Miscellaneous desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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.

October 20

Young-Looking Older Women

Which older women (60+) look young for their age? I'm thinking of Raquel Welch, Kim Novak, and even Hillary Clinton, but who am I missing?Futurist110 (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zotoh Zhann, right, is sixty.

My wife :-) (Do you think I should show her this to build up credits?) HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only if you want to. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Looking young for their age" can be a matter of genetics, make-up and/or cosmetic surgery, and only Clairol and/or the surgeon will ever know for sure. Bielle (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by---"only Clairol and/or the surgeon will ever know for sure"? Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a television ad for Clairol or one of those companies that said something along the lines of "only Clairol will know if you color your hair.". Dismas|^(talk) 02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, at the risk of proving my age, that's, "Only your hairdresser will know for sure." See also, Clairol. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the all-important question leading up to that answer: "Does she or doesn't she?" That was considered risque ca. 1960. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it now? But who among us was old enough, when that campaign was going (long after 1960), to know it was risqué?—Tamfang (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but less so. TV is a lot less inhibited than it was in the 1950s-60s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was young, but yes, I knew it was risqué. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a moment there, I thought I was looking at facebook, where my profile says I'm a 79 year old man from Kazakhstan. "Meet young-looking older women in Astana", and so on. (I can recognise the words for "erectile dysfunction" in three different scripts!) --Shirt58(talk) 02:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah Shore looked amazing well into her later years. I almost expected them to find a hideous painting hidden away. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which version of Photoshop you use. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of them. Futurist110 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK an advert recently coined the term 'A Vorderman' to describe what you are talking about. Your mileage may vary.86.166.191.232 (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Kendal. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Hawn. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Robinson.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigella Lawson - Roger (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigella over 60? You're kidding! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I missed the 60 age limit - she's an over 50 that looks 40-ish. Roger (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vorderman and Lawson are in their early fifties according to our articles, so don't fit the OP's criteria. --Tango (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Margret, Catherine Deneuve and Sophia Loren. Oda Mari (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Mirren, Tina Turner better here at the age of 70 in 2009. Bielle (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Christie, Fanny Ardant, Lauren Hutton. Angela Bassett's only 54 but she could pass for 30. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lucci, Jane Fonda, and Barbra Streisand. Oda Mari (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II. 86? No way. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd settle for either version of QEII over Susan Lucci, Jane Fonda, and Barbra Streisand any day. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Anne Robinson the robot that vaporised unwilling contestants on a Doctor Who episode? Can no one think of any non-white answers? I have always liked Nichelle Nichols, but she was a bit heavy in the 90's. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Leontyne Price after 9/11/2001, when she was 74. What a voice, even then. Doesn't look half bad either. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]01:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Madhur Jaffrey yesterday on a cookery programme in the UK. She doesn't look a day older than she did when she presented her Indian Cookery programme on the BBC in the 1980s. In fact, I was surprised to learn she is 79. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Midler. Dolly Parton. Awesome plastic surgery in both cases. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Sausage?

I am in Hungary at the moment, and my colleague keeps buying what I would define as 'sausages'. There are many different types, unlike in the UK, where we basically just have one type. Now, when I call them 'sausages' (in English) he gets slightly irate, saying they are not sausages, but [insert random Hungarian name here]. So, to settle this once and for all, what defines a sausage in English? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ground meat in skin Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, at least, we also have sausage patties, which lack any sausage casing at all. So, it does seem to be a catch-all for "random hunk of ground meat", although it's usually a bit spicier than, say, a hamburger patty. StuRat (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key passage (from Sausages) might be "no collective word for "sausage" in the English sense exists in Hungarian" - i.e., it seems that each variety of sausage is considered its own distinct foodstuff. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I just said this to my Hungarian colleague, and he said, "How is it possible you have a collective word for something which does not have instances - i.e. separate terms for different items? Like, you have the word 'dog', but there are lots of different dogs, for which you have names. Why not sausages? You even have a sausage dog!" KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are types. There's links versus patties, to start. For individual types, we frequently borrow the names from other languages, like "salami", "pepperoni" or "brats" (from "bratwurst"). "Summer sausage" seems to be entirely English, though. StuRat(talk) 12:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. We certainly do have different types of sausages - a Cumberland sausage is very different from a Lincolnshire sausage. But one can always go into a Caff and ask for sausages and chips, or Bangers and mash, and be pretty sure of receiving a cylinder of pig intestine, about 4"-6" long, filled with ground pork and rusk. It seems Hungarians don't have that rather delicious ability. - Cucumber Mike(talk) 13:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, we went on a business trip to Ireland and I showed him the local sausages, and he pretty much didn't like them. I suppose it's what you are used to, because I love UK sausages, especially for breakfast. And yes, we do have different types of sausages in the UK, but we still call them sausages, because they are sausages, and not something else. They are sausage-shaped (being sausages) and made in the way that people make sausages, and are therefore "sausages". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I still remember the sausages I once had for breakfast at a youth hostel somewhere in England, many years ago. I swear they tasted like sawdust soaked in kerosene. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never had sawdust soaked in kerosene, so I cannot comment on that - maybe this is a local delicacy where you are from - but I actually like English sausages. As I say, I think it depends on what you were brought up on. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With English sausages, they really need to either be the cheapest sausages (like a saveloy at the chip shop) or the expensive lovely ones. Both of these ends of the scale are delicious in their own way. The problem is the middle, where sausages are neither meaty enough nor do they revel properly in their greasiness, and I often find they have an odd flavour or texture. 86.159.77.170 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Scotland, sausages need not be sausage-shaped - see square sausage; this confuses the hell out of simple English folk. Also, to confuse foreigners, we have black pudding, white pudding and hog's pudding which are not puddings at all, but would be called a sausage in any other country. Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I once saw English breakfast sausages for less than a pound per pound (regular price!) in an Airport delikatessen shop, IIRC in Glasgow (but I've seen many UK airports, so don't nail me down on the details). The only explanation I can imagine for this being economically feasible, given the rent in an airport, is that they are glad to have the environmental hazard shipped elsewhere. That said, most of the time I like British breakfast sausages - they are basically seasoned lard in cylinder form, with some stabilising agent (sawdust? oatmeal?) to keep them from melting. Something that unhealthy must taste good (or at least satisfying). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In kinship terminology, different languages differ as to the presence or absence of various hypernyms and hyponyms.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems quite simple old bean. Whereas Hungarian has presumably the equivalent of "Bratwurst" and "Salami" in it's language we have <type> sausage such as pork sausage, beef sausage to differentiate. When we say sausage on it's own simply tell him we are leaving out the "pork" definer as sausage on it's own refers to the most common type of sausage in the UK, a normal pork sausage with no added flavourings. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English and German, being of similar origin, both often make new words or expressions by combining smaller words. So instead of having a unique word for each kind of sausage or "wurst", we simply tack a modifier onto it: Wienerwurst, Bratwurst, Liverwurst, etc. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're at a spa, you'd be eating Badwurst. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Actually eating Badwurst might motivate you to go to a spa, to recover from the consequences. Roger (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

And the comments here are going from bad to wurst. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word "kolbasz" or something similar? The distinction exists in Russian, too. There's ru:колбаса and there's ru:сосиски, both would be translated as sausage into English. The difference is that the latter are smaller and ususally must be prepared in some way. The disagreement between you and your friend is probably because you as an English speaker think the term applies to both, whereas your friend thinks that sausage is exclusively the second type and there must be a separate word in English for the first type.Asmrulz (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Sausage#Hungary help answer your question? It even has a link to Hungarian sausages (and that page does have a Hungarian interwiki link ... Kolbász). Astronaut (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

um, "my" question? Asmrulz (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Kielbasa? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a Craiglist scam?

I listed a piece of jewelry on Craiglist for sale in a city in the state of New York. A buyer from another state said he found my listing via a Craiglist-wide search and offered to buy my item. However, since he/she does not live in NY, they asked me to ship it to them in another state and they would pay me via PayPal. I asked for clarification and they said that they would send me the money first and upon receipt of the money via PayPal, I would ship them the item.

Could this be a scam somehow? Could they contact PayPal and file a fake fraudulent claim after I legitimately sent the item to them and get their money back?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can always claim they did not receive the goods you sent. Sometimes they are telling the truth, sometimes not. That they are in another state isn't likely to make a difference. Waiting until Paypal confirms the receipt of funds and then shipping by way of a service with a tracking ability and a requirement for a signature (See:www.ehow.com/how-does_4866088_tracking-packages-through-usps.html) is about as careful as you can be.Bielle (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC) added reference Bielle (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP has a request for a reference he can pose it. We can't advise him regarding crimes nor predict them. Anyone who has a reference to any general question the OP might pose can give it outside the hat. But we have no way of predicting whether someone might defraud him. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could be a scam. I won't tell you how the scam works, since someone could learn from it. Craigslist clearly recommends to deal locally. Check their further recommendations and contact them (not wikipedia) directly about this issue. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how the PayPal Community Forum suggests you deal withall buyers using Paypal:

As a seller, there is quite a lot you can do to mitigate your risk. Checking your PayPal account instead of relying solely on email notifications, shipping items instead of hand-delivering them, shipping only to the address in the transaction details, using delivery confirmation that can be tracked online, and getting signature confirmation for high value items... these are all steps you can take to make the situation safer. Not only will following this list help ensure that you meet the requirements for Seller Protection, it is also likely to stop the fraud before it even starts. A fraudster will move on and try to find easier prey once they realize that you're wise enough to stick to the plan.

Bielle (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection with PayPal scams is that it used to be that you could recall the money you sent via PayPal pretty easily under certain circumstances, so the scam went, pay by PayPal, get the good, claim to PayPal that you didn't get it and want the money back, and PayPal would generally do it despite assurances to the contrary. I don't know if that's the same way anymore, this was some time back. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it might have been, Mr.98, it certainly is no longer. A quick Google of PayPal purchaser's protection led me to a whole series of "what to do when", many of which involved freezing both accounts until a dispute is settled. The simplest one, according tothis PayPal help page, is if you claim not to have received your goods. The seller has to provide a shipping receipt with your address on it. If he can't, you get your money back. If he can, your argument is with the shipper. Bielle (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a non-scam out-of-state reply from Craigslist, so I would certainly be nervous about it. One big red flag is if the first email uses generic terms like "the item" - the mass emails they send out are generic enough that they don't have to spend time tweaking them. I'm not sure how the scam works with Paypay - most I have seen try to get you to cash a fake money-order or check. Does anyone know what happens if the buyer files a claim with Paypal saying the item was fake or not as described? The seller could have valid shipping receipts, but no good proof of what was in the box.I once had a roommate that responded to a craigslist car-buying scam to see what would happen. He received an obviously inkjet-printed cashier's check from a bank in Arizona even though the buyer claimed to be from Canada. The signature on the check didn't match the seller's name, and the envelope was sent USPS with a US postmark.209.131.76.183 (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this (the "Fake Pre-Paid shipping" entry), this is a very common scam. Even before I went looking for sources, it made sense: send payment, say that the item never arrived (or was stolen), and take the payment back from Paypal. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PayPal is not an escrow account. The money enters it right away. This is an entirely different scenario. All the seller needs is the correct tracking paperwork. Bielle (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading, and check out the entry "Fake Pre-Paid shipping," as I directed in my previous post. It has nothing to do with escrow accounts, that part is to be skipped. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read them all. In the OP's case, the OP is in charge of the shipping, so there is no fake shipper. Bielle (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]