Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 February 21

= February 21 =

What is the rate of depletion of minefields from animals blowing themselves up?
Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Search for wildlife landmine; you'll find some good information in the first few sources. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 06:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It will obviously very enormously depending on the location. Landmines are designed to only explode if a certain amount of pressure is applied - specifically so they do not get detonated by small animals but only by the people they are intended to kill. Therefore only larger animals are going to detonate mines, and the number of them will depend on the local environment. Wymspen (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * People too. Sleigh (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly describe it "blowing themselves up". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Use of the reflexive to mean the passive is very common. For example, "se explotó" in Spanish, which literally means, "It exploded itself" but implies no necessary intention by inanimate subjects. "John se explotó" would mean John blew himself up, while "John explotó" would mean John exploded.  Even in these two cases, other unstated information could modify the intent.  "John comió Alka-Seltzer y se explotó" would mean he ate antacids and exploded, unless we knew killing himself that way was his intent.  Sentences don't have determinate meaning outside of a wider context of information. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How is Spanish relevant here? Suicide bombers blow themselves up; animals or people wandering onto a minefield risk being blown up. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reflexive indicates that the subject took some action the result of which is indicated by the verb: thus this 1974 newspaper headline Nixon dimitiu-se (literally "Nixon dismissed himself") which in English would be rendered "Nixon resigns".   There appear to be syntactical differences between Spanish and Portuguese, for example this sentence on pt:wp:


 * O hdreto de sódio deve ser conservado em lugar seco e arejado pois em lugar com a temperatura levemente elevada corre risco de entrar em combustão e explodir.


 * There is a spelling mistake in the article - the word is hidreto and the sentence means


 * "sodium hydroxide must be kept in a cool, dry place because in a place with a lightly elevated temperature it runs the risk of catching fire and exploding." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.142.155 (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, what they do and say in languages other than English is utterly irrelevant here. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, leaving aside the semantic digression, our Demining article says "Cattle and other heavy livestock are often left to graze in mined areas in order to facilitate mine detonation".
 * Less intentionally, Still Killing: Landmines in Southern Africa by Alex Vines reports that in Zimbabwe, "Since 1980, 9,084 cattle have been reported killed in minefields, representing a loss of income of some Z$15 million". Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing that the author included the number of cattle (I wonder how the precise number was determined?), because the events described in our Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe article mean that "Z$15 million", without being tied to a specific time period, is absolutely useless as a measure of value. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * According to this source, an estimated 2.4 million landmines were laid in Zimbabwe during the Liberation war, and that since that time there have been 120,000 "cattle accidents". This is not necessarily in conflict with the above claim of under 10,000 cattle fatalities, as my source does not specify the accidents resulted in death (EDIT: I notice the source used above is 20 years old, while mine is more recent. But without knowing what a "cattle accident" is, still can't draw conclusions about whether one is inaccurate, or the rate has changed). If you make an assumption that each accident detonated a single landmine, and that this NGO's estimate of the number of landmines is accurate, then cattle have cleared 5% of the minefield in the last 37 years. Not that efficient. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also the precise number is counting cattle bodies that were found and the bigger number is estimated from rates of injured cattle and owner surveys of how many of their cattle never came back? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do most glass jars have constricted openings?
In my experience most glass jars usually have a constriction at the top which makes it difficult to remove the last of the contents using a knife. Is it easier to manufacture them this way or is it just a tradition or something else? --129.215.47.59 (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer. I think it is a good question. The best answer I could guess is that screw-on metal caps function better in smaller dimensions. Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For secure packing and transport, the sides of the bottles need to be in firm contact with each other - which could not happen if the sides were vertical and the lid then overlapped, which is necessary in order to get a good seal. If the lids prevented the glass jars from touching each other, they would be hard to pack, and would rattle about in transit with am increased risk of breakage. The narrowing at the neck allows the lid to seal properly, without extending beyond the sides of the jar. Of course, a lot of the more ornate and complex shapes are purely about branding and recognition: Marmite could just as easily be in a simple cylindrical jar, and there is no other reason for a square jar with a round top. Wymspen (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure I've understood you correctly but if you are talking about jars with big shoulders like the Marmite shape mentioned, then these type are normally used when one wants to fully submerge something in a liquid, such as a pickle. With a narrow opening there is no need to fill the jar to the brim and so the liquid doesn't flow out when the lid is screwed on. Of course this isn't necessary with Marmite and the shape of the jar is just marketing. If you mean that a more or less cylindrical jar has a very slightly narrower opening, as opposed to having the thread on the outer limits of the jar, then I'm not sure, it may be something to do with structural integrity or it could be ease of manufacture. I have tried to find some videos of how jars are manufactured but as yet, drawn a blank. Best guess is that the jar is blown as a cylinder and then the thread is cut into it so the opening must always be smaller than the jar.--Ykraps (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * One (common sense) reason is to have one size of lid fit several different sizes of jars.--TMCk (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then one would expect the lid from a small Marmite jar to fit a larger Marmite jar and I'm not sure it does.--Ykraps (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are probably multiple design considerations, but I think TracyMcClark has at least one of them here. There are probably standardized lid sizes, that the bottles are designed to match ones of them. Looking at difference sizes of Mason Jars is instructive. the smaller jars have straight sides, and the lid fits over them. The larger jars use the same lids, and therefore the top has to be highly curved.  That's not a complete answer though, since the smaller mason jars surely prove that it's possible to have a jar with straight sides. (I'll point out that mason jars never need to be shipped with their lids on, though.) ApLundell (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You could read about the bottle (which is what I think you're actually asking about) and the jar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This page indicates that ketchup and other sauces were made with narrow necks so that they could be sealed with a cork, as with wine bottles (and as per the bottle) article. As for getting the last bit of ketchup out of the bottle, you can sometimes find tools to do that at your local kitchenwares specialty store. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but those are bottles. Why do peanut butter jars come in at the top?  It would be much so more convenient to the user if the sides of the jar were perfectly straight all the way up to the top.
 * I suspect Wymspen has the largest part of the answer. If the sides were perfectly straight, the lid (Which must go around the outside of the bottle) would be wider than the rest of the bottle, causing wasted space when they were packed in a box. To avoid that they shrink the top of the jar, so that the outer diameter of the lid can be the same diameter as the jar itself. ApLundell (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a picture of a Skippy jar. In comes in at the top just far enough to allow for a lid which is in line with the sides. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, many mason jars have no "neck" or "shoulder", they have straight sides, so as to allow freezing the contents without expansion potentially breaking the glass. See e.g. here for more info. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find a source that directly references Wymspen's idea. But the idea that all packaging should pay close attention to "cube utilization" (That is, how much stuff can be packed in a cubic unit of space.) appears a LOT in the literature. So I think it's safe to say it's at least part of the explanation for tapered necks even on small jars. ApLundell (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to rename this the "I suspect Desk". Are you actually answering the question or just talking about stuff you think you know something about? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * OR: One possible reason is that larger lids can be harder to open, especially if food has been spilled on the threads and dried there. I've found this to be the case often.  Another more sinister motive is that they don't want you to get all the contents out, they'd rather have you go buy another.  StuRat (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just going to link to this textbook on the subject that references a study that lids larger than 85mm are hard to open for some people. Which explains why giant pickle jars have a next that goes down to that size.
 * Still Doesn't explain the why smaller jars like peanut butter jars don't add a few millimeters. That's probably the packing issue discussed above, but I can't find a source that discusses packagine and shipping issues. ApLundell (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's down to ease of production, reduction in material costs, particularly when using glass, and strength. And these days some of it is tradition, people like the way glass bottles look. Packing is absolutely irrelevant, such items aren't packed so closely that a few millimetres saved here and there. To assert otherwise is patently wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * First you criticize others for giving opinions without refs to back them up, then you do the exact same thing ? StuRat (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just acclimatising to the sort of thing you and the others here do. I can happily spend hours giving my uninformed opinion and will do so whenever I like, just like you do.  What's the problem all of a sudden?  You don't like me joining in with you doing that?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to The Collective. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The difference is I don't criticize others for that, unless they are being a hypocrite, like you. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the difference is that you offer nothing other than your opinion, and when I start doing the same, you get upset about it, like you own this kind of approach. Once you start adding references or links to your responses, we can take you seriously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I often give refs, as I proved when you said the same thing on the talk page. You just boxed up the discussion and ignored my response.  You just do cherry picking to try to support your absurd opinions. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying "Don't do X" and then immediately doing "X" will upset anyone involved regardless of whether or not they are personally doing X. Odd that you're not aware of this perfectly normal aspect of human behavior. ApLundell (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were all dogs? My bad. As for absurd opinions, StuRat, you don't just own the t-shirt, you own the pan-galactic manufacturing plants which churn them out hither and thither!   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just more baseless opinion from you with no facts to back it up. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the response containing the greatest logic concerns preservation of space as concerns packing jars for shipping. I think the most interesting approach to answering this question concerns not design concerns but practical concerns, and not instances in which the production run is relatively small and/or the product is relatively expensive, but rather those instances in which the product is relatively inexpensive and produced in relatively large production runs. Therefore I tend to think of mayonnaise and peanut butter. Larger rather than smaller quantities I think should interest us more as concerns responding to this question. Mayonnaise fits that bill. Here are some images for consideration. Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, slightly tapered bottles does not save at all on packing space. It would make the packages lighter, but not smaller in volume due to the size of the base.  As for getting stuff out of these bad boys, see Bottle scraper.  Awesome!  I always find it easier to push a cat or a shrew into the bottle to get the last bits out.  Problem comes when they eat so much they can't then escape.  Hence the phrase "Shrew in a Bottle". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We're talking about jars not bottles. A jar without a neck will have a greater outer diameter.
 * Grabbing a jar I happen to have handy. (17 oz Chocolate-Peanut Butter Jar) I find that the diameter is 75mm. The neck saves about 10mm of diameter.
 * If the sides of the jar were straight all the way, there would be a 28% increase in shelf-space required.
 * More relvantly, in a 40in box your could pack 196 with 75mm lids, and only 151 with 85mm lids. ApLundell (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if it's a slight taper, like a honey jar, then there's no issue with getting the residue out. Yes, it would make the packaging marginally smaller, but who uses "40in boxes"?!  The example given is very "interesting" but can be tailored according to the argument.  It's most likely that a 5% saving would be possible.  Of course, that's clearly not always the case, see this for instance.  A modern jam jar, which gets larger towards the top.  Like an upside Mount Everest!  Mind you, I've seen that mountain on Google, it's not that big, it's quite small actually, about 200px wide.  Yawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * After eight edit conflicts I just want to say that there is a somewhat unsolvable problem here, given standard technology of jars and caps. You either create an overhang inside or outside the outer limits of the circular jar. The questions involve tradeoffs. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "slight taper" describes it. The neck (Of my chocolate peanut butter jar I measured earlier) is more of a lip, as it comes in at a slope that is almost horizontal. ApLundell (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also note that you can boil/sterilize more volume, using square jars, in home canning, because they pack together more closely, but that the downside is that it would take longer to sterilize them. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I find the Talenti packaging unusual in the degree to which it fulfills what I see as the ideals that we are discussing, namely that the interior is straight all the way from the bottom up to the top. It is made out of plastic, both body and lid. Here are some images. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, and note that the larger lids do prevent the sides of the containers from contacting each other, which may be an advantage on the store shelf, allowing customers to get a finger hold on each. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * How important is it that the design allows "customers to get a finger hold on each"? Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That would depend on the clearance on top, and if customers can reach the top. If not, it could be quite difficult to grab one off the shelf and the customer might well pick the next brand. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There also might be a wild lion guarding the competitor's brand of ice cream. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you'd like a stronger statement, here it is: If your product is more difficult to remove from the shelf than your competition, then some portion of your customer base will choose the easier containers to grasp. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Glass is cheaper than metal lids78.148.42.79 (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump on Uranium
Recently, Trump spoke on Uranium. He's what he had to say : "You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things." Is this a broadly truthful description of Uranium. Or else, what is he trying to express? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.249.93 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump often speaks in a kind of shorthand. Obviously, Uranium by itself is not a nuclear weapon, it's merely a radioactive element, of which some type(s) can be fashioned into a nuclear weapon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In context, he was referring to the rumour that Hillary Clinton sold 20% of the US's uranium to Russia (by allowing the company Uranium One to be bought by a Russian company). You can read a detailed analysis of this claim at Snopes, who consider it false (there's no evidence that Clinton had the power to make or break the sale, and the person who allegedly bribed her had already left the company during the Bush era). Uranium can be used directly in nuclear weapons, or converted into plutonium-239 for more powerful bombs. It's also used in nuclear power, and less radioactive forms are used to make heavy bullets, radiation shields, weights, and other things. I wouldn't say you can do "lots of things" with uranium (in its highly active form, weapons, power, and plutonium manufacturing are about the limit), but it's broadly truthful insofar as it's how I might describe uranium to a child. (That said, nuclear weapons manufacturing currently uses very little of the world's uranium supply - civilian nuclear power is the main market. In fact, there was a glut of uranium recently, because nuclear weapons are being disarmed) Smurrayinchester 16:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a great answer, unlike the preceding "thoughts" which don't belong at a Ref Desk. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, Snopes is not a reliable source, having been caught in several flat-out lies in recent years -- if you really want a reliable fact-check site, go with thatsfake.com. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:5449:B142:2C91:DC0A (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * News to me. Can you cite any cases where Snopes was caught in a lie? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just off the top of my head, that rape case in Idaho which Snopes claims never happened! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:A09B:C22:D57D:D076 (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure every state in the union has seen at least one rape case, so you'll have to be more specific. Also, this sounds vaguely familiar. Did you get into an edit war about it? This one maybe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, THAT one -- it was even on video, for Chrissakes, but Snopes still insisted it never happened! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Snopes says the story is "mostly" false. Basically an incident that was grossly distorted by extremist agendas into something it wasn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it was distorted the other way by politically-correct politicians (including the DA handling the case)! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What's your source for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See Snopes.com. Independent fact checkers tend to consider Snopes accurate, and it forms the basis for automatic fact checking systems including those used by Facebook. It seems like a reliable source for our purposes. (And if you don't believe them in this case, you can follow the links they provide to their evidence and make up your own mind. Everything in that article is supported by the facts.) Smurrayinchester 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is at least one hoax they keep around deliberately &mdash; the one about California's Pear Flag. If I recall correctly, this is supposed to keep readers on their toes and check stuff out for themselves rather than automatically deferring to Snopes.  I have mixed feelings about this, if that's the reason.  I can see the point, but I don't really think it's a good idea to intentionally damage one's own credibility. --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that the rare uranium-235 isotope is needed for a sustained nuclear reaction, while the more common uranium-238, which can't be directly used for that, can be converted into U-235 or other fissile isotopes and elements, using a breeder reactor. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, breeder reactors do not convert U-238 into U-235. There are two commonly proposed fuel cycles for breeder reactors.  One converts U-238 into Pu-239 (neutron capture to make U-239, which decays by beta emission to Np-239, and again by beta emission to Pu-239).  The other converts Thorium-232 to U-233.  I don't know of any practical way to make U-235 in quantity.  I think it's a primordial nuclide. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, looking at the Plutonium-239 article, it seems I have to issue a small erratum. You can make U-235 with a breeder reactor &mdash; if you're really patient.  That's because you can make Pu-239, and Pu-239 decays to U-235.  With a half-life of 24,110 years. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, but note that we don't have to wait for half of it to become U-235. After all, less than 1% of uranium is U-235 in nature, so anything in that range would be as good as a natural source, and even lower amounts might still be usable, if mined uranium was in short supply. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, if you're willing to wait as long as some producers wait for Scotch whisky, in about 30 years, 0.1% of the Pu-239 will have become U-235. It's chemically different from the plutonium, so presumably easier to separate than U-235 from natural uranium.  So if for some reason you need U-235 for something that Pu-239 won't work for, I suppose it's not completely impossible that this could be a competitive process &mdash; one would have to look at the numbers.  But in any case this is not the process used in breeder reactors, to any noticeable extent. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To understand Trump, see word salad. Many have called his idiosyncratic use of English just that:, .  I would only look to his speeches as "reliable" for those subjects for which he is a recognized expert.  -- Jayron 32 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which subjects are those?--WaltCip (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Real estate and sloganeering come to mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If by real estate and sloganeering you mean flipping bankrupted properties and charlatanry, then yes.--WaltCip (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * One skill that might serve him well on the Presidency is the ability to delegate and then take credit for the work of others. For example, when asked about some of the accounting tricks that apparently allow him to not pay any taxes, he didn't seem to know any of the details.  I heard an interview with one of his accountants who confirmed that it wasn't Trump coming up with such specific ideas, just giving general direction. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hence he's an expert at Plausible deniability. We've seen a lot of that already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Reagan also was good at delegating, but, unlike Trump, he filled his cabinet with people who were experts. If the person in charge doesn't know what they're doing, they really need their staff to be competent. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Reagan believed in meritocracy; and filled his cabinet with people who either a) were experts in their fields or b) were experienced bureaucrats who knew how to run a complex system, or c) both.  I.E. John Rusling Block, with experience in Agriculture policy was Secretary of Agriculture.  Raymond J. Donovan, his Secretary of Labor worked in labor relations for several corporations before moving to his cabinet.  Trump follows in the pattern of Andrew Jackson as his model for appointing cabinet members.  See here and here.  Jackson followed what is called the spoils system, "to the victor goes the spoils".  Like Jackson, Trump has based his cabinet appointments not on knowledge or experience, but on who has helped him; i.e. Rick Perry as nominee for Secretary of Energy, a position which he has publicly admitted to having little expertise in..  -- Jayron 32 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The parallels don't end there. Jackson was for the common man. That's why they're trying to memory-hole him (and are lionizing Hamilton, who was an elitist.) Also, they resist everything Trump does so he will likely have many (reverse-)"let them enforce it" moments. Asmrulz (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the 20 dollar bill, Jackson held slaves while Tubman helped to free slaves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

How can I ask a question to administrator at imdb
The message boards are gone now. 64.141.83.200 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They have a "contact us" link in the footer of their main page. Jahoe (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Which gemstones symbolize friendship?
I love gemstones. 64.141.83.200 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are some suggestions: . But, if you send me any gems, I will be your friend. :-)StuRat (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Including Gem blades? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Diamonds are a girls best friend. :) Jahoe (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And they are Forever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * They certainly aren't indestructible, so won't really last forever. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just like the friendship they symbolize... Jahoe (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * ...forever marked with blood. Blood diamonds, De_Beers, price fixing, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Harrumph! Girls get diamonds, but what do men get? Dogs! --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you google "friendship gemstones" you'll find plenty of options. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's an explanation of several nice stones symbolizing friendship in different ways. Here's  some discussions  of Victorian use of gems as symbols.  SemanticMantis (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)