Miscellaneous desk
< April 10	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 11

Geography?

There doesn't seem to by a geography reference desk here. Human geography might come under humanities, and physical geography under science, but I wonder if it might not be better not to segregate those two topics from each other. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't get enough questions on the subject for the distinction to be important (the stakes are quite low if it is asked at the wrong desk). But in any case, you should take this to the reference desk talk page. Generally there is little interest in trying to create an excessively complicated taxonomy of human knowledge unless there is an overriding practical need for it. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see previous discussions about the idea.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the two examples in the original post, a question about surveying might belong on the Mathematics desk, a question about Google Maps on the Computing desk, a question about language maps on the Language desk, and a question about vacation cruises and resorts on the Entertainment desk.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recipes in SI units

I want to know where I can find recipes for cooking, with all the measurements in SI units. If I see one more "1 1/4 cups" or "2 tbsp", I am going to lose my mind. And no garbage numbers like you get when you convert cups to milliliters either. That's even worse than the American units themselves. And yes, I am American, and this alone is nearly enough to make me wish I wasn't. 75.27.151.119 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the common website http://www.google.com, I typed the phrase "recipes in metric units" into Google, and got oodles of websites. I randomly sampled some, and while a few did use awkward conversions (one had 453 3/5 grams!!! as a measurement), there are quite a few that I found which use convenient round metric measurements. this one called the Metric Kitchen has recipes in round, easy to use metric numbers like "15 ml" and "500 grams". Of course, you could just use the measuring cups you can buy in every store you walk into in the U.S., but I guess that indignant idealism for a perfect metric world is working well enough for you, so maybe you should go with that. --Jayron32 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about searching for recipes on websites that end in .uk, or .ca, or .au, etc? HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same. British (and probably Commonwealth, but I won't presume) do as all my recipe books do: weights in grammes, volumes in ml, occasional small quantities in teaspoons etc. - which have exact equivalents (in this case, 5ml) with no horrible numbers. Might be your best bet. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If none of you know, why are you answering? 75.27.151.119 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the links Jayron32 provided? JIP | Talk 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my post was a little subtle. I was simply making the point that recipes from virtually anywhere but the USA will satisfy the criterion. Any non-American website with recipes will work. Go to amazon.com and buy non-American recipe books. Thousands exist. There's a hundred in my house alone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using exact equivalents in ml, you could scale the whole thing by a constant factor so that the units become convenient. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work if the recipe uses a mixture of units, like cups, teaspoons, tablespoons, and pounds. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could work if everything was scaled by the same percentage, but then the result would be a larger cake (or whatever) than the original recipe calls for. I don't see why the OP has a problem with American units. He should just buy some American measuring utensils and follow the recipe. Who cares what system it's in? It could be in Klingon measurements, and as long as you had Klingon utensils you'd be fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it couldn't just be scaled up or down to solve the conversion problem. How would you scale up a recipe that uses a 1/4 teaspoon of one ingredient, a cup of another, a pound of another, and a peck of another, so that the result is all in nice, rounded metric units ? (I imagine there is a huge scaling factor that would work, but that would be absurd.) StuRat (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup is 48 teaspoons, a pound is typically 2 cups, and I've never seen a recipe that called for a peck of anything. So it's not as bad as you imagine, even if you want to keep more precision than cooking typically needs. —Tamfang (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, ignore the peck, and give me a scaling factor for 1/4 teaspoon of one ingredient, a cup of another, and a pound of another, that will result in having all nice rounded metric units. This only works if you apply different scaling factors to each ingredient, which you can't do in a single recipe. StuRat (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1/4 tsp → 1 ml

1 cup → 192 ml

1 lb → 384 grams

I have faith that you could have done that yourself. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you scale up an egg? – b_jonas 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give hormones to the hen? —Tamfang (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larger or smaller. —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, sometimes I do want to scale the recipe; and number two, trying to work with ~~medieval~~ American units of measure drives me bananas because there are too many units. Teaspoons or tablespoons, for instance. And as far as I'm concerned, fractions are God's way of telling you to switch to a smaller unit. I would have no problem with American measures, if they would start with the smallest quantity one needs to measure and express everything in multiples of that. I play Giga Wing; I have no problem with largish numbers. Fractions, on the other hand, simply do not compute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.149.50 (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You prefer decimal points to simple fractions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Not OP) Why on Earth would a metric recipe for human food involve decimal points? I stick my bowl on my scales, zero them, tip in 60g butter, 60g flour, 60g sugar, break an egg in, maybe add 1tsp (5ml) vanilla essence, whisk together. No fractions, no decimals, no measuring cups to wash, no uncertainty about quantities (packed/unpacked, full or heaped, grain size, etc). Easy, reproducable results. Start with http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/, http://www.be-ro.com/f_insp.htm, http://allrecipes.co.uk/, http://www.deliaonline.com/. 86.164.75.102 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [recipes in metric] and plenty of entries came up, including this one,[1] which has both conversion tables and some sample recipes. I'm sure that if the OP does a bit of googling, he can find tons of information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel obliged to repeat HiLo48's point - buy a non-American cook book! Order them off Amazon to bookdepository.co.uk if you don't see them in your local bookstore. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dog health

The OP has been blocked as a sock of a banned user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

my pug is a little over a year old and his belly use to be a pinkish grey color. recently it has turned almost black. should i be concerned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard.tubby (talk • contribs) 05:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving this question the heading "Dog health".—Wavelength (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give medical advice at Wikipedia, even for pets. If you are concerned enough to ask random strangers on the internet, you are concerned enough to ask a veterenarian. Please do that. --Jayron32 06:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This problem has been asked here, you may find the response helpful, but bear in mind I am referring you to another random, unknown person. There is no better advice than a veterinary surgeon's. Richard Avery (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Damn, so it does, it seemed to be valid when I copied it, sorry. Richard Avery (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From that link, I get a notice saying that the question has been deleted. A Google Image search for "Pug belly" (no quotes) yields many images of pug bellies and dark grey seems to be a common color. If you have concerns, you should definitely contact your vet. Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search for sites where "pug skin color change" is mentioned finds many sites but I cannot vouch for any one of them in particular. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag identification

Whilst visiting Malmesbury I observed a flag flying which was neither the Danish nor the Swiss flags. It was a white cross (central and edge to edge) on a red background. Rather like the English flag but with the colours exchanged. Anyone know what it is? There is no particular reason for it to be a national flag. I observe that Malmesbury is a long way from the sea, so a maritime flag seems unlikely. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like this one? I say "like" because it seems rather unlikely... there are more here. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Apparently they have a large facility there. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like that. Maybe the white was thinner than savoy, perhaps Talinn? But no idea why. Malmesbury's tower house doesn't have an obvious connection to any of the flags in your list. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] and [3]. Nanonic (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I think it was probably the Venerable Order of Saint John. You can see their variant of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta flag here.[4] Also, they aren't a random foreign town. They mostly run care centres in an around Wiltshire, including a large one in Malmesbury. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have overlooked Nanonic's first link, which explains exactly why this particular flag (of St Anselm) is flown on Malmesbury's Tower House. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I did. I saw the two Wessex flags and thought it was just demonstrating those. I didn't read the text which was rather careless. Sorry about that. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary :-) . I just thought that you (and by indirection others) might have missed some information that would interest you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ritalin in Romania?

Does anyone know if Ritalin is available without prescription in Romania? Thanks 192.150.181.62 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to contact a pharmacist or doctor in Romania. Wikipedia cannot give medical advice. --Jayron32 19:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, that's not medical advice, that's a question that anyone could answer by popping into a drugstore. —Tamfang (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If he's in Romania, he should pop into the nearest Romanian drugstore and ask. And if he's not actually in Romania, then what's up? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planning a trip with someone who needs the stuff? —Tamfang (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I do hate it when someone jumps to the "we cannot give medical advice" response; it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Thank you Tamfang for pointing out that this is not a request for medical advice, I am bewildered how anyone could think it is. I was wondering because our article only includes information about the legality of the drug in a select few countries, and I'm soon to go there. 192.150.181.62 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody read this? I think it might be related. Otherwise, here's their National Drug Agency's homepage, if anyone can read Romanian, and see what's on the site. The Romanian embassy in the U.S. has encourages you to contact them with questions [5] (presumably, Romanian embassies in other nations do as well). Finally, there is this forum post from May, 2010 that suggests that Ritalin couldn't be obtained in Romania [6], and suggests going to Hungary. Who knows how accurate it is, though. Buddy431 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Buddy431, those links helped, with the aid of Google Translate. Thank you so much for that! Ritalin is a prescription drug in Romania, it appears. 192.150.181.62 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need to cook steaks; not embarass myself

So, I have been informed by my wife we are going to host an old fashioned cookout for her boss and his spouse. My wife wants me to grill steaks. Now, on the rare occasion (Ouch, bad pun that I did not intend) that I grill steaks myself (as opposed to going to a restaurant), I usually just get a cheap cut, cook it hot & fast, a dash of salt & pepper, and eat it bloody with a can of cold beer to wash it down. Needless to say, that is not exactly what my wife has in mind. I'm pretty confident in my ability to grill the steaks to preference (medium, medium rare, etc), but suggestions on a good cut of meat and marinating/tenderizing methods would be really helpful. (PS- I'm cooking with gas if it matters, and would prefer to stay away from fillets if at all possible.) Quinn ^☂THUNDER 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally my favourite it a Bavette, but I understand that it's not necessarily considered the best cut (Flank steak apparently). In terms of how to cook 'em I tend to leave that to the chefs in the restaurant but someone will be a long in a min to give some advice i'm sure. ny156uk (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good grilling steak is steak that is lean and cut from one muscle. For that reason, the fatty gristly stuff (the meat "nearer the hoof and horn") is usually reserved for long, slow, low heat methods like proper barbecue and crock pot and braising. The nice lean cuts are found farther from the "hoof and horn", and generally do much less work for the animal, so have less gristle and have a softer, more tender texture.

I would recommend one of the following:

The T-bone or its cousin the Porterhouse, which are basically the "man cut". When cartoon writers want to put a steak in their animation, and want you to know instantly that its a steak, they draw a T-bone.
The Filet mignon is the gold standard of steak cuts. Its quite lean, takes well to high heat, and has no rind, bone, or anything else to mess up the meat. Its all good eating.
The Top sirloin is a decent cut as well, has a bit more gristle than the filet mignon, but it is often just as lean.
The flank steak. While this breaks the "horn and hooves" rule, the flank steak has some unique properties that make it good for grilling. With a flank steak, rather than grill each individual portion, you grill the whole thing, and then cut the grilled roast into thin slices across the grain, exposing the rare inner meat. This treatment is usually called London broil or carne asada (our carne asada says that the dish is made with sirloin, but the all of best carne asada I have had has been flank steak). If you cut the meat really thin, it is a great dish.
A standing rib roast, AKA Prime rib. Like the flank steak, this is usually cooked as a whole roast, and the cut into slices. Unlike the flank steak, prime rib is best cut and served in big, thick slices. Also, the prime rib is ideally suited for big parties where people have different tastes and want different levels of doneness. Pieces cut from the end of this large roast will be more well done, while pieces cut from the center will be rarer. Good for trying to get every guest what they want without driving yourself crazy trying to grille a bunch of steaks to different levels of doneness. If more guests want more well-done meat, just leave the whole roast in longer. If everyone likes it rare, leave it in a bit shorter.

Just always remember to choose the highest quality steaks regardless of which cut you choose. You'll want a steak that has "marbling" (tiny flecks of fat) throughout the meat, rather than streaks. Paying extra for top-grade beef from a specialty butcher may be worth it, if you are cooking to impress. --Jayron32 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My father-in-law manages a steakhouse, and his secret ingredient for steaks is a needle tenderizer (sample here at Amazon; not to be confused with the hammer shown at meat tenderizer). The more tender cuts (filet mignon particularly) also tend to have less beefy flavor, so a good tenderizer lets you get beefy-and-tender out of something like top sirloin, which is my preferred steak cut. From there, I agree with your seasoning method of salt and pepper, applying it before grilling. You can also do things like add stuff on top when you're done cooking -- butter mixed with spices or herbs, sauteed mushrooms and onions, sharp cheese crumbles -- that fancy up the steak without making the process of cooking the steak any different. — Lomn 20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, as always with red meat, do not be tempted to serve it as soon as it's done. Take it off the flame but keep it warm with foil, leave it for a few (up to 5) minutes, and only then serve it. This makes it much more juicy and tender than it would otherwise have been. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn this thread is manly! Let me just ad that if you want something a little less cro-magnon, salmon, catfish, and shark steaks all grill nicely. You've got to be a bit careful with the salmon, because unlike the other two it will flake, but grill it skin-on or in foil and it'll be fine. and if you've never had grilled shark... mmmmMMmmmm... --Ludwigs2 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I regret having to disagree with Jack above insofar as his welcome advice on not serving the meat immediately after frying in butter or grilling for about 5 minutes. Make that 15 minutes resting between 2 warmed plates that can also be used for serving upon and I will applaud his instructions. And if necessary, re-warm the steaks before serving. But resting (of the steaks) is essential to de-stress the meat after cooking - and it gives you time to prepare the vegetables etc, 92.4.39.69 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time needed to let it sit depends on the size of the pieces and the heat they were cooked at. I try for 10 minutes, but have a habit of cutting that (pun intended) short when the smell becomes irresistible. It doesn't simply make the meat juicier, it literally keeps the juice in the meat rather than running out all over the plate when it gets sliced. As far as advice goes, that wait after grilling is the simplest (and cheapest) way to make a steak more presentable for someone you want to impress. Matt Deres (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rump steak is excellent - much to preferred over the more expensive sirloin. It is tender and has a rich, meaty taste. No need to season it before cooking, but beurre maitre d' is a good accompaniment, as is some proper English mustard (not the week and wandery stuff they have abroad). DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rump, or round (in the U.S.), is a great cut of meat for certain applications. You can make a decent London Broil out of it (as with flank), but as a big hunk-o-rare-steak it doesn't work as well as other cuts, without substantial tenderizing (the needle tenderizer noted above may help a lot). I use round a lot in my cooking, especially for applications like pot roast and beef stew because it has a fantasticly beefy flavor and it stands up well to long cooking times; but as a grilled steak it has very tough, stringy muscle fibers. Remember that this is the main muscle that the animal uses to walk with; which is a two edged sword. More work means that the muscle has a higher concentration of myoglobin and related compounds, which is what provides that "beefy" flavor; however conversely it also has muscle fibers which are denser and thicker and more reslient, and thus of a tougher texture, and must be treated right before and during cooking. The OP specifically stated he wanted a steak which required less preperation; so perhaps the Filet Mignon makes a better steak for his purposes. --Jayron32 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Jayron, but that is absolute nonsense. Rump does not need tenderising and works exceptionally well as a big hunk of rare steak. It may be that your American "round" steak is either something completely different, or from very poor quality animals. If anyone tried to tenderise a bit of rump that I was going to eat, I'd probably tenderise him. Rump needs no preparation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rump steak is not "round steak" - as the charts at Category:Cuts of beef make clear. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That explains some of the confusion. When I looked at the rump steak link earlier, it redirected to round, which I assumed was the same cut (being unfamiliar with the term). If the link had been accurate, I would not have been led to making the wrong conclusions about the texture of the steak in question. Mea culpa. Please let this be a lesson to everyone in the future. I am always wrong. Feel free to let that inform your understanding of my answers. My wrongness must be understood as absolute and permanent. I apologize for misleading everyone with my wrongness. I have struck my answer because it was clearly wrong, and DuncanHill is of course fully correct in it being absolute nonsense. --Jayron32 20:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't followed the rump steak link when I made it - I had forgotten just how US-centric much of Wikipedia is. There has been some prior discussion on the round steak talk page about the issue, so I have nominated the redirect for deletion (we do need an article there though) and removed the erroneous references to rump from the round steak article. I dread looking at all the other cuts of beef articles - from the charts it looks like we will need a lot of dabbing. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was puzzled by Jayron's (now stricken) comments on "rump" (my favourite cut), but all is clear now that Duncan has shown that he meant "topside" or "silverside". We do need some work on the articles. Dbfirs 22:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, no Ribeye mentions? I personally prefer a good ribeye to all the others. Just a bit of salt and pepper, a bit of red left in the middle. Hmmm...I'm getting hungry. Tex (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Yes, ribeye is very good. I did mention it in a roundabout way; ribeye steak is the same cut as a standing rib roast, just cut and grilled as a steak rather than as a roast. It is a tasty bit of cow... --Jayron32 20:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flank steak is delicious marinated in a tamari-garlic marinade and served with grilled onions and green peppers. Best served well done in my opinion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]