Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 April 19

= April 19 =

Just one more
Here's a question (obviously). I've just created my 1,001st WP page, which was, naturally, Category:Music based on One Thousand and One Nights. I got to thinking about the original stories, and then about the fact that, even though we generally like things to be in sets of nice round numbers, we are also attracted to things that are just a bit extra (but not too much extra). There's a certain mystique to, e.g. One Thousand and One Nights that would not be shared by One Thousand Nights or One Thousand and Two Nights.

Here are a few more examples:


 * year and a day is a phrase with a long history
 * a baker's dozen is a real dozen (12) plus one
 * various 101 Dalmatians (although 102 Dalmatians wrecked my premise)
 * various other things at 101 (disambiguation)
 * Twenty-six Men and a Girl
 * One Hundred Men and a Girl
 * Six Million and One
 * the age of majority was traditionally 21
 * tea is traditionally made with one teaspoon of tea per person, plus one for the pot
 * drinkers, singers and others like to have One for the Road (I had to link that because, surprisingly, we have no article on the general expression "one for the road").

Is there some overall theme or description of this phenomenon? -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is an expression of fullness. The added digit only accentuates the sense of "filled to capacity" that presumably is present in the first quantity stated. That would be my initial explanation. By the way, I don't think the "Twenty-six Men and a Girl" and the "One Hundred Men and a Girl" are properly examples of what I think you are centrally describing as I think it is the gender that stands out as opposed to the additional small quantity. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, you come up with some interesting ones. Why don't you ask something easy, like "Why is the ocean near the shore?" or "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" or "How high is Mt. Everest?" The first term that came to mind is "whimsy", and I also wonder if there's any connection, at least on some level, with numerology. It's worth pointing out that round numbers are typically boring, as well as automatically sounding like estimates. "A year" could be flexible. "A year and a day" seems a lot more exact (although "forever and a day" doesn't really). Speaking of Everest, the original surveyors made several measurements, and to their non-amusement, they averaged to exactly 29,000. That sounded like a round number or a guesstimate (which it arguably was), so they announced it as 29,002. Another number that sounds nifty is in 2001: A Space Oddysey. It sounds more elegant somehow than 2000 or whatever. By the way, an alternative definition of a "baker's dozen" is "12 of today's and one of yesterday's." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They're some neat-o examples I didn't think of. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard that Arthur C. Clarke chose that name because he considers that the correct first year of the millennium, as our calendar unfortunately lacks a year 0. Paul (Stansifer) 20:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of starting a long and irrelevant side discussion, let me just rise to the bait in my own question by saying there was nothing unfortunate about there being no year 0. They decided to start a new sequence of years, beginning on a certain date (the reasons for that choice are irrelevant here). That date was the first day of the first month of the first year of the new calendar.  Hence, calling the first year anything other than 1 would have been absurd.  As absurd as starting every month with the 0th of the month, or by counting the months of the year starting with the 0th through to the 11th.  They then gave names to the years preceding the new sequence, counting backwards starting at 1 BC.  Maybe they could have called that year 0 BC, but that had nothing intuitive going for it, and a lot counter.  The upshot was no year 0, and the sequence goes straight from -1 to +1.  I understand mathematicians dislike disruptions to ordered sequences of things, like disjunctions, and non-linearities in otherwise linear circumstances, but sheesh, they deal with them unemotionally every day of the week in other contexts, so why the hullabaloo about something that happened many centuries ago and is never going to change?  Anyway, whether there "should" have been a year 0 or not, the fact is there isn't .  We work with what is.  All millennia start with a year ending in 1, and end with a year ending with a 0.  Just like counting from 1 to 10, or 1 to 100, or even, dare I say it, 1 to 1000.  How hard is that to grasp?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I really don't see any connection between your examples, I mean the reasonings for each of them are all quite different. "Year and a day" is just a very clear way of stating more than one year, baker's dozen was about ensuring the customer was not be jipped, 101 dalmatians is in my mind due to better Phonaesthetics than 100 dalmatians, room 101 (you didn't bring up but...) would be because we don't count things beginning at 0 as 0 is a lack of a thing. "Six million and One" the title is to separate out, to make particular note of this one person. Age of majority varies greatly around the world and in time. Tea is done like that to account for residue on the pot. One for the road...just means taking one for the road...though sometimes I take two for the road...
 * That said, I don't believe there is a word/concept for the idea you speak of, I think you just think too much. This could also be a case of a bias, giving more value to points which support your idea and less value to those which do not support the idea, and being less critical than normal of examples when they work in your favour. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Humph! All I'll say to that is, it's Dalmatian, not dalmation.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see that "Humph!" and raise it to a "Harumph!" There may not be any direct connection between the examples themselves, but there is certainly an umbrella theme of "number play", for lack of a better term. And I don't know if this is related or not, but I've heard comedians say that for whatever reason, odd numbers are considered funnier. In his early recordings, Bill Cosby used to use crazy examples of counts of things, and they were often odd numbers. More recently, there's this example, in which somehow 87 seems funnier than 86 or 88 would be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you google things like "one for the road" and "one for the books", you'll see various references. It appears that "one for the road" comes in part from kind of wanting to slow down one's departure (in the case of Sinatra's song, there were two: "one for my baby, and one more for the road"). One for the books is a similar-sounding expression, but simply means something unique or record-breaking. I googled "101", and there are a number of items that come up. "101 Uses or a Dead Cat", a dark-humor book, is just one of quite a few things that are "101-something". Clearly, this is a popular number. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that 102 Dalmations ruins the premise, any more than Ocean's 12 ruins the premise of Ocean's 11. They're sequels, so it works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's still Dalmati-ANS, not -ONS. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  07:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dalmatians. 101 of them. Or more. A nation of Dalmatians. They tried to hide, but they were spotted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, fixed, Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How could we have got this far without anyone mentioning Spinal Tap's amplifier that goes up to 11? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But there were only 7 dwarves! And what about the 23 enigma? Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so this is just another example of my attempting to synthesise connections between things that are not actually ... what do you call it ... connected. Seeing patterns that nobody else has ever noticed before, or if they have, have not thought it worth mentioning anywhere - is there a term for this, apart from "sheer unadulterated genius"? -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it's "outside-the-box thinking", which is usually a hallmark of great leadership skills. Or a slightly twisted mind. Or both. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jack was in the box, but now seems to be out of it. Hard to pin this chap down, methinks.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  06:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just goes to show that to be creative, sometimes you have to flip your lid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I missed the chance to get in earlier, but isn't this a form of linguistic inflation? Certainly, that's how linguists seem to refer to the phenomenon whereby candidates on The Apprentice and The X Factor always "give 110%". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I liked the bit about "Lexicographer Susie Dent traces this linguistic inflation back to the 1980s when ice-skating champions Torvill and Dean talked of giving 101%. Other sportspeople had to go one better, and increased their so-called commitment level to 110%". What ever was wrong with 102%, if "going one better" was their thing?  I'm reminded of people who want to differentiate themselves in an extreme way, by going not just ordinary old 180 degrees apart, but double that, to 360 degrees.   They might find they're not so very different after all.   :)  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

difficulty trying to open a packaged food
I bought some " Reser's original potato salad" and had myself a terrible time trying to open the plastic package, the plastic is so terribly strong  , I was working on it for about an hour , I ruined both of my thumb fingernails trying to get them into the crack in order to open the top. I finally founf a knife which was pointy and thin enough to finally gain entry beween the lips which separate the top from the bottom, I had to apply a lot of force in order to achieve a separation.I am sure a woman would not have had any luck in getting this package open. As far as woman's house work and the tools for such house work are concerned, every inventor and company are striving to make housework for women easier , your company does not seem to share this philosophy. I wish you would have printed a telephone number on the package under which I could have reached your customer servive, it would have made it a lot easier for me to voice my complaint , but your company seems to strive to make things a lot harder in every department. Sincerely Fritz wacker , if you have enough curtesy to address this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.131.34 (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We are not Reser's, but might be able to offer suggestions. Unfortunately, that product comes in many different containers.  From your description, it sounds like this one:, and I've also had trouble with that type.  Is that what yours looked like ?  If so, I sometimes cut a flap in top with a knife, instead.  If you are concerned that it then no longer seals, you can move the potato salad to another container.  StuRat (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not the correct page for reaching Reser. Please click on this blue link to contact Reser with your complaint. I have removed your email address and phone number so that you do not receive unwanted contact from spammers. Personally, I suggest using a razor blade for removing tight, hard to remove plastic wrap. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or scissorS, being slightly less dangerous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you only have 'scissor' your side of the pond, Bugs? Here in civilisation, we've long known that they work best in pairs ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So do my hands, when typing, etc., except sometimes I fail to hit a key hard enough for the letter to show up. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UR. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Really long poles?
What's the word for the really long poles that clowns and some showmen strap onto their feet and walk on them? They showed something similar in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus too, where Jude Law started walking on a ladder and it split in halves and looked just like one of those poles... What're they called? 223.231.190.198 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you just talking about stilts? Mikenorton (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes! =) Thank you! Sometimes I just can't remember some words that I actually know... Weird thing.. I knew they were called stilts, but couldn't for the life of me remember the word. >_<  223.231.190.198 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Annoying isn't it? You might find a reverse dictionary useful at such times.--Shantavira|feed me 12:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's impressive, I tried 'poles walking high' and stilt was the first suggestion. Mikenorton (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Did Pope John Paul II come up ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Stu, not in the first hundred results, so well below snow blindness - which does make sense I think. Mikenorton (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was expecting somebody to say "I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot Pole". StuRat (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably no such thing, Stu. The tallest Polish person mentioned here is only 7 feet 2 inches tall.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  06:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure they don't measure heights from the ceiling down to their heads, rather than from the floor up ? :-) StuRat (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Shilop? :)  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Identify the geographical, Clophill, Bedfordshire, UK
What is this large circle on the ground? http://g.co/maps/ra2qx --  Rixxin  ( talk ) 14:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It used to be a AN/FLR-9 cold war radio listening device, also known as an 'elephant cage', . Mikenorton (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) According to this, "It turns out to be an FLR-9 high frequency signals interception antenna array which, at the height of the Cold War, was used to intercept Soviet and Warsaw Pact communications as well as non-US Diplomatic messages. During WWII, Chicksands' earlier antennae were used to capture the German Enigma transmissions, which were then passed to the GCHQ code breakers at Bletchley Park." It's at the former RAF Chicksands, now the home of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * On a similar theme, does anyone know what this is (side view)? It's a lot more modern.--Shantavira|feed me 16:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Click on 51.1626°N, 1.359°W, select the Bing OS map (at top of right-hand column), and zoom in. It's labeled "Aircraft Control Beacon". Compare the lead image at VHF omnidirectional range. Deor (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is the "Dover" or sometimes on aeronautical charts as "DVR" VOR/DME transmitter, have a look at http://www.trevord.com/navaids/dvr.htm for some ground images. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Verbing for England
Hearing fictional characters say "She could bore for England" and "You toss for England!" [meaning someone is a bore/tosser of national championship quality], I wonder what verb begat the template. The only sports that spring to my (foreign) mind in which there's a team for England are soccer and cricket, but "plays football for England" doesn't have the same flow. Bowls, perhaps? —Tamfang (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You needn't identify the sport. She could play for England seems a perfectly cromulant template. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the phrase isn't Lie back and think of England. is your wife into sport?  Nudge Nudge, say no more, say no more... -- Jayron  32  22:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's Bonking for Britain. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Could talk for England" seems to get far and away the most Google hits: 50,400 for the exact phrase. It's in common use here in London. Not sure how recent it is, but in six pages of Google Books results for that exact phrase, the earliest was 1997. "Could play for England" is obviously the reference point of the joke, but isn't in itself amusing, so seems a bit unlikely to have set the ball rolling. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, England also has national teams for Rugby Union, Rugby League, Hockey, Polo and many others, some rather obscure like Rounders, and Tug-of-war. Stoolball is so obscure that nobody else seems to play it. Alansplodge (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Tamfang might have guessed correctly at the original template: "bowl for England", but in cricket, not bowls, of course.   D b f i r s   06:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OR, but I'm fairly sure Tagish is the one who's got it right. "S/he / You should play for England" is probably the original. It's still commonly used, although it's often done tongue-in-cheek. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A linguistic template of this type is called a snowclone, after the myth about Eskimo words for snow. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)