Miscellaneous desk
< February 5	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 7 >

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.

February 6

Non-refrigerated lime juice

I have this bottle of Rose's Lime Juice from concentrate that I opened this past Monday, and it wasn't refrigerated. My friend says it should be all right because it's "not pure lime juice." I figure it's probably not still good. Any smartheads have answers? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If in doubt, don't", a maxim which applies equally well to flying light aircraft, sexual liaisons, and stuff left out of the fridge. FiggyBee (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nose knows. Plus, isn't that stuff pure sugar anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.107 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've got an article for that: Rose's lime juice. You should check the bottle for labels and warnings. And we are not offering any advice about whether or not it's safe. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consumer info telephone number on the bottle? BrainyBabe (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with 208. Close as I can figure, the only stuff that is bad for you but won't give it away by smell are things you wouldn't normally think to eat to begin with. Vranak (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Postscript: I deleted my comment because I don't want to be upbraided for it, but it was restored, presumably by the user below. So, I know -- dangerously irresponsible yadda yadda yadda. Vranak (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)A related issue was discussed recently (Feb. 1) at the Science Desk HERE. See also Shelf Life. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a smarthead but I am certain that you need to think about three things. Does the 'lime juice' look abnormal or unusual? cloudiness or the visual presence of mould will alert you to a possible problem. Does it smell different from previously? Has anyone else or anything obvious got into the bottle since you used it? If you are happy with these questions then go for it and use it. The chances of a harmful organism contaminating your 'lime juice' in a couple of days (or much longer) is vanishingly small. For many years I have kept bottles of 'fruit juice' concentrate in non-refrigerated bottles for months, as millions do, and I have never in decades had a problem with any form of contamination. The other question I ask myself is why have you not just dumped the stuff and made some more?!! Richard Avery (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] says "In 1867, Lauchlin Rose patented a process for sweetening and preserving lime juice. That same year, Britain passed the Merchant Shipping Act, requiring all ships to carry rations of lime juice for their crews. Rose’s sales soared, maritime scurvy was largely eradicated, and the world was bequeathed the enduring epithet 'limey.' ” From this one can deduce that the unrefrigerated preservation time of Rose's Lime Juice is longer than the time for onset of Scurvy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long live the Limeys!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I'm just gonna go for, it looks and smells fine. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys,if we never see Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotmeagain then we know what the first suspect is... :) Lemon martini (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of free, high-quality computer fonts

Can someone suggest a collection of versatile, high-quality, and freely available computer fonts? The collection doesn't have to be large—something on the order of 3 to 4 dozens will be enough. The fonts should be free of duplications or near-duplications—if there are two fonts in the collections, they should be stylistically far enough apart to make it make sense to include both. Thanks. --173.49.16.103 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] but beware of Godwins law (Video). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian food

Do people of other Nations like to have Indian food?

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.248.68 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer a little bit for the U.S. and Britain. Yes. Britain certainly has its share of Indian restaurants. The U.S. does too, although the density is almost directly linear to the Indian population. I have no evidence for that, other than living in the U.S. A bunch of people are going to give you some personal experiences.

Here's mine. As for the U.S., I can give you some vague ideas. Indian food has two hurdles to overcome. 1) Heat and 2) Curry. Among young people in major metro areas neither is a problem. I would say confidently that most major U.S. cities are quite comfortable with Indian food. In mid-size metro areas, especially in Texas and the South, that the curry element might dissuade some older people. There are lots of Indian immigrants in the U.S. so U.S. tastes will depend on age and how soon those restaurants became normal. In the southern U.S., Mexican food is commonplace, as it is in California. But in the American north east, my personal experience is that Mexican food is nowhere near as widespread. Same goes for other cuisines. Shadowjams (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Britain's Food Standards Agency, the Indian food industry in the United Kingdom is worth £3.2 billion, accounts for two-thirds of all eating out and serves about 2.5 million British customers every week. So I'd say Indian food is quite popular over here. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally it seems to have grown in popularity here in Canada over the past five years. I suppose I see more Indian recipes, and advertisments abound for Indian ingredients, and there's more Indian cooks appearing on television, and I personally have been to Indian restaurants dozens of times in that time period, but before 2005, never. It's just so different to your usual White Person fare, and delicious, that it's no surprise how popular it has become. Vranak (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian cuisine such as whale meat or sacred bear[3] cooked in an empty bison stomach is seldom served in America these days. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, one does have to be careful about being ambiguous around here. Sounds a little like haggis actually;-) —220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a stuffed whale stomach, that would be one big honkin' Inuit haggis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno where you're from Cuddly but here in Canada we refer to our red men as 'Native', 'First Nations', or 'Aboriginal'. We don't duplicate Columbus' error in perpetuity. Vranak (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

But I think you in Canada still do that. Quote: "In this (1982 Constitution) Act, 'aboriginal peoples of Canada' includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

There is/are apparently a sizable number of American Indians, at least, who don't mind at all being called Indians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, but if people sat down and thought about how that appellation came into being, perhaps they would refrain from perpetuating it. Vranak (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the American Indians who are fine with it are also fully aware of the (possibly purposeful) use of that term by ol' Chris. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believing that word meanings that have lately developed and are in dictionaries can now be reversed is like inviting Wikipedians to gay intercourse. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well all I'm saying is that each of us can choose to go around perpetuating a piece of idiocy, or refuse to accept the status quo. Nevermind what the people themselves think or say. It's not about political correctness, it's about knowing your history and not going along the moronic masses. Vranak (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are those who think that those who adhere to political correctness are the real lemmings. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way... "red men"? That term is practically obsolete in the USA, as it's pretty close to "redskins", which is only heard now in connection with a football team in Washington, DC. Also, the activist group American Indian Movement doesn't seem to have a problem with that term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is me giving up on you Bugs! Vranak (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, you can do better than that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it polite even in Canada to call people "moronic masses"?

File:Ape shaking head.gif Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People always think that when someone talks disparagingly about groups that it doesn't apply to them. So no harm, no foul. Vranak (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

We Brits had a bit of a head start with Indian food; our involvement in the Indian Empire meant that Anglo-Indian dishes like curry, kedgeree and mulligatawny were on the menu in most Victorian middle-class families. A history of Indian food in Britain is here[4]. It is truly part of our national culture now; I am writing this from the Hertfordshire village of Cuffley (population: 4,925) which boasts two Indian restaurants. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most anything would beat kidney pie, I should think. Lutefisk with curry. Mmmm... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually "Steak and Kidney Pie" and it's really delicious when cooked properly. It's one of the few items of British cuisine that my French wife likes to cook (and you know how the French are about food!). Please don't knock it unless you've tried it.

Certainly Indian food is insanely popular in the UK. It would be hard to find even a fairly small village without at least one Indian restaurant. There is no doubt that this was originally popularized by people returning home from the British rule over India - but subsequently, the popularity has grown immensely. Sadly, I have to say that a large part of the reason for this lies in the British pub/bar licensing laws. Since the pubs shut before people have really finished partying - they look for other places where they can carry on drinking. Because restaurants are covered by different laws, they can continue to serve beer (with food) long after the pubs have had to shut. Since Indian restaurants are only too happy to serve beer and the phrase "Let's go for a curry afterwards!" is heard throughout British pubs around closing time! Don't get me wrong though - the food is very popular too and it's available as take-out - and all of the ingredients for cooking it yourself can be found in any British supermarket. Here in the US, Indian restaurants are nowhere near so common and tend to be somewhat more up-market. For a long time when I lived in the Dallas/Fort-Worth metroplex, there were only about 3 Indian restaurants serving a population of about 6 million people! They are becoming more common - but still nothing close to the scale in the UK. Finding ingredients for cooking your own Indian-style food is getting easier - but generally you need to find a supermarket that specializes in that kind of thing if you want something reasonably authentic. Some of the best food I've ever eaten comes from a very modest Indian restaurant in a strip-mall near where I live that serves only vegetarian food...it's truly amazing stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure kidney pie is good. I was just alluding to the fact that British cuisine has a reputation for being bland, and that the Brits' embracing of Indian food probably speaks to that at least in part. John Cleese was once asked why the British never developed great cuisine, and he said, "Well, we had an empire to run, you see!" There are only so many hours in the day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a hilarious Anglo-Indian view of English cuisine, look here :). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - they really nailed it! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British food is certainly not bland anymore than all Americans live on burgers and coke.hotclaws 11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do, actually. :) The old saw is, "If your guests are French, serve Italian. If they're Italian, serve French. And if they're English, boil anything." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rustier saw is: In Heaven the British are soldiers, the French cook the food, the Germans make the machines, the Italians are lovers and the Swiss count the money. In Hell the Italians are soldiers, the British cook the food, the French make the machines, the Italians count the money and the Swiss are lovers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British cuisine has given the world some outstanding dishes - fish and chips, kedgeree, toad in the hole - and of course the ever-popular chicken tikka masala. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, American cuisine isn't much better. When you take away the foreign imports (no mexican, no italian...no pizza for chrissakes!) you really don't have much left. (There is a reason I married a French woman!)

British cuisine was once much better - the fact that an entire generation lived through food rationing in two world wars must have put a severe kink in the number of more traditional dishes that were passed on from that generation to the next - and the post-war generation had a hard time of things. It's only now that imported food styles (such as Indian food) are gradually livening things up. If you pick up an original copy of Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management from the 1860's (not one of the heavily amended modern versions) you'll see that the Victorians had a really wide cuisine with much more variety than was evident in the 1950's and 60's - and there is much in there to love.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this with my mother just the other day. Her mother learnt to cook in the 40s and 50s, when food and money were tight, so the emphasis was on cooking cheap thing reliably in a way that eked them out and would be eaten by everyone. You couldn't afford to cook something that didn't work, or some people didn't like enough to eat it. She, in turn, taught my mother based on what she could cook, which was mostly based on a few reliable recipes. She tells the story of the day her Dad made spaghetti bolognese, what a big deal it was, how hard it was to get the ingredients. My mother is a confident cook who experiments, but she rarely cooks for pleasure or makes something if she isn't sure people will like it. The difference between the generations is huge.

I recall reading that the art of basic peasant cookery was already mostly lost in England before the world wars, things like making a cheap soup from whatever was going. 86.179.145.61 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.145.61 (talk) [reply]

Balvenie Vintage Cask Listing

Dear Sirs;

I maintain a listing of The Blavenie Vintage Casks. I have gathered this information from all over the world, some from printed material, most from other people who own these bottles and some from my own collection. Being that William Grant (the owners of Balvenie) does not provide anything of this sort and I have no official standing with them, how do I make this information available to others who may be interested in it? I had posted in the Balvenie page but your person in charge of watching that page, GreyWyvern, deemed it "ripe for vandels" and since I had no authoritative citings, removed it.

If you wish to see the listing I can provide a copy at your request. Since this is a "living" document I do updates when I get further information from other collectors.

Please respond to: email address removed

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.39 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the Wikipedia is not the place for this information, as Wikipedia does not allow original research. If you can get your collection written up in a referred journal, it could be referenced in Wikipedia, but not otherwise. Please see WP:RS. I'm sure there are other places on the web, but not here.

Incidentally, there is nobody "in charge of watching" any page. All editors, including you and me, can edit any page, and can (and should) remove material that does not meet Wikipedia's standards. --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of places on the web (some of them free) where you could maintain your list. Why not approach William Grant & Sons about including your list on the Balvenie website? Dbfirs 16:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could establish a blog at a service like Blogger or start a website at Google Sites or the like, and post and maintain your data, and try to promote it in order to make the information more known. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try contacting the Scotch Malt Whisky Society [www.smws.co.uk], who should be able to help with this as they publish a magazine. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GreyWyvern was doing the right thing by removing this information - it certainly doesn't belong here. So now you need to either find an existing website that might be interested in hosting your information (and I agree that asking William Grant & Son whether they are interested in hosting it is a reasonable idea)...or you have to get a website of your own. That's something that costs money to do well (I pay $10 a month for web hosting) - or something you can probably get for free if you don't mind being littered with adverts and limited in how you design your site. But Wikipedia is not a place to do that. Sorry! SteveBaker (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer own goals

Watching the Man United V Portsmouth game and Portsmouth are down as having scored 3 OG's and was wondering what is the most amount of OG's scored in a soccer game? And not the 149 scored in protest I mean legitimate ones, Thanks BigDunc 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side question: What match had 149 OGs scored? I googled "149 OGs" and didn't see anything. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to side question: "AS Adema defeated Stade Olymique L'Emyrne (SOE) 149-0 in 2002, without scoring a goal themselves. SOE started scoring own goals in protest of bad refereeing decisions..." - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) AS Adema 149–0 SO l'Emyrne. Nanonic (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks; glad we have an article. I added to its talk page a request for some future editor to explain what the protest was about. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One would think the refs would have stopped the match when it was clear that one team was making a mockery of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three own goals in one match has happened on a few occasions: Stan Van Den Buys managed three on his own. Some internet reports claimed that there were four own goals in Rangers' Champions League match against Unirea Urziceni earlier this season, but reports in the newspapers only have three. Warofdreams talk 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bugs, the referee is unable to stop a game for such a reason. The rules don't allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought the referee could abandon a match for any reason, as well. I guess that's not the case. Xenon54 / talk / 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the refs are not in charge of the game doesn't make sense. If the officials see that the match is being played as a farce, they could state as much and walk off the field and go home. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they could also lay about the offending players with clubs. In either case they would be overstepping their authority under the laws of the game, and would be subject to disciplinary action by their FA. The laws allow the ref to abandon the game due to infringements of the laws or due to outside interference, not because he's decided the game is a farce. Algebraist 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the refs are not in charge of the game, the players are. Something's wrong there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Snopes writeup about a team that was able to advance in a tournament by scoring a goal against itself.[5] This kind of thing, along with the bizarre notion that players can show up the refs and that the refs are powerless to do anything about, is one more example of why soccer is not taken seriously in the USA. In American sports, any player suspected of deliberately trying to lose, or to do something outrageous to show up the officials, I assure you would be tossed from the game and likely given a long suspension. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official FIFA rules [6] say that: "The referee [...] stops, suspends or abandons the match, at his discretion, for any infringements of the Laws", that "A referee (or where applicable, an assistant referee or fourth oficial) is not held liable for: [...] a decision to abandon a match for whatever reason" and that "A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences :

• unsporting behaviour

• dissent by word or action

• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

[...]"

Based on this, I beg to differ with Algebraist. Persistantly and deliberatly scoring own goals as an act of protest against the ref would very likely be dissent by action, which is an infringement of the Laws. That allows the ref to abandon the match. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why the refs let it go on and on. Unless they thought it was funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly unsporting behaviour. Scoring one own goal because you believe your team benefitted unfairly from a refereering mistake is one thing, but to make a mockery of a whole match because you are miffed is quite another, but not in the least surprising in a game like football. You wouldn't see that kind of silliness on a rugby pitch. DuncanHill (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No there'd never be any mockery of the spirit of the game in rugby...Bloodgate comes to mind, as does Kevin Yates (biting the ear of an opponent isn't exactly sporting). That said footballers do have a bit of a respect problem in terms of how they treat match officials and could learn a lot from the way that rugby players (for the most part) get on with the game regardless of the ref's decision. ny156uk (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Snopes writeup was about a game that was indeed a farce but there was no protest involved, they were just trying to exploit a loophole in the rules. Vaguely reminds me an NHL game at the end of the 1969-70 season, where the Montreal Canadiens needed to score a certain number of goals to make the last remaining playoff spot, even if they lost. So, down 5-2 or some such against the Chicago Blackhawks, the Canadiens pulled their goalie with 9 1/2 minutes to go, in favor of an extra attacker, and suddenly the game turned into basketball. The effort was futile, as the Habs failed to score and gave up 5 empty-netters (still an NHL record as far as I know). But the game was played fairly and under the rules. In the 149-0 soccer game, the refs, after about the third one of those deliberate own-goals, should have said, "Stop it or the match is over now," instead of just letting it roll on. In the old days of baseball, and even sometimes in recent times, a team might be angry at some situation and either refuse to take the field or pull its team off the field, and if they refuse to play, then the game's over and they forfeit. No beating around the bush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This report suggests that the Fédération Malagasy de Football were likely to declare the 149-0 game "null and void". In fact, the losing team's coach and some players were suspended, but the referee was not punished - I'll add this info to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, Bugs, in American football, teams score safeties against themselves all the time to give themselves an advantage in kickoff space. Woogee (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. Why do you think it's called a "safety"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me — what in the hell are you two talking about? I have never seen an NFL team "score safeties against themselves" intentionally. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original rule was that if you took a safety, you got the ball back on the 20, as it was treated as a touchback. When one team, leading 7-0, took three consecutive safeties to run the clock out, the rule was changed that you have to kick the ball away from your 20. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP anyone now what was the most OG'S scored? BigDunc 10:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Song

I am composing a song with FL Studio and it starts out with a sort of natural sound of waves crashing and some birds singing. However, I havent been able to find any good clip of birds calling out, despite looking on YouTube for a few hours. Does anyone know birds well enough to reccommend a type of bird to look for? i want something that sounds soothing, relaxing, not harsh. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

137.81.112.254 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian magpie song in the late afternoon is good. But unfortunately no one has recorded songs for you here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbird, Robin, Mistle Thrush, Blackcap, Willow Warbler, Skylark. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you specifically looking for songbirds, or just any sort of bird call? With waves crashing in the begining, seagulls might be an appropriate choice. Another waterbird with a very distinctive call is the common loon. I find it soothing, but I think that some people find it a bit spooky. Ducks can have nice vocals too, though at that point you're a long way from "birds singing". Buddy431 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking an audio clip from a YouTube video would almost certainly be a breach of copyright. You shouldn't do that. However, Wikipedia's sister project "Wiki Commons" has an impressive collection of birdsong audio clips - all of which may be used in your song with a fairly reasonable set of restrictions (like you have to credit them). Check out [7] - and please do check the rules for their use, which is listed at the bottom of every page. SteveBaker (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely taking a brief clip of birds calling would be fair use? Woogee (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Fair Use laws are complicated and highly contextual. Because we're not allowed to give legal advice, I could only recommend you seek an experienced copyright lawyer if you intend to claim "Fair Use". SteveBaker (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what i was wondering. I don't intend to pretend that i recorded some sound clip, i just want some nice birds to go with the start of the song. 137.81.112.254 (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you pretend to have recorded it yourself or whether you acknowledge the person who made the original recording - it's still a copyright violation unless you either obtain a license to use the material or can claim exception under the (complicated and tricky) "Fair Use" provisions. SteveBaker (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, i like the robin as suggested byTammyMoet, but i also acknowledge the idea that the bird should be water related, as Buddy431 says.

137.81.112.254 (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC (and probably others) used to publish themed LPs of various sounds specifically intended for general use as sound effects in, for example, play performances: these certainly included volumes of various individual and background bird calls, dawn choruses etc. You could try googling on Sound Effects Libraries or some variations thereof, or consult, say, a local theatre which might have similar recordings (probably now digital) for their own use. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those recordings (of which I own a few) specifically DO NOT allow you to sell reproductions of them. They aren't copyright free - you are given very specific rights (eg to use them in live performances) - but specifically denied others. This case - which involves re-recording and subsequent distribution - is explicitly forbidden. SteveBaker (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matchboxes

Why are matchboxes often divided into two sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the matches tidy. (More convenient as a double-box divided internally than as a long narrow box.) Dbfirs 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed any dual section matchboxes but it seems a good idea to provide a compartment to collect used matches rather than creating more litter or mixing used with unused. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the OP's username, I'm curious if this is a UK thing. I've never seen a matchbox with two sections here in the US. Dismas|^(talk) 04:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've never seen one in the UK, but I've probably seen less than ten boxes in my whole life. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, I think these divisions only occur in large boxes of matches for household use such as these, rather than the usual small boxes. Dbfirs is correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, boxes of Cook's Matches are divided by a cardboard divider across the width (shorter dimension) of the box. It may be relevant that Cook's Matches are short matches - slightly less than the width of the box - so the purpose of the divider may be to prevent the matches all sliding down to one end of the box. Bryant and May sell matches in a similar size box, but they are longer - almost as long as the box - and the box is not divided. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) This certainly used to be common in the UK of the mid-to-late 20th century, back before the ubiquity of cheap disposable lighters and piezoelectric appliance ingiters when matches were an essential everyday tool. Very broadly, matches intended to be carried in the pocket (by cigarette smokers or others) were more often safety matches (requiring a chemical impregnating the box's striking surface to ignite, so that they would not be ignited by being jostled around), were usually short (since cigarettes light quickly), and commonly came in single-compartment boxes of around 40. Household matches (for lighting fires, gas stoves, paraffin heaters, etc) were more often non-safety matches (that would light on any rough surface), were longer (as fireplace fuels, for example, may take longer to ignite) and often came in larger capacity boxes (say, 100) which were for both latter reasons larger and often divided in half across their shorter dimension, in part (I assume) to minimise spillages if the box were dropped. There were of course many exceptions to these rough categories. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two iconic brands in the UK (funny how we can get so attached to something that mundane); Swan Vesta which are subdivided and England's Glory which aren't. Alansplodge (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]