Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 April 11

= April 11 =

A Car Designer from Egypt !!
Hi

This is Engineer Amr Abdo, from Cairo-Egypt. I am almost 64 Years old. In my childhood ( about 10 Years Old), i was crazy about Car Styling. Since my late Mother was an Oil Painter, she encouraged me so much at that age. At that early stage I decided to be a car Designer.

when I grew up and finished the secondary school, Unfortunately, I couldn't find an institute or university to study Car styling in my Country. In the same time, my father wasn't a wealthy man to send me study in Europe or the United states. The only choice to me was to study automotive Engineer where i graduated in 1974, full of energy at that time, hoping to start designing the 1st Egyptian Car.

I wanted to tell stages of my life with car designing until my best achievement in 2003 when i was selected as the 2nd rank worldwide designer in the 2nd International design contest by Peugeot.

My story is not a success story but instead, it's a frustrated story !!

It's an advice to the new generations of car designers, not to dream too much in a country where car design is completely neglected because simply, there is a long lasting belief ( more than 60 years ) to keep car manufacturing in Egypt to stop at the assembly level. Nothing beyond !!

Of course, I hope, after the revolution, the situation changed but it always need time.

I need your help to guide me where to put my story and samples of my designs shown in my private website: www.amrabdo.com

I'll appreciate very much your reply to me.

Thanks a lot, my best regards.

Amr Abdo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrabdo51 (talk • contribs) P LEASE  sign you posts by adding ~ at the end.


 * Wikipedia isn't the right place. Maybe Wikibooks ?  You would write a book there (perhaps a short one, if that's what you want), and everyone on the Internet could read it for free.  One downside is that others could edit your book, too.  That might be good if they fix typos and such, but you probably don't want them changing the content.  StuRat (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When I want to publish personal work, I put it on my own website. Maybe you could get your own website? —Tamfang (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

British telephone codes
Can anyone tell me the year in which the GPO changed names of telephone numbers to numerals, in other words for instance, "Whitehall" to "01"?85.211.133.34 (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * According to our article all-figure dialling, "All-figure dialling was a telephone numbering plan introduced in the United Kingdom starting in 1966 that replaced the traditional system of using initial letters of telephone exchange names as the first part of a telephone number". Mikenorton (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "01" number used for London was introduced at that time, but the three letter area codes had been introduced decades earlier. So (in your example) for Whitehall 1212 (the famous number for Scotland Yard) you dialled WHI 1212 using the letters on the dial; after 1966 you still dialled the same except that you were using the numbers rather than the letters on the dial, so 944 1212 was actually the same as WHI 1212. You only had to dial "01" if you were dialling from outside of the London area (apologies if you knew all that already!). Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This has always confused/bemused/bewildered me. Our local dialing code is 0151 (now, anyway - used to be 051), and looking at our landline phone now, the 0 doesn't have a letter, nor does the 1. The 5 has 'JKL'. However, if I press it three times, it just get three fives. 015551 is not a dialing code, to the best of my knowledge. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope you're joking! --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ;¬ ) --Aspro (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not. I was born in 1972, and could never understand why the the keys (or dials, with the old phones) had letters on them. It's different when texting with a phone which has touch-keys, but with today's touchscreen smartphones, texting and dialing are unrelated. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 15:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-mobile-phones never did use the convention of repeating a digit to get a different letter, because non-mobile-phones never used the letters for anything other than a mnemonic for the exchange (the thinking being, I guess, that people could remember "SOuth" beter than "76".) --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the exchanges didn't have number codes originally, people just asked for the exchange by name. It was only when STD came along that each exchange had to be given a number that people could dial, hence the letter codes.    D b f i r s   19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason that dials had letters on them was because telephone exchanges had names - Example :VIKing  became 845...V(8)-I(4)-K(5). This caused problems with the film an TV people though. Instead of  of actors asking for factious exchanges, the all number codes required the GPO to come up with factious area codes.--Aspro (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe it would have been the numbers after the 051 for example anfield was ANF or 263 on a rotary dial it then became 051 263 xxxx and then later 0151 263 xxxx. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In 1966, three letters and four numbers became seven numbers. Extra area codes were added as prefixes, which didn't exist previously. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to make the answer to KageTora's question explicit, the "5" is "L" for Liverpool, the "0" is the trunk prefix for Subscriber Trunk Dialling, and the "1" is added on to indicate a city with its own director exchange (in 1959). Compare "021" (Birmingham), "031" (Edinburgh), "041" (Glasgow), "061" (Manchester). Tevildo (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I do see that 489 does work, for the very local area of my village - HUY - (after the 0151), but I couldn't understand why people would need this. Were pencils and paper notebooks not invented before 1966? Just write the number down! You'll need to remember the final four digits anyway. Just write the whole lot down in your phone book. :) KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 19:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Before Subscriber Trunk Dialling, people would just ask the operator for "Huyton 1234", and they would know the four digits from memory. If they were dialling from the Huyton exchange, they would just dial the 1234.  People often didn't need to write down numbers for people they rang regularly (I still don't).  The three-letter code for each area made it easy for these people to dial numbers that they knew from memory without having to look up codes.  You can check other codes such as HUN for Hunts cross, SEF for Sefton Park, LAR for Lark Lane, CHI for Childwall, CEN for Central, ALL for Allerton, GRE for Great Crosby etc.   D b f i r s   19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Grr, they should have chosen 833 for 'TDF', which is an abbreviation in our own rhyming slang for our local area.... :) KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As nobody else has mentioned it, the article Subscriber trunk dialling is relevant here. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it twice, but didn't spell it out when I linked to it.    D b f i r s   08:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Distracting question moved to the bottom (moved by distractor)

 * Are there phonewords aka "vanity numbers" in the United Kingdom? (Neither that article nor the one on toll-free telephone number give any UK examples). ---Sluzzelin talk  16:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sluzzelin needs to ask that as a new question. In the UK the nearest equivalent is Personal numbering--Aspro (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, and thank you :-) ---Sluzzelin talk  17:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It’s common when setting up a numerical series to arrange terms alphabetically before transformation. For example, people wonder why the London postal district numbers are arranged so haphazardly. The answer is that the district office was given the suffix 1 and then the sub – districts, arranged alphabetically, followed. Thus Brixton became SW2 and Chelsea became SW3 and so on. (I think that’s right, it’s a Sunday night and I don’t have access to a street atlas). There’s an army barracks at Caterham and soldiers could never figure out why to call people in that area you had to dial the number of a form which the MPs used when booking insubordinates. The old alphanumeric STD code was OCA followed by a number representing however far down the list of towns beginning with "CA" Caterham was. Then the letters on the dial became the corresponding numbers and that’s what happened. As for vanity numbers, I don’t think we do that here – we have vanity numberplates instead. They started off with two letters and a number, and the number of letters has grown and people inventively combine them with numbers to make words – for example a 5 can stand in for an S.  There are letter combinations which the licensing authorities never put into circulation – for example FOC (a mild version of something else) and other obvious ones like GOD. Over here the authorities treat the motorists as a cash cow – for example ubiquitous cameras (we are the most spied on country in the world). One London borough photographs the numberplates of every vehicle as it enters and leaves and has a battery of closed circuit cameras (monitored from the municipal offices) watching the inhabitants’ every move. The cameras link to a database of registration numbers which the police use to catch criminals (their cars are fitted with this "Automatic Number Plate Recognition" (ANPR) equipment) and which the boroughs and Transport for London use to wallop drivers for the slightest infringement. Stray six inches into a bus lane, go 5 m.p.h. over the speed limit or tarry in your parking space 60 seconds beyond the time you’ve paid for and you’ll get booked. The central London congestion charge (every motorist who drives into the centre has to pay for the privilege) is policed using this system. The Government auctions off these "vanity numbers" having previously made it illegal for motorists to keep their good ones (like A1) when the cars they are attached to are scrapped. I believe the best ones can go for half a million pounds. In my earlier comment, "put" is a past tense, not a present. One driver who provides a service linked to one of the city’s street markets has "SEX 1", while the richest fruit and veg stallholder parks up with "VEG 1" and "VEG 2" on his vans. He, incidentally, was the one who went to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights when the authorities tried to get rid of the imperial weights and measures (Metric martyrs if you’re interested). While I’m here, I see the Language desk is indefinitely protected. Please. We don’t do permanent semi – protection. The idea is that the general public can come to these desks for advice. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you can't respond right now, let me clarify a little on the protection. The indefinite protection is move protection: there's no reason for anyone to move the reference desks.  The edit protection is temporary, due to a guy using multiple accounts to commit lots of vandalism (example), and hopefully he'll get bored soon and allow us to end the protection.  Unless we want to spend hours hitting "undo" every couple of minutes, we have to choose between protection and having no Reference Desk content at all.  Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Under the Bell System, residential customers were permitted to request an "easy number" for which they would pay an additional $2/mo fee and $16 to request more options if they rejected the first one. (Doing this was almost never worth it, since representatives almost always assigned the best number generated anyway, and the "easy numbers" were rarely better. If they requested a specific number they were normally transferred to a business (as opposed to residential) representative since it was often for business purposes. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So, I suppose your special and easy number was 633347. See what you mean that it didn't help a lot. It would have been all alpa-numeric gweek to anyone trying to phone you. :-Þ  Can't beat the good old fashioned post-card... one can see where the ball-point pen has dug in on phases like - I could kill him!!!. Email just doesn't have that same ability to  convey that subtlety  of heart felt passion.--Aspro (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I probably took about 5,000 orders for new service or a move to a new exchange, mandating a change of number. (Nowadays you can pretty much keep your number within a rather wide geographical area.)  Once you matched to the exact address, the computer would usually generate six seven-digit numbers available for assignment.  Normally such numbers had been out of service for a year, to prevent getting calls for the previous party.  The number consisted of a three digit exchange, and a four digit extension (after a three-digit area code, such as 212 for Manhattan).


 * Although we were supposed to avoid spending time on the issue, we had leeway in which number we assigned, and were also able to request a reshuffle if we didn't like the first six, or to request a specific exchange if a customer, say, said they wanted a 942 number, and not a 746 number (most of which are assigned to NY Cornell-Presbyterian Hospital; i.e., the "Seinfeld" Hospital), hence a lot of wrong numbers. Typically you'd get:
 * 212 942-3057*
 * 212 942-3999
 * 212 942-4049
 * 212 746-3159*
 * 212 746-4748
 * 212 746-8847
 * and the "golden numbers" $2/ extra/mo)
 * 212 746-4466
 * 212 746-7007
 * The human mind quickly finds patterns, and the response was normally universal that they had gotten a "good number" unless they were given the two asterisked numbers (odd number with no repeating digits). patterns like 74/688/47 and 7/46/47/48 immediately stand out.  Normally I would have assigned 9/42/40/49, which the customer would judge as quite good.  The truth was, you actually had to actively look to find a bad number, which you might do in the case of personally abusive cheapskates.


 * You might then say that "since you are such a good (i.e., high-paying) long-term (i.e., on-time) customer I am going to make sure we get you a good number. At that point if they complain about 942-4049, you tell them they could have had -3057, which was obviously not a good number, or -3999 but that had most recently belong to a 24-hour Chinese take-out.  At this point the customer is usually quite happy, and you can move on to selling them high-speed internet and TV service. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanksgiving in Germany after the War
At the end of WWII, my father was a baker's apprentice in Alsfeld, Germany. Before Thanksgiving, Americans pulled up in a truck and asked "You have a big oven?" - "Yes" - "Can you prepare this truckload of turkeys for us?". So they did. When the Americans came to pick up the turkeys, they said "We don't eat any gravy", and all the people of the bakery and all their friends lived for weeks a considerable time on turkey gravy. I wonder why they might not have wanted the gravy, and whether there may be any veterans whom I could ask about this. &mdash; Sebastian 22:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would guess that they already had prepared (canned) gravy and didn't need the additional drippings from cooking the turkeys. Presumably they didn't require the big ovens to cook the prepared gravy, so did that part on their own. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There'd be a minor civil war if the gravy were discarded at my house. But one can see all sorts of reason, like that mentioned above, or that they'd be eating on the go and didn't want a mess.  But it's not the normal practice, especially since Turkey tends to be so dry. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Only if you don't know what you are doing. My turkey is never dry.  I also make a damn fine gravy, but at my house we use it because it tastes good on the potatoes.  My turkey can stand on it's own.  -- Jayron 32 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If your turkey can still stand on it's own, I'm afraid you've severely undercooked it. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Careful there Stu and control yourself.... otherwise  I might just add “If your turkey can still stand on it's own, I'm afraid you've severely undercooked it.” to Wikiquotes. Such a turkey, would indeed be, a very rare bird.  凸(¬‿¬)凸..--Aspro (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Stu, canned gravy? In Germany at the end of WW2?  Really?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The US armed forces used sealed tin packets in 1907. &mdash; Sebastian 05:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, as part of US army supplies. (I can see why they might have powdered gravy where weight was important, such as field rations, but the danger of mixing in questionable water would make canned gravy safer, for purchase at the local PX, I should think.) StuRat (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the early 1800s Nicolas Appert, the "father of canning" sent his "canned" (he was using bottles) gravy with Napoleon for a few months. So there is no reason that the US Army couldn't have had canned gravy. I always thought that this didn't look appealing but I can't imagine how a canned sheep must be. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For those Britons who doubt that such a thing could exist, behold!. Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, it exists (to my horror). But Stu's theory still doesn't ring true for me. They rejected delicious freshly-made traditional German gravy, in favour of canned gravy of dubious provenance?  Would even Americans sink so low? Really?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's hardly fair, Jack, given there's no evidence either way, why not assume the Americans weren't being generous? As the OP said they lived off that gravy for a few week.  If you want to look at sinking so low, consider the British and French treatment of Germany after WWII with crippling reparations demanded when Germany had agreed to a ceasefire as an equal. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would presumably WW I, not WW II. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll assume the Americans weren't being generous. Is that what you actually meant?  Of course, my pre-deleted mention of sinking low was  in reference to culinary standards, not to the conduct of international relations.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood. I am not sure that Americans look up to Aussie cuisine though, it largely being things on a stick... I suspect the reason' already been given, either canned gravy decantible on demand, or the fact that one cand eat wings and drumsticks by hand without a plte or gravy needed. Simply giving it up for no reason would be passing strange. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pavlova on a stick? I'd pay to see that! Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * May be . I wouldn't exactly call that real pavlova, but Aussies like to butcher the cuisine of others. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm speechless. Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about Aussie cuisine. I wouldn't know; I'm just another famous international cultural commentator, who's on record as writing: In its mongrelisation of every other cuisine, Australia is to food as English is to language. Next time you're down here, I'll treat you to the typical healthy American cuisine I'm sure you have at least twice a day (I refer of course to a Big Mac and fries).  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I loathe McDonalds. Until the mid eighties, they were marketed as an easy out for mothers not looking to cook, slogan; "You deserve a break today."  Since then their marketing has been to the urban and poor; "I'm lovin' it!"  with Ronald McDonald and white people largely having disappeared from their advertising.


 * The only time I ever eat there is for their bacon, egg and cheese on a biscuit when leaving the house early to go fishing, and on long highway trips for fries and a "shake" (active ingredient, Soylent White) because they often have a monopoly on the concession at road stops. American cuisine in my mind is barbecued hamburgers and hot dogs, fried chicken, watermelon, corn on the cob, Jersey tomatoes, Turkey, cranberry sauce, pecan and pumpkin pie, ice cream, pizza, snapping turtle soup, and so forth.  Nothing that bubbles or squeaks.  (There are also regional foods, fresh caught fish and venison (from a four-legged kangaroo with horns) and I cook Mexican and Chinese as I have learned from restaurant co-workers, and we have ethnic food on various holidays.) μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * μηδείς wrote: Aussie cuisine though, it largely being things on a stick...
 * Dearest Jack, μηδείς may have (quite possibly unintentionally) referred to the "dagwood dog". This delicacy is the very acme of antipodean repasts, the paragon of the cuisine of Terra Australis: the finest pork "variety meats" lovingly tubed and dyed red with industrial-strength colouring, encased in the selected granary floor sweepings wheaten batter cunningly coloured yellow, deeply fried and dipped carefully in "dead horse"
 * Jack, I bet Sydney to a brick you ate one at the Ekka some decades ago, etc, etc.
 * μηδείς: Jack is right. The best Australian cuisine is a fusion of hautes cuisines from other places, with local fresh ingredients. Which basically means it is Californian cuisine with the seasons around the wrong way. Shhh, don't tell anyone I said this!
 * Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * By food on a stick, I was thinking of stuff on the barbie. Fusion food doesn't count, it is haute cuisine available world round in fine hotels and restaurants middle-class people never patronize.  One's national cuisine should be expected in homecooked meals on normal occasions. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't remember ever attending a barbie where food was prepared and/or served on a stick. I assume you're referring to shashliks, kebabs etc.  But then I'm irredeemably low class, and I have no friends, and I don't get around much any more, and I can't afford the Women's Weekly, so what would I know?  I'm sure stick food is a normal feature of a proper upper middle or upper class barbie, the sort I'm sure you know only too well, where well-coiffed persons stand around sipping chardonnay and discussing Randean dialectics.
 * We Aussies are much more down to earth. There must be vision of the Queen of Australia at a barbie, gnawing resolutely through a large misshapen lamb chop she had to rip apart with both hands because the plastic cutlery wasn't remotely up to the job, particularly when the 7 kinds of hot meat and 15 salads, bread etc were all piled onto a flimsy and porous paper plate balancing precariously on the royal knees; with her occasionally free hand waving away the thousands of flies that treat the fly repellant as a challenge; licking all the juices, oils, sauces and condiments off her fingers, hands and lower arms; wiping her face with a handful of tissues; and reeking for the rest of the week of onions, garlic, smoke, charcoal, beer, sunscreen and (semi-ineffective) fly repellant, just the thing when greeting fellow monarchs or sending plenipotentiaries out to save the world from un-Britishness. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Too me, this has the ring of an urban legend. There were plenty of instances of US soldiers being generous with food after WWII, so there might be a kernel of truth, but preparing "a truckload of turkeys" in baker's oven just seems to be implausible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand why it sounds that way to you, Stephan, and I admit that I don't remember the amount of turkeys. I did hear the story from my father, and he was not someone to tell tall tales, but someone who went to great pains to stick to the truth. He probably didn't say "all of the friends" nor "for weeks", but he did say that they had enough to distribute it, and that they used it for some time, maybe it was rather just one week. If I embellished the story somewhat, it was not done intentionally. The intent of my question wasn't to determine the exact magnitude, but getting information about the background and connecting with people who might still be alive. It seemed like a good start to ask which unit was stationed near Alsfeld on Thanksgiving. I don't remember the name of the baker anymore, but maybe some other members of our family might know. &mdash; Sebastian 02:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yes, Stephan, there are plenty of instances of US soldiers being generous with food after WWII; one of them being related by my mother: The first chocolate that she remembered was given to her by a GI, and ever since she gets nostalgic when she hears "Hershey's". &mdash; Sebastian 02:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this reference for Canadian soldiers in the Netherlands getting turkey for Christmas dinner in 1944 - they lined up for second helpings and then gave them to the Dutch families that they were billeted with. Imagine how many turkeys you would need to feed a battalion (800 men), getting on for a hundred I'd say. Alansplodge (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And even in the middle of the Battle of the Bulge; "Patton spent much of his day visiting units of his active divisions to ensure, where possible, that his orders that every soldier in the Third Army have a hot turkey dinner on Christmas Day were carried out. (For most, it was welcome but less-than-festive hot turkey sandwiches with gravy.)" Still looking for Thanksgiving 1945, but it's out there somewhere... Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally: Thanksgiving in Italy - 1944 silent film of the U.S. Fifth Army being served a turkey dinner during World War II, complete with several truck-loads of turkeys. However, they are cooking theirs in a large field kitchen and seem to be making the gravy themselves. Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The canned thing doesn't seem to make much sense, at least not for the reasons given. If water was a problem, then the miltary would likely have bigger things to worry about then finding a bakery to cook their turkeys. They still need regular water supplies from somewhere after all. Perhaps they would need to use some sort or purification, iodine or similar may make the water and gravy taste funny. But I'm fairly sure if you can use iodine, you can boil the water . Boiling can be a problem if you lack the fuel or time, but if you're cooking a lot of turkeys, you probably don't have problems getting the fuel and finding the time to boil your water. Besides, if you're making gravy it's likely you'll want to use heated water anyway. Perhaps there are other reasons with canned gravy would be preferred to powdered or otherwise produced gravy, but water supply problems wouldn't seem to be a significant factor. Definitely my read of United States military ration, A-ration, and LRP ration, suggests that water may be a concern for field rations consumed either away from camp, or at small camps which didn't have their own facilities, but probably not where you're able to cook a large number of turkeys (even if you're using someone else's ovens to cook the turkeys, this still implies you must have sufficient facilities to be able to ensure a safe water supply). Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * One reason that gravy would have been provided in canned form is concern over unsafe water. However, that doesn't mean that at this particular Thanksgiving event, water supplies were questionable.  (They wouldn't have immediately purged all gravy from the PX the moment they determined that safe water was now available in that area.  Indeed, it might take years for the military to change their practices, or they might never do so, figuring the risk of using locally prepared gravy is never zero.)  So, when the order came in for Thanksgiving meal fixings, they might have included the canned gravy they had on hand along with it.  StuRat (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But that would imply there are situations where they wanted to provide gravy in bulk form, but couldn't establish a safe water supply (the later being far more important than providing gravy). It would also imply that not only did they have such situations, but they would have thought that such situations would be the majority, and therefore didn't already have an alternative for cases where they weren't worried about the water supply. There's no reason to think either of these would be true, particularly since the evidence that does exist, such as the information about practices at the time suggest that water supply issues were only really considered relevant for field rations (C-ration or worse) which were individualised. For rations which were going to be prepared, B-rations or A-rations, the assumption seems to have been that they would have suitable water supplies (which is logical, since if you can set up a kitchen, you probably should deal with the far more important thing of ensuring safe water supplies first). Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sure they had a safe supply of drinking water. However, the cooking water may not have always been as safe, and the drinking water would have been carefully metered, so they didn't want it used for cooking.  Now, less safe cooking water wouldn't be a problem as long as it was brought to a boil to kill the nasties, but gravy tends to burn when you do that, so may not be.  Also note that "unsafe" may simply mean it makes people ill for a few days.  While this isn't all that much of a problem in civilian life, if your soldiers are down during a critical battle, that could cost many lives.  So, for reasons like this it just doesn't make sense to take any chances at all, when you don't need to.  Canned gravy would be considered "good enough" for soldiers. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Realisticly, the amount of water needed for drinking was going to be at least one order of magnitude more than that needed for making gravy so it's simply not plausible that they would have water supplies for drinking, would have a kitchen and yet would not have water supplies to make gravy. And if you think soldiers without a good Thanksgiving dinner with gravy are going to perform poorly due to poor morale, imagine how dehydrated soldiers who don't have sufficient water are going to perform. And as I said in my first reply, any water with mild contamination can be dealt with by boiling. (The most common case where boiling won't be sufficient would be for heavy metal contamination or poisoning of the water.) Boiling may be a problem if you don't have sufficient fuel supplies, but isn't likely to be a problem if you have kitchen facilities, are cooking many turkeys and are preparing gravy in bulk form. Your statement about boiling burning gravy makes zero sense. Have you never actually cooked anything before in your life? If you can't boil the water when cooking and don't trust it, you boil the water before hand and wait for it to cool as necessary. In any case, the more relevant point is you've provided zero evidence for your claims, which seem to go against what the information our articles on rations imply. (You also seemed to have missed the fact that canned food isn't cost free. Production and transport is more difficult. Note also I never said they didn't use canned gravy. There may be other reasons they would use canned gravy like it being easy to store long term than a powder, taking less time in the kitchen which may be considered unnecessary etc. I simply stated that it doesn't make much sense water, in particular concerns over access to a safe water supply was much of a factor for such bulk preparations of gravy. Individualised meals which come with gravy are obviously a different issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, how about if we tackle this from the other end? I went to http://www.history.army.mil because I thought they might have a friendly reference desk, too, but unfortunately their page is full of warnings how understaffed they are. I did find the following, which might help:

Maybe that gives us some hints? To be honest, I don't even understand the jargon here; which of the two officers might have been in Alsfeld after September? BTW, the date must have been Nov 22. Sadly, William Solms died 5 years ago. &mdash; Sebastian 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Large cities
I'm having a brain fart. There's a term for a city that contains half or more of region/province/country's population. What the heck is it? It's apparently not global city, megacity, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick search turns up Primate city as a likely candidate. -- Jayron 32 00:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that's the term I was looking for! Thank you. Matt Deres (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just on The Planet of the Apes? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, in the case of a city that contain most of a country's population, you have a city-state. There used to be many, like ancient Athens, but now there are only a few left, like Singapore and Monaco.  StuRat (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Athens probably made up less than half the population of the ancient Greek state that it controlled, as did the lead cities of most ancient Greek city-states. At its peak during the 4th century B.C.E., the city of Athens probably had a population around 120,000, whereas the state that it controlled (sometimes called Attica) had a population around 300,000. What made these ancient Greek states city-states was that the lead city dominated them politically.  Meanwhile, most of Iceland's population lives in Reykjavik and its suburbs, but Iceland is not usually referred to as a city-state.  Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)