Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 May 15

= May 15 =

H.M.S. Osprey
Having spent two summers at the Naval Base as a Sea Cadet doing courses, I note that there is no mention in Wikepedia of the Prisoner of war cells for German fighter pilots that were on the bluff opposite the main gate. There were Nissan huts where we stayed, as well as other naval ratings. I remember going into the cells, which went many stories underground, but the lighting still worked so it was quite easy to see. There was also a large stone tablet at the top of the steps leading to the huts which was carved by the Luftwaffe Pilots who were held there as a mark of appreciation for the way they were treated. I can find no mention of these facilities in any reports of the early post war reports of the Base.

Regards, Bob Malcolm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.135.242 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume that you are speaking of HMS Osprey, Portland. -- ToE 04:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We can't add any information to an article without a valid reference to back it up. Usually, we can find something online but I have had a quick look at Google and can't see anything of use. I'm also wondering if a network of underground cells is more likely to be an old magazine rather than being purpose built for POWs? It seems to be rather an expensive way to accomodate those usually held in wooden huts. Portland was heavily fortified during the Victorian times - see Palmerston Forts, Portland. Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It may help in searches to remember that the base at Portland was HMS Attack from 1941-46. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the East Weare Battery, which was within the area controlled by the Navy. In our article for the nearby Verne High Angle Battery, there is a photograph of one of the magazine tunnels; the magazines at East Weare would be similar. I can't find anything to suggest that they were used by POWs though. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Supereggs ?
This newspaper flyer ad for Eggland's Best eggs makes some outrageous claims:

"Compared to ordinary eggs, Eggland's Best eggs have 4 times the Vitamin D, more than double the Omega 3, 10 times the Vitamin E, and 25 percent less saturated fat. Plus, EBs are a good source of Vitamin B5 and Riboflavin, contain only 60 calories, and stay fresh longer."

Their website says they do this with "special feed", but I'm skeptical that this alone would make so much difference. So:

1) Is this all true ?

2) If so, how do they do it ? Do they soak the eggs in a vitamin bath ?

3) What makes them stay fresh longer ?

StuRat (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure of the specific claims, but the chickens are fed a highly supplemented diet. For a crude analogy, if you want your feces to be full of corn kernels there're two ways to go about it, one of which doesn't involve manually adding the kernels to the finished product. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For vitamin D - probably true. This paper demonstrates that feeding chickens diets high in vitamin D will cause the eggs laid by said chicken to have more vitamin D in the yolk. For vitamin E - also totally reasonable - this paper  reports finding on supplementing chicken diet with vitamin E and fish oil. It also mentions fatty acids increasing, but I don't really feel like reading the whole article. As for calories, a "regular" 50g egg has ~75 kcal, so they could easily get down to 60 calories by just selling slightly smaller eggs. Basically, "you are what you eat" applies to chickens too - if you pump them full of fatty acids and vitamins, their eggs will, to some extent, in some cases, also carry those substances. Research on chicken egg nutrition as a function of chicken diet is a huge field - plenty more like these refs can be easily found via google scholar. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the nutrition claims are regulated by the FDA, so they can't just make them up (at least not legally). They don't identify the "ordinary eggs" that they used and they could have shopped around for eggs that would look bad in the comparison. Both eggs in the comparison weigh 50g, but some of the differences, such as lower fat and cholesterol, could be explained by the Eggland's Best eggs having slightly smaller yolks, or thicker/heavier shells since I think the shell is included in the weight. Thicker-shelled eggs also stay fresh longer, according to random Internet people. -- BenRG (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I heard somewhere that in the USA, eggs are frequently washed, to improve their appearance. However, washing also removes a naturally-present protective film from the egg, which reduces the eggs' shelf-life. I don't know how true this is, and if the eggs the OP mentions are unwashed. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think they legally must wash them in the US. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My mother buys the brand, simply because they are usually the cheapest--she notices no difference in taste. The eggs are washed and stamped with a logo. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Egg washing is mandatory in the US and illegal in the EU. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do they install little cameras over your kitchen sinks? μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, the very definition of trolling. Amazing. Pretend you're too stupid to understand that a comment referred to the business of selling, not using, eggs, and then make a stupid joke, hoping someone will respond with another stupid comment, thus rendering the reference desks even more unpleasant for people actually looking for real answers to real questions. Thanks! --jpgordon:==( o ) 02:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No need. Big Brother arrived years ago, disguised as a multitude of Little Siblings, in the form of human beings who record almost every moment of their waking lives on their devices and post pictures and videos on Youtube and Facebook etc, just before complaining of too much government intrusion into their privacy.  If the government issued the devices to all households and mandated that everyone use them on themselves and their social groups, that might be a legitimate complaint.  But people choose to buy their own, and choose to make sure they're always at the cutting edge of new technology, and choose to make this a higher priority than feeding their children, and then choose to spill the guts of their lives all over the internet. Is there something wrong with this picture? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be unaware that comments in small prints are considered asides, or in my case, humourous.  Jack actually makes a point I didn't think of since I don't own a smart phone.  Not a day goes by that there's not a story online about a criminal caught by a posting to facebook or the like. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Consolidate old user account with current account
How do I go about consolidating two user accounts? I previously edited under User:Jameyson72, contributing mainly on the Oxygen scavenger article. After that account fell into disuse, I forgot the login credentials and when I decided to start editing again, I simply created a new account. Is it possible to consolidate the two accounts? I'd really appreciate any help.  Ormr2014 | Talk 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I just read Deleting and merging accounts and see this isn't possible per Wikipedia policy.  Ormr2014 | Talk 21:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See also WP:CHU. You can put user previous account on your user page to identify the old account. (This sort of question would be better on the Help Desk, incidentally). Tevildo (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)