Miscellaneous desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

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

March 15

Putting a small pile of salt on the side of one's plate

Both my sister and I (raised mostly in London in the 1960s by parents from Dundee and Newcastle) have always added salt to our meals by putting small pile of salt on the edge of our plates rather than salting the food directly, and then dipping forkfuls of food in the pile as needed. Neither of us have ever met anyone else who does this; I have visited central Scotland and Northumberland many times and nobody else has ever heard of this practice. I have searched in vain for some clue as to where this practice is (or more likely, was) associated with -- was it a working class northern British habit that has died out? I can't think of a way to research this question but I'm hoping someone here can think of a way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Salt and pepper shakers#Distinguishing salt from pepper: "In the UK, salt was often poured onto the side of one's plate and used for dipping, rather than shaken across the whole dish, hence salt cellars having a single, larger, hole", however as a Yorkshireman whose parents came from the Midlands and Yorkshire, I've never done it nor seen it done. Maybe some "posh" upper-class thing, certainly not how I'd eat my chips! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the perplexed: in the UK, the term salt cellar means what is called salt shaker at the other end of the pond. --Lambiam 16:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Salt cellar" is a known but kind of old-fashioned term in America. And what we call "chips", youse guys call "crisps", right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term is known, but isn't an American "salt cellar" more like an open bowl with a small spoon to dispense the salt,^[1] not something one turns upside down over one's dish to pour out some salt, like the one-hole salt dispenser seen here? --Lambiam 13:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "chips" are what our American friends call French Fries, not a 1970s cop series. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- just makes me more curious, of course. My parents were both working-class so I don't think it's a posh thing. I wonder when and why it died out? And that line in the Wikipedia article is helpful but unsourced; if I ever run across a source for this information I'll remember and add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd add that my dad was posh and he did it. --Viennese Waltz 17:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That, plus the Debrett's reference below, makes me think they picked it up as they moved into the middle class -- senior civil servant and secondary school department head -- from working class -- an army NCO and mining background in one case and a farming and shoe-making background in the other. The Debrett's reference makes me wonder how pervasive this is in the upper class -- do they teach this at Eton? Would one see this at high table at Oxbridge? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your chips are typically thicker than our pommes frites, but yes. —Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pile instead of sprinked salt is listed in Debrett's Essential Table Manners. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I was growing up in a UK upper-working class family, salt and pepper were sprinkled, but optional sauces (ketchup, brown sauce, horseradish sauce, mint sauce, cranberry sauce) were put in a blob on the side of the plate. I still do this if eating in company.

A salt cellar was originally a communal open pot, containing salt which tended to 'cake' into loose lumps, so rather than everybody repeatedly dipping into it, it made sense to transfer a smaller quantity to one's plate where forkfuls of specific foods could be dabbed onto it; the salt shaker (facilitated by freely flowing salt, an early 20th century development) and the habit of sprinkling the whole plate were later developments: doing the latter can suggest that one assumes the cook has under-salted the entire dish – my mother used sometimes to complain when my father did it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught as a child in London to make a pile of salt at the side (skilled working class but with middle class habits). My understanding is that this is the reason why a salt cellar has a single apperture, whereas the pepper pot has multiple holes for sprinkling, like this. A quick Google search suggests that this is a British peculiarity, Continental cruet sets seem to have multiple holes for both. Alansplodge (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gun that swings to reload

I've been trying to find out about a kind of gun or shotgun I saw in a movie (maybe the Pirates of the Caribbean or a western) which has to be swung around like a cowboy swinging a lasso after shooting a bullet to shoot again. I think the barrel or at least a large mechanical part of the device is rotated a full circle with a ratcheting sound. I can't find anything similar on Wikipedia. Does this sound familiar to anyone? 78.1.207.150 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking about the one they used in The Rifleman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or the one John Wayne liked to use, as in this famous scene from True Grit:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's it, thanks :) I already read about lever action while searching for this but it didn't occur to me that rifles could be sturdy enough to swing around while holding on to such a small part! 78.1.207.150 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should you ever wish to attempt this, YouTube has a tutorial. Alansplodge (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, rifles have to be sturdy enough to take repeated concussions. —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling in photos, redux

There's been plenty of discussion here on refdesk about why people don't smile in old photos, with popular answers ranging from poor teeth to no access to dentistry, to even cultural taboos against smiling in general (see for example Russia and some Asian countries). However, there's now a somewhat newer phenomenon occurring that I want to discuss that may draw upon these ideas. In the 2020s, writers and cultural commentators began noticing that smiling in advertising photos began to diminish and disappear in some instances. For an easy and simple example that anyone can verify, department store advertising photos in the US (for example, circulars), from the 1980s, 1990s, and early to mid-2010s, mostly featured smiling models displaying clothing. This has almost disappeared in some market segments in more recent years.

Take the Banana Republic, Old Navy, Gap line as one example. On the Banana Republic and Gap websites, none of the models are smiling, not even the kids. However, on the Old Navy website, all of the models are smiling. I have a weird theory about this. Old Navy is predominately for the US market, but they do have stores in Manila, and Mexico City. But the culture of smiling in Mexico and the Philippines is highly regarded and acceptable. In other words, people love to smile in all three countries. However, Banana Republic and The Gap have a more international presence, and are making inroads into Asia, unlike Old Navy. My theory is that because the culture of smiling in Asia isn't as popular, the advertising team for Gap and Banana Republic are designing ads that are more globalized in terms of appeal to those cultures. Is there any truth to my idea? Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, non-smiling models on the catwalk have been a feature of Parisian and other fashion shows for more than half a century. I would speculate that this is intended to focus the viewers' attention on the clothes rather than the models. Speaking personally, I find excessive smiling in ads to be unnatural, and often an obviously false attempt to create a 'bond' with the model and hence the product, while more neutral expressions, not directed at the viewer, seem more natural. Others doubless have different perceptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but there's a 2007 article about this in Reuters that supports the idea that this changed in haute couture fashion, even on the catwalk, in 2007.[3] The idea comes from the 1990s, when it was said that models who smile take attention away from their clothing. I didn't raise this as an alternative explanation because it is an entirely different phenomenon than the one I'm discussing. There's a long-form discussion of some of the possible reasons for the modern trend I'm discussing here. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a trend there. You can see the same thing with women in '60s movies or even American 40s/50s hipster/beatnik culture. People who smile too much can't come off as serious and self-assertive. 78.1.207.150 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely something happening. This study blames the use of phones for the decline of smiling in general. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't mention the name for BLP reasons, but there's an infamous case of a female politician in the US who recently got much criticism for many reasons but including for her odd smiling during a speech where she was talking about rape, death and other things, and expressed fears for her children. Women and especially women politicians are often controversially told they need to smile or smile more [4] [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All true, but it's interesting how this discussion quickly shifted to sex and gender, and seems to have assumed I was talking about women, when my original post specified neither, quite intentionally, as the phenomenon I observed in fashion ads occurred equally among men and women that were depicted. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations vary. NYT: "Why do runway models always look miserable? They always look as if they would bite your head off if you spoke to them."^[6] — Because it's awfully hard to maintain a believable expression of great joy when you are walking in front of hundreds, if not thousands, of strangers, all there to render their judgment on what you are wearing. WSJ: "Why do fashion models look so cranky?"^[7] — Because the designers think a smile detracts from the clothes. The Guardian: "Why do fashion models look so grumpy?"^[8] — Because they are grumpy; try being a model: you can't eat, you barely get to sleep and you often have to wear really stupid clothes yet keep a straight face while the photographer shouts about how you should shag the camera, or something. (Perhaps all of the above apply.) --Lambiam 13:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the public's interest in what models are wearing, that must account for the godlike adulation afforded to "supermodels" and their richly-deserved lifestyles, and the almost total lack of attention given to their clothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live, the Victoria's Secret Angels used to do an annual photo shoot. A lot of famous fashion designers used to vacation in my area as well. Although I met most of them, the only one I got to hang out and talk with in any depth was Miranda Kerr, who I found to be a lovely person. Everything Lambiam says is true, and a lot more. More telling, was the discussions I had with the designers who spent time here while trying to recharge. They told me a lot of things about the fashion industry that are pretty sad. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When appearing at fashion shows, etc., the models are not presenting themselves and the clothes to 'the public', but mostly to fashion-industry professionals who regard them as little more than animated mannequins.

I suspect the 'public's godlike adulation' is in large part a fictional narrative created by the media, on the behest of the fashion advertisers on whose advertising revenue the media is greatly dependent. I myself have never met anyone who adulates any 'supermodel', though admittedly I am not part of any demographic that might. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, in French mannequin is the common term for a fashion model. ("Twiggy, aussi connue sous le nom de Twiggy Lawson, et depuis 2019, Dame Twiggy Lawson, (née Lesley Hornby), est un mannequin et une actrice et chanteuse britannique, née le 19 septembre 1949.") One doesn't need animatronics to animate them. --Lambiam 09:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]