Miscellaneous desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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

February 13[edit]

Doors in English homes[edit]

I've been rewatching Keeping Up Appearances since Clive Swift died the other day. And all the homes that are shown on the show have me wondering why every room seems to have a door connecting the rooms. Nothing strange about the bedrooms and the bathrooms. But why do the living rooms and kitchens have doors as well? My theory is that it's a holdover from when most homes would have heated with wood and they wouldn't want the heat going into rooms that weren't occupied. Am I correct? Thanks, --†dismas†|^(talk) 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British here. Why wouldn't you want doors to those rooms? Not only do they keep in heat, they also keep out unwanted noise and smells. --Viennese Waltz 07:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still rare to see rooms without doors where I live in northern England. Dbfirs 07:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viennese Waltz, if I had known the reasons, I wouldn't have asked. The idea of having your home smell like whatever is for dinner isn't a negative for me. I quite like getting ready for dinner with the smell wafting through the house. †dismas†|^(talk) 17:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] Coal would have been more usual than wood, though both could be and were (indeed still are) used in the same open fireplaces. That aside, I as an elderly Brit occupying a typical 120-y-o house think you are on the right lines, except that it was/is more a case of blocking cold draughts coming into heated rooms rather than avoiding heating the colder ones – remember that the UK has cold wet winters, both central heating and double glazing in ordinary houses were very much post-WW2 things (I lived most of my childhood without either), and UK houses (I think) tend to have on average longer lives (and therefore be less "modern") than seems to me to be the case in the US.

Kitchen doors also usefully prevent the smells and vapours of cooking and washing clothes from pervading the rest of the house. A further factor was likely to maximise privacy – with a typical family of 3 generations living in a smallish house, separation of living, cooking and dining spaces maximised the extent to which the several residents could pursue different activities without mutual annoyance.

Hopefully someone more formally versed in social history will be along soon to give a more comprehensive, referenced (and I daresay more correct) response. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.1.40 (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This brings back to me my mystification that The Simpsons did not seem to have doors in their house. Until now I'd assumed that this was a quirk of animation, rather than one of American house design. Henry ^Flower 09:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Flower, definitely not caused by quirks of animation. Simple archways between rooms are quite standard in many American home designs. †dismas†|^(talk) 17:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, the concept of an open plan in housing was unknown before about the 1880s, and didn't really get going in the U.S. until Frank Lloyd Wright and Greene and Greene started designing houses with open plans in the early 20th century. Any homes designed prior to that, and indeed most homes designed during that whole time period, probably until the mid-century, would have had individual rooms per function, as opposed to the more modern open plans one sees today. This would be even more true in places where home architecture followed different traditions. --Jayron 32 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those who supplied reasoning and links. To this American, such a wealth of doors is a curiosity and not something that I've encountered before. I grew up in a ranch style house and have lived in various apartments or homes with some open and not so open floor plans (early 1900s farm house). None of them had so many doors. Like I mentioned, normally just doors for bathrooms and bedrooms. But yes, keeping heat/cold/odor/noise separated or dampened are all good points. As well as multigenerational housing which I hadn't considered. And thank you for reminding me that you guys are on an island with a limited supply of trees while had (have?) plenty of coal.

Thanks again, †dismas†|^(talk) 17:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in an American Midwest house that still stands and is now about a century old. It had doors everywhere. Every room could be closed in, if desired. Even the stairways, as a consequence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And something that's a reasonably new "thing" (certainly from a promotional "sell more doors" perspective) is that a home with doors closed between each and every room is much much much safer than a home without doors in the event of a fire. See what the London Fire Brigade (who have been saving lives and putting out fires in London since 1865) say. Bullet point 1: Close all your internal doors to prevent smoke spreading if a fire starts. If you have no internal doors, you're just asking to be burnt to death. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for having a door between the kitchen and the rest of the house that I'm surprised noone has mentioned: so that somke from cooking / accidently burning toast doesn't set off the smoke alarms. Iapetus (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"England has one of the oldest dwelling stocks in Europe with 21% of dwellings built before 1919 and 16% built between 1919 and 1945". [1] Central heating was a rarity in the UK before the 1970s. Perhaps the fiercer winters in North America made it a necessity rather than a luxury. From memory, Mrs Bucket lives in a 1930s semi-detached house, the archetypal residence of the British lower middle classes.

I recall a scene in Shadowlands when C. S. Lewis invites American poet Joy Davidman and her young son to spend Christmas at his rambling country home in the late 1940s. "Why don't they heat their house?" the boy asks in a stage whisper. Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the older British housing stock: many houses were built before the extractor fan (kitchen hood) made an appearance on the domestic scene. Keeping the kitchen door closed was a wise precaution, given the smelliness of boiled cabbage and kippers. Kitchen ventilation meant opening the back door or the window. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Friendly Plants[edit]

Is there a list of plants that are pet friendly (specifically for cats)? I'd like to research them a little before investing in them, but I'm finding multiple lists online that don't necessarily match up. I want to be sure I won't need to worry about my cat chewing on something toxic when I'm away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C880:B8B:E4E4:CA09:4E57:3094 (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this list, which may give you a start. --Jayron 32 16:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the shear number of plants out there, no list that some home and/or garden site is likely to be complete. You might want to check with your veterinarian to see if they have a more complete listing available. †dismas†|^(talk) 16:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to give some credit to the cats. When you think of all the plants in domestic gardens that cats roam through freely they never eat a plant that is toxic to them, if indeed they eat a plant at all. The same principle applies to indoor pot plants, cats know what is ok and what might not be. Richard Avery (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't apply. Garden plants are typically those which the cat's ancestors have coexisted with for generations; pot plants tend to be much more unfamiliar (and therefore exciting to the catty brain). Also, any given potplant is likely to make up a substantial proportion of the available plants indoors, whereas outdoors there is much more diversity. Choose the wrong potplant, and puss has little choice about which to nibble. Henry ^Flower 08:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Cat, they are obligate carnivores and only ingest plant matter as an emetic. So I suppose you could say that no plant is truly cat-friendly.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what the article says. A proposed explanation is that cats use grass as a source of folic acid. Another is that it is used to supply dietary fiber, helping the cat defecate more easily. More broadly, saying that cats require meat does not mean that cats only eat meat. You clearly haven't met many cats. :) Henry ^Flower 09:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have met and known dozens, probably hundreds of cats, several of my own, parents' cats, siblings cats, childrens' cats, friends' cats and neighbours' cats - for example. I am now over 70 years of age and I have never ever seen a cat nibble an indoor pot plant. I've known a couple of mischievous cats that are happy to knock over pot plants but nibbling or eating them - unheard of.

@Henry Flower, I can't quite make sense of your idea that a newly encountered plant species would be "more exciting to the catty brain" WTF, have you got a ref for that! You assertion finishes up "... puss has little choice about which to nibble". Maybe the feline chooses to nibble no plants like all those of my aquaintance. Richard Avery (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your cats are weird. My perfectly normal beasts variously eat melon, peas, dry leaves, and will at least sample most new living plants they encounter. Henry ^Flower 16:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of our cats loved tomato sauce. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be better to know which plants to avoid if you have cats, such as the lily, which is highly poisonous to cats. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about catnip? 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:84C:1317:7ADA:B4FE (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christening ships[edit]

What was the origin for the tradition of christening ships (and sometimes aircraft) with a bottle of champagne? Did it originally start out as some kind of impromptu structural test to see if the thing is strong enough to survive the forces acting on it in everyday use? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:DD98:2DB1:2850:1E54 (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial ship launching has some stuff. Champagne hasn't always been used and no, there is no evidence it was ever intended as a test. --Viennese Waltz 09:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ancient tradition of libations of some precious liquid, i.e. booze, being offered as a sacrifice on all sorts of occasions. This was typically by pouring it from a jug or ewer onto the ground or, where more relevant, into a body of water. Sometimes this was a shared libation, in which case some sort of cup was used, often a large one with multiple handles like a wassail cup so that all present could have a drink and then the remainder was offered. In more hierarchical religious structures, a chalice was used, which is a large cup with no handles at all, so that the congregation don't get any ideas about them being able to hold it and they have to keep relying on the priesthood.

When conspicuous consumption was in fashion (the trading states around the Mediterranean: Venice, Genoa, Barcelona), there have been fashions for sacrificing the cup as well - either by throwing it into the water, or by throwing it in, in the acceptance that some local urchin might win fortune by near-drowning himself in search for it. In more penurious times (Northern Europe, the post-Restoration British and Dutch) the cup disappeared altogether and they went straight for the bottle. This could be poured over or from the bow.

The fluid was often wine, or in more northerly climes, mead. Small shipbuilders in the coastal towns of North Wales were in what was very much a Temperance atmosphere, and used a variety of liquids, from beer to mead to locally-made rosehip syrup (In Druidic Wales, it would be a brave Methodist who spoke out against mead). Once the bottle idea comes into favour, champagne started to be used as the wine of choice, because it made a greater show for the watching crowd - much as Formula 1 today. For an even greater spectacle of sudden foam, the bottle could be smashed. As ships grew in size, the idea of swinging it on a rope from a platform away from the ship made it more visible to a larger crowd. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Champagne or whisky? Why we smash bottles when launching ships. Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic fatality in Texas[edit]

I need research for the following traffic fatality 1: time frame is November 1968 to June 1969 2. Female 3. Age 18 to 20 4. State of Texas, maybe close to Houston 5. Head on collision 6. Died in collision 7. Susan is first or middle name 8. Last name is unknown. Could be an Italian last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter hanna (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but even the all-knowing WP:CABAL dares not infringe upon the purview of the transportation deities, lest they smite us with interminable waits in line to renew our licenses. Best to check with the Texas Department of Transportation. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would local newspapers cover a fatal accident? MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. They may or may not publish the names of the victims, though. --Jayron 32 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 60s, I'm guessing that they would publish the names. I think Bugs has a subscription to a newspaper archive; perhaps they could have a peek? Matt Deres (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try. I'm not very optimistic, given the level of detail of the info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks like Newspapers.com does not have any Houston papers, at least not for that time frame. The OP might have to visit a Houston library. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]