Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 January 15

= January 15 =

moving an image
need to move an image from commons to infobox, don't know how Mlpearc (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that you want to use an image which is hosted on Wikimedia Commons in an article with an infobox? Images hosted on commons can be imported with the usual syntax.  We have a help page for Moving images to the Commons, and an information page about images that have been moved to commons.  There is no reason to move an image from commons to Wikipedia.  Images that are hosted over there can be used seamlessly - just use the full image file name and the wiki software at Wikipedia will automatically locate the file from Commons.  Can you link the page that's causing trouble? Nimur (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to move this image that I uploaded to commons: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Don_1.jpg to the infobox at User:Mlpearc/Don E. Branker

If you can help Mlpearc (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Image was added by Dismas. Franamax (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Matsutake prices in UK?
What is the price for a Matsutake toadstool in the UK? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is some discussion of matsutake prices in Canada, Washington State and Osaka. You could ask at a Vietnamese restaurant about nấm tùng nhung which is the same toadstool Tricholoma nauseosum.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a UK-based supplier, but I did find this article. The Manchester-based chef used 1.5 kilos of them in his pie, at a cost of £2250, or £1500 per kilo, back in 2005.  Ka renjc 12:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, here in Japan the price of matsutake has fallen a lot, but then the tastiness of matsutake has fallen a lot. (They're imported and thus that much older. And maybe they weren't tasty even when fresh.) Once every couple of years I optimistically order something at a restaurant with matsutake and sure enough its taste turns out to be minimal and uninteresting. But of course it's imaginable that matsutake sold in Britain are better than those sold in Japan. -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Shellfish and cheese
I was watching an episode of "Chopped" on the Food Network the other day. One of the judges told a contestant that it is essentially a culinary sin to combine shellfish with cheese. (The contestant thought it tasted good, but the judge was adamant that it just isn't done.) Is this true? Is there a reason why this is so? I tend to think it would be a pleasing combination. Thank you. — Michael J  14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I googled [shellfish cheese] and found many entries. This first one is from a site called "cooking.com". My first thought was maybe there was some health-related issue, but apparently not. It's not a question of being kosher, since shellfish are not kosher in any case. So I don't know what that judge's problem was. But maybe one of wikipedia's Galloping Gourmets will have some insight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While shellfish are not kosher, many bony fish are, and there are some (mainly Sefardic) Jews who will not eat dairy + fish together as sort of a tradition against it (not that it's truly prohibited) -- this translates into an effective ban on cream cheese + lox for some.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 06:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm stunned that some Jewish folks would actually eschew bagels with cream cheese and lox. My Jewish friends can't get enough of it (nor can I). As regards kosher, once of them told me once that the concerns about freshness and other issues that drove the kosher laws are no longer really a practical problem; but that keeping kosher, separate sets of dishes, etc., is good "because it reminds you that you're Jewish". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I unaware of any kosher rules that have anything to do with freshness, but this somewhat rare minhag of a ban on fish and milk is, granted, not a very prevalent tradition, and I do not know its reason. The effective ban on meat and fish, largely held by all observant Jews to some degree, is overtly stated to be a protection against "danger" -- what the danger is I cannot answer, but I don't eat fish at all (I think it tastes bad and smells worse and it's thus a danger to me!).  Keeping kosher in the biblical sense has nothing to do with freshness and asserting that it does appears foolish, as a kosher diet is no fresher than a non-kosher diet.  Separation of dishes, a rabbinical prohibition, is in fact put in place in order to prevent a violation of a biblical prohibition, and I could elaborate in another forum if you so choose. :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the reasoning on the dishes. Regarding "freshness" or edibility, the most obvious thing that comes to mind is pork, which can be deadly if not cured properly. But the so-called "unclean" animals seem to have more to do with being "bottom-feeders". For example, as I understand it, catfish is not kosher. Anyway, the kosher laws anymore seem to have as much to do with identifying oneself as Jewish as anything, especially in countries like the USA where Jews have successfully assimilated and to some extent have lost their "differentness", to put it one way. Although I'm reminded of this one: A Jewish guy is in a butcher shop and inquires about the price of ham. A loud clap of thunder is heard outside. The customer looks toward the heavens and says, "I was only asking!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're argument possesses no merit because you give provide examples of things that appear as evidence to your hypothesis, yet completely neglect to mention the obvious examples that provide evidence to the contrary. Goats will eat a lot of things that most other herbivores wouldn't eat, yet they are kosher.  And koalas are notorious for their selective eating habits, yet they are not kosher.  And are you really asserting that improperly cured pork is any more poisonous than improperly cured beef?  It may be that all scavengers are not kosher, but if you take all species into account, the majority of animals are not kosher, including many non-scavengers.  And "kosher laws anymore [sic] seem to have as much to do with identifying oneself as Jewish as anything" -- I don't understand what you meant by that.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then, enlighten this ignorant, meritless soul: What's the reasoning behind the kosher laws? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * God provided little reasoning behind his word and his will, for we are to adhere in a spirit of observance, not in a spirit of immediate personal gratification because X is enjoyable and Y is dangerous. I have an mp3 file by Mordechai Becher that will enlighten you to a much greater extent that I could, and I'll email it to you if you give me an address.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a bit of an urban legend around shellfish and dairy products. I recall a Newfoundlander I know recoiling in horror when I mentioned that I'd had ice cream for dessert after having lobster at dinner. He said it was dangerous to do because of some way that milk interacted with "the stuff in the lobster" and that it would usually result in a horrible belly ache. Never affected me in any way like that, though, and I've done it several times. Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shellfish and dairy isn't too uncommon. Clam chowder counts if you believe clams are a shellfish. Lobster bisque certainly counts. I've even seen clam chowder with cheese in it... Staecker (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was so obvious it should have hit me in the face. The problem is that Michael J didn't specify which kind of shellfish was being discussed on the show. If he's still reading this, perhaps he could enlighten us. Crustaceans and mollusks are both usually lumped into "shellfish". If it was a high-falutin' cooking show, I would guess clam chowder was not on the menu, unless they were clams that were really expensive, i.e. that cost a lot of clams. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
 * It's not really a "high-faultin' cooking show." It's a competition show where contestants are given a basket of ingredients not commonly used together, and told to make a meal out of them. They are allowed to add other ingredients from the show's pantry, if they choose. The episode in question was Episode 4.2 and the shellfish in question was littleneck clams. Chef Amy Roth grated some cheese into her appetizer. — Michael J  15:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Routine and delicious dishes along the south of France are Moules and/or Oysters grilled under cheese. Lovely.Froggie34 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So that judge was imposing either his personal prejudices, or ignorance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Off-topically returning to crustaceans, I'll just mention Lobster Thermidor. Deor (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find lobster to be pretty bland, so most anything would help it. Maybe even ketchup. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had always heard that the combination was "prohibited" in Italian cooking, not in general. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Shellfish and cheese is one of those things like drinking white wine with red meat (or for the low-falutin, like putting ketchup on a hot dog... it should NOT be done). Certain tastes generally don't complement each other well; either because one of the items masks desireable tastes in the other food, or because it accents undesirable ones. While there is certainly no accounting for taste, the prohibition likely comes from the notion that cheeses, especially heavy tasting or sharp cheeses, may mask or alter the flavors natural to the shellfish, and thus change its taste in less than desirable ways.  -- Jayron  32  16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For those who are wondering about the ketchup on hot dogs comment, see Ketchup on hot dogs . Nevermind that, I see that another good article was changed into an ineffectual redirect which doesn't address the original subject at all.  See this old revision of the real "ketchup on hot dogs" article. Dismas |(talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jayron. The pungent creaminess of cheese tends to mask the delicate sea flavours of say, a scallop. It can work though. Vranak (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The judges on Chopped are generally idiots, anyway. They try to come across as respectable chefs, when what they are, is snobs.  67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Tex-Mex food features lots of shellfish and cheese. I have eaten many a delicious seafood enchilada, crawfish and shrimp quesadilla, and so forth, without any ill effect, culinary or otherwise. As a categorical prohibition, it sounds ridiculous to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, cheese, chocolate and bacon are all foods that can basically taste pretty good with anything. Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who has enjoyed a rather tasty seafood lasagna once or twice in my life (Amedeo's Restaurant, Raleigh, NC), I am inclined to agree with you on that. I didn't endorse it, I just gave the reason why the prohibition exists.  -- Jayron  32  20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. This is all good information. (It seems like the answer from 67.51 says it all!) ... Now I'm going to go have some clams dipped in cheese sauce! — Michael J  23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this quote by Henry David Thoreau?
"When a dog runs at you, whistle for him"Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) ([|Post here if you joind cfpmedia]) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You whistle for dogs that are friendly to you, so presumably if a dog is trying to attack you, you want to let him know you are friendly. He's probably speaking in metaphor; so when you find a person who is attacking you, set yourself up as his friend/ally and it will disarm your attacker.  -- Jayron  32  16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That certainly sounds like it would be the right interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right, a version of "always feed the mouth that bites you". Ericoides (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the him is referring to the dogcatcher, since the quote does not specify what gender the dog is, and that the quote means, don't be afraid to seek out help from a specialist if it is required. Googlemeister (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or not. Before political correctness fucked up proper English grammar, it was proper to use the masculine pronoun where the gender of the antecedant was unknown.  So, if you didn't know the gender of the dog, "him" would be perfectly legitimate, especially in the early 19th century.  Plus, since there are no dog catchers mentioned, and there IS a dog, the antecedant for the pronoun "him" is the appropriate noun before it, which is the dog.  So, the him is refering to the dog you whistle for... I'm not even sure they had "dogcatchers" during Thoreau's time.  -- Jayron  32  20:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, damn political correctness forcing Shakespeare to use the singular they. Next thing, thou shalt be forced to use the plural you when thou meanst only a single person. No respect for proper English grammar. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it great when people make stuff up you didn't say, and then try to refute those points, that you never said? That's awesome, isn't it?-- Jayron  32  21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the words of the great Yogi, "I really didn't say everything I said." Googlemeister (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally, most people (in my experience) assume dogs are male at first guess. (I have a female dog, and no matter how many times I call her "her" with strangers, they insist on referring to her as a "good boy" and "he" and etc. The dog, incidentally, does not care, and neither, really, do I.) (And I don't think Thoreau is talking about a dog-catcher. It would be very un-Thoreau to recommend calling an expert, in any case.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All dogs are boys, all cats are girls; everyone knows that  almost - instinct 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My dog's an it. Buddy431 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My dog's a 'he' - but will become an 'it' in just a matter of weeks. SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the meaning to be a somewhat facetious suggestion that, in order to look as if one has control of the dog, wait until he is running towards you of his own accord and then call / whistle for him so that it looks like he is coming because you called. It's like a magician "commanding" a rock to fall when it was damn-well going to fall anyway. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also not the kind of thing Thoreau would be advocating. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

When training a puppy it is good policy to give the command that relates to the puppy's activity. i.e. If you want him to come at a whistle, then whistle while he is coming. The dog needs to associate certain sounds - or actions - with certain activities. My dogs know, for example, that when I take my glasses off in the lounge at night we are all going to bed. However deeply asleep they appear to be the click of the specs brings them to their feet. So, although I don't understand the quote, there is sense in the principle.Froggie34 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thoreau is not giving puppy training lessons. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I once whistled at a dog, and it became angry at me because it was a very high-pitched wistle. However the dog had a leash on. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would put the statement in the context of "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." To wit, when a dog charges you, call him and (hope?) it will turn out for the best. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Persian Chai
Every time I go to a Persian restaurant, I'm always enthralled by the tea they serve, usually with dessert. However, I'd like to have it at home. I've never been able to figure out how to prepare it. I know that usually there is rose water in it, but past that...I'm stumped beyond seeing a few leaves at the dregs and the brew is usually orange-colored. Can anybody enlighten me on blend of tea, preparation methods, and other ingredients? Thanks!72.219.150.173 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is one person's advice. There's a lot more out there if you just Google for obvious sets of search terms (such as ones including Persian and chai). One of the principal requisites seems to be actual Iranian tea, although some sites suggest using a mixture such as 2 parts Darjeeling and 1 part Earl Grey if you can't get the real stuff at a local specialty shop. (Since Earl Grey already contains bergamot flavoring, I might omit the optional rose petals, cardamom, and other spices if I were using it.) You might also try asking the staff at the Persian restaurants you visit how they make it. Deor (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

US state and territory capitols
When is the last time that a US state or a US territory that became a state moved it's capitol city?

Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there's a wikipedia article that lists states and their capitals. I know some of them have changed, though certainly none recently.  Looking up all 50 could be kind of tedious, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you really click "Save page" after typing this? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a nearby radio interfered with my wireless mouse and it clicked save against my will. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alaska contemplated moving her capital from Juneau (where it had sat since moving from Sitka in 1906) to the more-central Willow, but this proposal was defeated in a 1982 referendum. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See List of capitals in the United States. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capitals_in_the_United_States Apparently the winner is Oklahoma city.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Living in Providence, Rhode Island, let me clarify something, since a very rushed perusal of that list seems to indicate that Providence's becoming the capital of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in 1900 (simultaneously with the opening of a magnificent state house designed by McKim, Meade and White) was the most recent move of a state capital. But as that list also indicates, the capital was rotated among the chief towns of each of Rhode Island's five counties (Providence, Newport, Bristol, East Greenwich [Kent County] and South Kingstown [Washington County]) until 1854, when the rotation was reduced to just Newport and Providence. So Providence has almost always been one of the colony's and state's capital cities. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since Oklahoma City's "capitalization" is apparently more recent (1910), the above is less important. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you go to the table at the top of List of capitals in the United States, you can see that it's sortable (which is what those bowtie icons in the top line mean). One category you can sort by is the date that the most current capital became one. I took a section of such a sorted table to give the capitals established or moved since 1861: —— Shakescene (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

American timber house construction - dampness from soil?
The timber houses include, I think, a frame of timber to support the weight which includes large vertical timbers. How are these timbers stopped from coming into contact with the moisture of the soil? I'm imagining that if they were merely rested on something waterproof, then they would not be stable in high winds. So how are the structural timbers kept from being in contact with the soil, while still being firmly attached to it? I'm interested in both modern construction, and construction used one or two hundred years ago. Thanks 78.146.81.118 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a house, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beautiful_Post_and_Beam_Horse_Barn.JPG shows that the wood frame sits atop a concrete pad. I seem to recall that there are usually some bolts or similar set into the concrete when it is poured, and that there are metal pieces that you attach to these bolts, and to the wood frame to hold it in place.  There are probably other ways that it is done, but that is the way I remember my neighbor building his garage.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See Shallow foundation and the articles linked therein. Before the use of concrete, drystone foundations or mortared stone foundations were used in many cases, I believe (at least I recall seeing them in some of the more rural This Old House projects). Deor (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In Australia at least, it is/was common to have the frame on top of brick pillars. This is in areas with enough rock for the pillars to go onto directly. nb Also helps keep insects out. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Modern construction bolts the wood frame to a concrete foundation. Older construction would use a drystone or brick foundation, or simply resist rot through sheer mass: a ten-by-ten beam won't rot very fast in most soil conditions, and rotting can be further retarded by application of creosote or tar to the wood.. --Carnildo (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly on the houses I've owned and seen built here in Texas, the wood frame sits on top of the concrete slab. Suprisingly, they don't seem to use pressure-treated lumber or any other kind of treated wood.  Carnildo is being quite optimistic when talking about 10 by 10 beams...even if that's centimeters!  2"x4" seems to be used for most of the framing with 4"x4" reserved for corners and such like. SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Old New England homes and barns will sometimes have giant structural pieces like Carnildo describes. It was an easy way to make things strong when you've got more trees than you know what to do with. APL (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Older homes have some truly massive structural members. I remember visiting my aunt's century-old house in West Virginia, and being amazed at the size of the exposed beams visible in the basement.  The main beam supporting the middle of the first floor was a pair of beams each a foot across and twenty feet long, supported where they met by a post just as large.  The rest of the frame was similarly larger than modern houses -- I don't think there was anything smaller than a four-by-four in use. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are they always bolted to metal sticking up out of a concrete slab, or can they just rest there due to their weight without actually being attached? 78.149.116.255 (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Except perhaps in extremely dry climates, wood buildings with the structural members resting directly on the ground suffered rot of the wood in contact with the ground in just a few years. If the beams rested on a stone foundation or on a rock or rocks at the corners (with intermediate rocks or rock piles under long sills) it might last a century or longer. Edison (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they sometimes topple over in very high winds? 78.149.251.193 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Destruction_following_hurricane_andrew.jpg  Googlemeister (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak for American standards, but the principles of building are universal. Wooden buildings can be fixed to the ground in a number of ways. Concrete slab foundations are suitable in many environments, but such Shallow foundations can be problematic in areas where the ground routinely freezes, experiences subsidence or movement, has high water table/surface flooding,or is sloping. Wooden framing is typically 'tied' to the slab using steel connectors and brackets such as this and these. Local building regulations should have specifications for such foundations to meet appropriate earthquake or storm loadings. (Eg. in earthquake zones, they are expecting to withstand substantial lateral movement). Alternatively, the house can be constructed on piles. These could be reinforced concrete, wooden piles set in concrete, wooden piles tied to concrete or stone, or treated round wooden piles driven directly into the ground. (Known as tanalized or treated roundwood) This document provides information on various types of piles and their fixings and bracings. Gwinva (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Corian sink repair
Hello! I have a Corian sink that has a small crack in it, and no matter how I try to patch it, water still leaks through. Does anyone have any solutions? Thank you!--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the company is able to come out to fill the crack and make it look seamless. You can probably call the company to ask about specifics in getting your sink repaired.  I'm not personally aware of any homebrew fixes for solid surface sinks. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Most people say it's a job for a professional - but there is one company I know of who sell a $30 repair kit: http://www.refinishingonline.com/ - there is a "how-to" at associatedcontent.com/article/1313115/how_to_repair_your_cracked_corian_countertop.html - however, I'm skeptical just because almost every DIY site on the web says you can't do it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)