that are there (Oz e.g.) are clearly referring to US measurements. This isn't a comprehensive answer of course. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read Imperial units; although a cup doesn't appear in the chart of fluid measurements, I expect that it was commonly used, since "pint" and "quart" and "gallon" were names of units of fluid measurement in the Imperial system. I would guess that an Imperial cup would be 10 Imperial fluid ounces. The measurements in the chart seem to me to say that the size of the fluid ounce is almost identical to the previous size of the fluid ounce, which is still used in the USA; consequently, a cup in the Imperial system would be approximately 25% larger than the cup used in the USA today. Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, nice try, but guessing or expecting is not good enough. You are trying to extrapolate from American experience to the UK. I do not remember any standard "cup" before metrication. The size of cups varied and was not standardised. I think a half a British pint, in other words ten fluid ounces, would be seen as large for a tea cup. 92.29.82.48 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it wasn't in the UK (or wherever you are; your IP address says you're in the UK), but I have equal reason to say that you are trying to extrapolate from British experience. It appears that the cup is used in various Commonwealth countries, and as it's not a true metric unit, there's good reason to believe that its existence preceded the metric system; and as fluids were measured in the Imperial system, such a unit of measurement would be an Imperial cup. Lack of references could be explained by the context: unless you're distinguishing it from non-Imperial units, you have no reason to call a cup "Imperial" — you'd simply call it a "cup". Nyttend (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, February 13, 2010.
No Nyttend, if it's not one of the Imperial units then it is not an "Imperial cup". I'm certain there wasn't a Troy, or Avoirdupois, or Apothecary's cup either. There does seem to have been an informal "cup" of varying size used in various countries, but for it to be an Imperial cup it would have to have been defined in the Weights and Measures Act which established the Imperial System of weights and measures. DuncanHill (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. You might as well say that there was an unofficial "Imperial bucket". People use buckets, and sometimes they may be referred to in recipes such as "two buckets of cement, one bucket of water", and if you try hard you may be able to find something on the internet or in a book that says a bucket is X pints or whatever, but the bucket volume has never been standardised. 92.29.55.65 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the patronizing tone there is accidental. From the point of view of someone actually using a unit of measure, it's not important who defines it. A US cup was 8 US fluid ounces, a normal cup was (is) 8 normal fluid ounces, the normal fluid ounce is the Imperial one, therefore "Imperial cup" is the only sensible name for the thing. (Again, I'm talking about Canada here.) I have no idea whether the cup was ever an officially defined unit; it doesn't matter as long as its value was well understood. --Anonymous, 05:28 UTC, February 13, 2010.
No "patronizing tone" intended. Are you saying that there is an "unofficial imperial cup" of eight fluid ounces in Canada? 92.29.62.115 (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly. (Except for the "unofficial" part, which I can't comment on since I haven't looked up the actual laws. It may be that they defined the unit as a "cup", for example, or that they didn't define it.) --Anonymous, 21:48 UTC, February 14, 2010.
Ah, you have fallen into my little trap! Bwahahaha! Because if it was eight fluid ounces, then that would be an American cup. The British pint is 20 fluid ounces. 89.240.201.172 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you have fallen into my little trap! Bwahahaha! Because an American cup is 8 US fluid ounces. And we are not talking about half a pint, which is a different amount. --Anon, 20:00 UTC, February 16, 2010.
Is/was there a shortage of scales in North America and the Antipodes that forced people to use a volume measure for things that normal British people weigh, such as flour, sugar, etc? DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is/was there a shortage of measuring cups in Europe that forced them to have to weigh things when measuring volume is easier? (Not a call for debate.) --Anonymous, 05:18 UTC, February 14, 2010.
I don't know, but let me quote from the Australian Heritage Cookbook (Gaslight Publishers, 1988): "The English cup measures 10 fluid ounces (300 ml), whereas the Australian cup measures 8 fl. oz. (250 ml). The English tablespoon measures 14.8 ml against the Australian tablespoon of 20 ml. The American reputed pint is 16 fl. oz. ... the Imperial measurement is 20 fl. oz to the pint. The American tablespoon is equal to 14.8 ml, the teaspoon is 5 ml. The cup measure is 8 fl. oz. (250 ml), the same as Australia."
(a) There's a real mix of exact and not-so-exact measurements there. (If 8 fl. oz. = 250 ml, then 10 fl. oz. cannot = 300 ml.; but they get down to 14.8 ml.)
(b) The term "fluid ounce" seems to mean different things in different countries. On the face of it, it's a measure of weight (or mass, if you prefer) - whereas it really seems to be about volume.
(c) The term "imperial" in some cases means "anything that's not American" - whereas, it's clear that Australian and UK usage differs, so it's not that simple.
It's all too complicated, which is why no cook ever refers to these terms in the back of a cookbook; they simply make it up as they go along, using their gut instinct (very appropriate) and their experience as guides. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of order; "Imperial" needs a capital I. "Lo all our pomp of yesterday / Is one with Nineveh and Tyre". Alansplodge (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and another minor correction: there isn't really a difference between the Australian cup and the UK cup. The size varies in both countries according to usage. People like to make up standard equivalents (hence the invention of "Imperial cup" presumably from "Imperial pint", but, as pointed out several times above, a cup is not a precise measure. Some teacups are less than a quaretr of a pint. I recall (but can't find at the moment) recipes that require "a small cup". Dbfirs 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are we talking about here? The standard metric (measuring) cup, used in a number of Commonwealth countries is 250ml. (The US uses 240ml for labelling purposes, not sure about measuring purposes according to our article they may still use 8 fluid ounces or about 237ml.) If you buy a measuring cup in such a country, this is what it should be (sometimes it will even be written on it) although cheaper stores may sometimes have imported products that don't meet local norms. It is what the vast majority of modern recipe books define it as. In most of the same countries including I believe the UK (who don't use cups much as this discussion has pointed out) the metric measuring teaspoon is 5 ml (legally for labelling purposes the US uses 5ml teaspoons, not sure about measuring teaspoons our article suggests they still use customary ones). In the same countries bar Australia, the tablespoon is 3 teaspoons and therefore 15 ml (in Australia it's 20ml which doesn't follow the tradition of the tablespoon being 3 teaspoons but does have the advantage of 1/2 tablespoon being 2 teaspoons. Note we are talking about instruments intended for measuring, not normal cups, spoons etc which are obviously the source of these measurements and some, particularly experienced, cooks may use for measuring instead (depending on the precise ingredients and other factors, although from my admitedly limited experience even many experienced cooks will have a set of measuring cups and spoons even though they may not use them much). 'Imperial cups' or 'teaspoons' (which are fairly similar to metric ones anyway) are probably a mishmash that I don't want to get into although you don't see them in modern cookbooks from New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia or Singapore from my experience. Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "tablespoon" in American English is called a "dessert spoon" in British English. A "tablespoon" in British English is something much larger. I've never heard of a "metric tablespoon" before - I doubt there is such a thing. I do not think that cutlery or cups were defined in at least Britain in either metric or Imperial, formally or informally. If such things had existed, they would have been in the Weights and Measures Act, which defined Imperial measures, and as far as I know, they are not. 92.24.131.69 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this on the tablespoon talk page. It is simply not the case that an American tablespoon is a British Dessertspoon. A British dessertspoon is 10 ml and a British tablespoon is 15 ml, as standard measures used in recipes. I have provided references to cookery books that are indisputably British, some of them only use Imperial measures and spoonfuls. This idea of a much larger British tablespoon has been unsupported by any references, and if followed would throw any of the recipes in any of my British cookery books, going back to the 40s, out of proportion. I think you are thinking of serving spoons, which are much larger and not used in any recipes I've seen. The measuring spoons I was given as part of a government initiative, and which were specially made for this purpose, define a tablespoon as 15 ml. 86.182.209.69 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you use your "15ml" spoon for if you've already got a "10ml" spoon? It does not seem worth bothering to make one that's only 5ml bigger. Would you put the 15ml spoon in your mouth, or does it have some other purpose? If so, what would that be? At least we're not arguing about soup spoons and fish knives. 89.240.201.172 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I have soup spoons and fruit spoons and grapefruit spoons, but not fish knives because that would be silly ;) A 15 ml tablespoon is broad and shallow, much too big to comfortably fit in the mouth: it is used to serve things, or put on the table to spoon vegetables onto your plate. A 10 ml dessertspoon is deeper and narrower, fitting comfortable in even a child's mouth: it is ideal for eating cereal or ice cream or crumble or trifle or... I don't make the convention; it is what it is. I can image that tablespoons were once bigger, but they are not currently so in the UK and I haven't found any sources to support their larger size. 86.176.48.57 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused about what I mean by a metric tablespoon. I'm not necessarily referring to any sort of legal definition (although as I already pointed out, the US has a legally defined teaspoon for nutritional labelling purposes which is 5 ml although I'm not sure whether this is directly or the fact that a fluid ounce is defined as 30ml for nutritiona labelling purposes) but rather a tablespoon which is defined by a round metric number, the two examples I referred to were either 15 ml (in most commonwealth countries) or 20 ml (in Australia). (As I've already mentioned, the more accurate definition may be 3x or 4x a teaspoon with the teaspoon defined as 5 ml.) These may simply be de facto rather then de jure but I don't personally consider that matters. The classic US tablespoon as may still be used in the US for measuring purposes (and what Google gives) is defined by US customary units, i.e. 1/2 of a fluid ounce which is ~14.79 ml. From a quick search, imperial tablespoons seem to vary (between the UK using 5/8 fluid ounces and other places using 1/2 fluid ounces although the imperial fluid ounce is different from the US customary fluid ounce so either way you end up with a different tablespoon from the US) and I'm not particularly interested in but as I've mentioned, I'm not sure if anyone still uses these in modern recipe books anyway. Things were probably less standard at the time and likely less people had measuring spoons anyway. Similarly to 86, I can show modern cookbooks from New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and possibly Malaysia that clearly define the tablespoon as 15ml or 20ml (quite a few will mention both). I even had a set of spoons that had the values on them (5ml, 15ml etc) once. From what I've seen the desertspoon is normally defined as 10ml although it's something I rarely see actually used in recipe books and I haven't even seen a physical desertspoon before either (I'm sure they exist), using 2 teaspoons is probably seen as easier and less confusing. While I admit, I don't have any knowledge of the UK outside of wikipedia I think (lazy to check all my books) but considering 86's answer and the fact that several of the books do I believe include the UK in the places that use the 15ml tablespoon I don't have any reason to believe things are different there. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think post-metrication measuring spoons would be reliable in determining Imperial spoon sizes, as they have been too affected by American goods being sold here. (We stopped using most Imperial measurements about forty years ago.) For example I have a set of cheap plastic measuring spoons in my kitchen that were manufactured in China. Its very likely that they were designed for the American market and also incidentally sold here. 89.240.201.172 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a stupid question, but, if you've never seen a dessertspoon, what do you use to eat ice cream and cereal? I also have never or very rarely seen them used in recipes. 86.182.209.69 (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that the North Americans here, and the one's who've taken over the tablespoon article, just cannot get their heads around the idea that different countries have different conventions, even if they speak English, and that words that mean one thing in North America may have different or lesser meanings in other English-speaking countries. (Somewhat complicated by the huge import to other English-speaking countries of American films, tv, books, ideas, cheap measuring-spoons, etc etc). I've given up on the tablespoon page, and I'm now giving up on this "unofficial imperial cup" nonsense. Life's too short, even though its a pity that misleading information is in Wikipedia. But I will finally add, if its not in the appropriate Weights and Measures Act, then its not an Imperial measurement. 92.29.62.115 (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very British and while the claims of an Imperial cup are ridiculous, you are just plain wrong about tablespoons. In any case, it would be very sime for you to get your view added to the tablespoon article: find a reliable source or two that supports it. Since you have't even provided a questionable source, I conclude that you either haven't looked or have found reliable British sources disagree with you. My cheap measuring spoons were provided to me free of charge, having been specially made for the government scheme involved. They were not existing measuring spoons bought up: they were branded with the name of the scheme. And, like every measuring spoon and every equivalence chart I have ever seen in this country, they take 1 tbsp = 15 ml. If you have a source of any kind which shows otherwise, please mention it here so we can use it in the article. 86.182.209.69 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the British tablespoon has shrunk! (I'll try to find evidence). When I was young, it was the same as the Australian tablespoon (about 20ml). Dbfirs 10:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what Mrs Beeton says about this in her cookbook? Since British Imperialism was at or near it height around the time she wrote it, then she ought to be the "bible" on the subject. If she does not mention them, then they were not standardised. 89.240.201.172 (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010_February_11&oldid=1073734052"